I just want to express my grief.

[Aloha]

I believed we did agree.  I didn't want anyone to think I was lawless out here in the WEST  . 

I cannot go into what I meant as "teeth" with regards to punishment on a murder conviction.  Its too political and divisive  but I believe you know what I mean  .   

I agree the person you mentioned was stopped from killing as he would have never stopped.  Sharper teeth IMO. 
   

   

[Nix]

 

[kkokkolis]

I just saw the Shutter Island, by coincidence.

Στάλθηκε από το MAR-LX1A μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[GearedForwards]

It's very confusing to me when the argument gets twisted to taking away all guns from law abiding citizens, I don't think this is often argued (if ever that I've seen tbh).

Expanding background checks, introducing red flag laws and what not does nothing to hinder the access to firearms of those that legally enjoy it anyway, it just adds some inconvenience if anything.

Making it harder for people that shouldn't, from a mental stand point, have access to firearms isn't ripping away constitutional rights from anyone.

IMO limiting the amount of ammunition and magazines first time gun owners can buy initially would also be a good step. In many of these tragedies where they bought their own weapons, they did it relatively soon before they committed the act.

Yes people seeking to do harm can always do harm, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to limit the scale of that harm in a reasonable way.

And for those that like to point to statistics and chances of it happening: Another mass shooting, this time in Oklahoma, 1 dead and 7 injured.

[Aloha]

Thank you for your thoughts.   

 

         

[Farmer X]

As Nix pointed out with the mention of Charles Whitman, neither mental issues nor mass shootings in the U.S. came about recently. I will also add that automatic firearms (painted, often inaccurately, by the broad brush of the law as "machine guns") have been regulated in the United States for nearly 90 years, with the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934.

I'm likely stirring the pot here, but there are three other things we could concentrate on besides firearms legislation and mental health. One is certain aspects of popular culture that glamorize violence (especially that rap crap). A second is the media that gives the perpetrators exactly what they want: notoriety. They absolutely should not be given what they crave. I'd mention what I'd like to see happen to them, as well as the third thing we could concentrate on, if they weren't likely to create giant smurfstorms.

[nate j]

Expanding background checks, introducing red flag laws and what not does nothing to hinder the access to firearms of those that legally enjoy it anyway, it just adds some inconvenience if anything.

I’m not an attorney, but I feel that red flag laws are on extremely shaky ground constitutionally.  Someone’s constitutional rights are being taken away, not because they have been convicted of a crime or adjudicated as a mental defective, but because someone else suspects they might be a danger.  To make it even more egregious, these hearings are often held ex parte, i.e. the accused person is not present and therefore has no opportunity to even argue in their own defense.  If you have not seen the 2002 film “Minority Report”, I don’t want to spoil it for you, so I’ll simply say that it is worth watching and that the similarities are too eerie for my liking.

And for those that like to point to statistics and chances of it happening: Another mass shooting, this time in Oklahoma, 1 dead and 7 injured.

If you’re suggesting that this one incident somehow invalidates the last 10+ years of data, I don’t follow.

[Aloha]

Y'all play nice.  I don't think I can read or watch anymore regarding this act of cowardice. 

I thank you all for keeping it civil and the politics out.  I certainly had to delete what I wrote a few times.  Its hard not to get drawn into such a direction. 

   

[Syncop8r]

I have participated in discussions about this in other places and politics and name-calling keeps occurring - thankfully that is less likely here.

Syncop8r, I am mixed as to how I feel about these folks who do such things.  You said "Yes, it is a mental health problem in the first instance (although some perpetrators I would describe as evil rather than unwell) but those are very difficult to fix."  I have mixed thoughts.  I appreciate yours.   

What I mean is no, guns aren't to blame, but surely restricting access to the most lethal ones is much easier than trying to fix the ultimate cause?

I'm going to say unless the US can take ALL guns away this is not going to stop.   

Our country and many others still have plenty of guns. You need a license here and you can get up to a 10 shot semi auto, which could still be used to commit a "mass shooting" (it might depend on the calibre  ).

Take all the scary guns away.   Take all the assault rifles away.  Take away that which people believe makes it easy to kill large amounts of people away.  We are not going to take away the evil in people who want to kill.  They will find a way and will kill.   

I believe doing the above would greatly reduce the occurrence of mass shootings. Some would still find a way yes, many others would not.

Murder is and has been illegal here in the US.  Its not a deterrent.  Never has been.  Never will be. 

I think for many perpetrators the severity of the sentence is if no consequence if they plan to go out themselves in a blaze of glory.
I am against capital punishment purely because of the risk of putting an innocent person to death (and I like to draw the line somewhere easy).

Anyway... I urge Americans to look to other countries for solutions. You can't let this keep happening, surely?

Good luck.

[Aloha]

 

This cannot keep happening.  Its so heartbreaking.  I appreciated your follow up.  Living in California with fairly restrictive gun laws ( I honestly haven't checked lately ) we have over 1000+ people a year and the last few years 2000+ die by guns.  This is both legal and illegal guns.  Our prison system is so full they were letting folks out recently. 

I don't allow myself to become disillusioned as to a way out but I've spent my whole life in this State and its not getting better.  I don't live in LA but when the statements like the ones below are made public it does make me pause.   

"My message to anyone thinking about coming to Los Angeles, especially during the holiday season, is don't," Jamie McBride, the head of the LA Police Protective League, the union representing LAPD officers, said in a television interview.
"We can't guarantee your safety. It is really, really out of control. I said it to people before, it's like that movie 'Purge,' you know, instead of 24 hours to commit your crime, these people have 365 days days to commit whatever they want," McBride said.

 I am not a gun owner.  Let me get this out the way. Bad folks will always have guns.  They'll alway have the "scary" guns and high capacity magazines.  I wholeheartedly don't know what the solution is. 

"What I mean is no, guns aren't to blame, but surely restricting access to the most lethal ones is much easier than trying to fix the ultimate cause?"  I believe this is the thinking.  In LA there is an area called skid row.  The "solution" is build housing for these folks to get them off the street rather than help with the core issues.  To some extent every time I hear gun control I think about skid row.  I may be way off in my thinking and I'm happy to accept that I am. 

The information coming out about this horrible tragedy is alarming.  The person who committed these murders ( if we are to believe whats being said ) was a walking red flag.  A lot seems to have been ignored with regard to his actions prior to him going the school.  This doesn't appear to be a case of hind sight vision either.  Again I am not 100% certain of the information thats out.  I just don't know at this point looking forward.

[Aloha]

Let me again express my appreciation for everyone keeping this topic civil and in the MTO spirit.  Topics like these can be polarizing, are polarizing, when matters regarding guns, police, mental illness, punishment, etc inevitably come into play.  It can also easily get political and toxic as discussion are very personal.  Topics like these are emotional and very personal to us all who engage in them.  Thank you for respecting one another whether you agree or not with each other.     

 

[kkokkolis]

I think that we blame US for virtually everything (and before that England, Spain, the Arabs, Byzantium, the Romans, Persians etc), but we shouldn't forget that people from all around the globe went there, some voluntarily (inclunding outcasts, criminals, terrorists, and lots-lots of extremely poor people who tried to survive whatever they had to do to accomplish it) and some not (the tragic issue of slavery). Indigenus Americans, what's left of them, hardly do much harm (and those came from Asia earlier in history, anyway).
Gun culture has origins in Africa and then Asia and Europe. Thoucydides wrote in his History "τό τε σιδηροφορεῖσθαι τούτοις τοῖς ἠπειρώταις ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς λῃστείας ἐμμεμένηκεν· πᾶσα γὰρ ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἐσιδηροφόρει διὰ τὰς ἀφάρκτους τε οἰκήσεις καὶ οὐκ ἀσφαλεῖς παρ᾽ ἀλλήλους ἐφόδους, καὶ ξυνήθη τὴν δίαιταν μεθ᾽ ὅπλων ἐποιήσαντο ὥσπερ οἱ βάρβαροι.", meaning that "All Greece was carrying steel (weapons), because of piracy and roberry, just like the barbarians." See the similarities?

[Nix]

"All Greece was carrying steel (weapons), because of piracy and roberry, just like the barbarians." See the similarities?

I think so....

The first Europeans who arrived in the 'new world' brought firearms with them. The colonies were conquered with firearms. Mexico, USA, and Canada were birthed with firearms. Firearms here in the USA are deeply embedded in the culture and the founding documents.

The Americas are big spaces and law enforcement assistance was not always readily available, nor is it now. Police budgets are constrained, even being reduced in some cases. Crime prevention has fallen to the accountant's pen. In 2020, as fear (rational or not) gripped the world, 3 million Americans went out and got their first firearm. Annual firearms sales doubled in some major cities. It almost seems like a cultural instinct for us, like our pioneering predecessors, to reach for the shotgun when the first hints of trouble appear, even if other tools like power generators or simple masks might actually be more useful. In my part of the country, it is very common to see bumper stickers declaring "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ", derived from the older μολὼν λαβέ. Yes, we have a lot of 'steel' here.

To your point, as I read it, even today people will commonly say, "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away" and "Cops solve crimes, not prevent them."

Perhaps those quips are a bit too trite, nevertheless, in the recent shooting in Texas, it took the police over an hour to solve the situation. Gun sales are expect to go up, again.

[Farmer X]

Surely restricting access to the most lethal ones is much easier than trying to fix the ultimate cause?

I have to take issue with that assertion, for two reasons.

First, the lethality of a firearm is a secondary function of the skill and intent of its user. I observed one example of the former just before getting qualified on the Mossberg 500 aboard USS Peleliu. A female Sailor who got her turn with the shotgun before me had to have a Gunner's Mate bracing her back with the palm of his hand. She had absolutely zero proficiency with that firearm. As for intent, most folks don't intend to use their firearms for ill will.

The second issue is much greater. Taking away the most "lethal" or "scary" firearms does not fix the greater problem. I'm a firm believer in doing it onemce and doing it right and fixing the big problems first. Saying "no, you can't have those firearms" is sort of like having a mole lasered off the tip of your nose while a large malignant tumor continues to fester somewhere else on your body.

[Syncop8r]

First, the lethality of a firearm is a secondary function of the skill and intent of its user. I observed one example of the former just before getting qualified on the Mossberg 500 aboard USS Peleliu. A female Sailor who got her turn with the shotgun before me had to have a Gunner's Mate bracing her back with the palm of his hand. She had absolutely zero proficiency with that firearm. As for intent, most folks don't intend to use their firearms for ill will.

Semantics. Whether they are lethal or not in everyone's hands is irrelevant.

Taking away the most "lethal" or "scary" firearms does not fix the greater problem. I'm a firm believer in doing it once and doing it right and fixing the big problems first. Saying "no, you can't have those firearms" is sort of like having a mole lasered off the tip of your nose while a large malignant tumor continues to fester somewhere else on your body.

To me the greater problem is not what is driving these people to commit these acts (yes that is a problem), the greater problem is that innocent people, primary school children are being killed.

[charlie fox]

Evil has, does, and will exist in this world until the final day. Love God, love people and mourn for the lost.

[kkokkolis]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/us/dallas-museum-of-art-break-in-vandalism.html

This is a Psychiatric case and it shows.

Στάλθηκε από το MAR-LX1A μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Sos24]

I wasn’t going to chime in with my thoughts, but seeing that this thread is still here, I since decided I would.

What happened is a tragedy, I don’t think anyone would disagree.  But it makes me angry for more reasons than just the obvious.  Children are dying daily due to suicide and violence, but many people really only seem to care when it is a school mass shooting.  Then everybody cries “do something”, but the only something most care about is gun laws. 

Most people don’t even care enough to learn the facts of the event let alone do pertinent research on the topic.  But they sure will voice their support for gun laws using terms that many have no clue what they actually mean.

Here are just a couple statistics, that highlight how the problem goes well beyond guns and in many ways has its origin in the home:
- School shooters have 4 things in common and only 1 involves guns
      - suffered early-childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age
      - angry or despondent over a recent event, resulting in feelings of suicidality.
      - They studied other school shootings
      - In addition to those things, most were or had been a student at the school and 75% were raised in broken homes
- Growing up with domestic violence makes a person 50% more likely to commit suicide and 74% more likely to commit a violent crime.
- Suicide accounts for over 60% of all gun deaths (65% of all violent deaths) and almost 45% of gun deaths in under under 18yo
- 49% of violent crime is gang related, which also accounts for 13% of all homocides
- Over half the mass shootings in the US involve domestic/family violence and those shootings account for over 80% of the children killed in mass shootings

The media and politicians like to focus on the big public events that involve guns, like school shootings, while ignoring the violence epidemic that is going on daily outside of school and mostly in the home.  Passing gun laws might have an effect on some of these incidents.  But focusing on risk factors to help predict youth at risk of committing violence and then trying to employ proven community “protective factors” to try and change the likelihood is proven to help in preventing or reducing multiple types of violence.  The even better things with this approach is most don’t require politicians to pass laws.

The unfortunate fact is that nothing will probably change because to many people think the only acceptable solution is federal politicians passing gun laws, so the proven programs will never get a chance.

[ToolJoe]

The only thing I will mention regarding this topic is here in the States, the easy access of how someone can purchase an assault style rifle might need to be revisited or reexamined. This took a little thought on how to put this into words.

[Syncop8r]

The only thing I will mention regarding this topic is here in the States, the easy access of how someone can purchase an assault style rifle might need to be revisited or reexamined. This took a little thought on how to put this into words.

Thank you for considering this.

[Syncop8r]

Children are dying daily due to suicide and violence, but many people really only seem to care when it is a school mass shooting.  Then everybody cries “do something”, but the only something most care about is gun laws.

Things are being done about suicide and domestic violence but is never enough.
Those things are extremely hard to fix.

[nate j]

The only thing I will mention regarding this topic is here in the States, the easy access of how someone can purchase an assault style rifle might need to be revisited or reexamined. This took a little thought on how to put this into words.

I can see how, on the surface, this seems like it makes sense, and seems like a neat and clean solution.  But, digging a bit deeper, consider the following:

- There is really no commonly understood definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon”.  The 1994 assault weapons ban (in addition to specifying some specific makes and models) relied on a firearm meeting several criteria (many of which were essentially cosmetic) from a lengthy list to determine whether it was a banned “assault weapon” or not.

- Scientific studies have generally shown that the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban had little to no measurable impact on firearm homicide rates.

- The term “assault rifle” refers to a selective fire rifle.  In the US, civilian ownership of true assault rifles has been tightly controlled and severely restricted by the federal government since 1934.

- If “assault style rifle” refers to a rifle that visually resembles an “assault rifle” but actually isn’t one, we’re back to a definition that is cosmetic rather than functional, i.e. restricting things just because they look scary.

[Sos24]

Things are being done about suicide and domestic violence but is never enough.
Those things are extremely hard to fix.

You hit on two of my points, but missed the connection I was trying to make. 

Studies shows that a major part of preventing school shooters, mass shooters and much of the violence in the US requires fixing or at least making a genuine effort to heal youth who are suicidal and have seen violence in the home.

So those may be “extremely hard to fix” but they are the root causes.  Statistics and studies show both are common factors.  Those studies also show “protective factors” that are proven to help youth and reduce the chances of violence.  Unfortunately, those things require effort and time from individuals and the community which is what really makes them “hard”.

But instead of working on the hard things, most just want to focus on the gun.  Yes, completely removing access to guns will stop “gun” violence.  But despite what some think, that isn’t just the easy answer of passing gun laws.  Also even if you do get rid of the guns, it won’t “fix” the individuals who have the potential for violence still inside them and are seeking an outlet for it.

[Syncop8r]

You hit on two of my points, but missed the connection I was trying to make.

I didn't miss the connection at all. Yes, those things are the root causes and must be fixed. I'm not saying ignore them and just ban guns. But restricting access to more potent weapons will reduce mass shootings, meanwhile we can still work on those root causes.
Other countries have those problems too, but do not have anywhere near the problem with mass shootings.

[Syncop8r]

- Scientific studies have generally shown that the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban had little to no measurable impact on firearm homicide rates.

I'm guessing that the majority of those firearm homicides would be from handguns?
What impact did this ban have on mass shootings, since that is the topic being discussed here?

- The term “assault rifle” refers to a selective fire rifle.  In the US, civilian ownership of true assault rifles has been tightly controlled and severely restricted by the federal government since 1934.

Also using an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
What is a "true assault rifle"?

- There is really no commonly understood definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon”.  The 1994 assault weapons ban (in addition to specifying some specific makes and models) relied on a firearm meeting several criteria (many of which were essentially cosmetic) from a lengthy list to determine whether it was a banned “assault weapon” or not.

- If “assault style rifle” refers to a rifle that visually resembles an “assault rifle” but actually isn’t one, we’re back to a definition that is cosmetic rather than functional, i.e. restricting things just because they look scary.

I haven't heard of the term "assault weapon" before, perhaps it is from media taking some liberty with definitions? "Assault rifle" comes from the first successful example, the StG 44, Sturmgewehr literally translating to storm/assault rifle.

Here we have primarily used the term Military-Style Semi-Automatic for the purposes of banning such weapons. I guess the aim was to target weapons that are primarily designed for killing other people in great numbers:

1. What semi-automatic firearms will be affected by the ban?

The ban will apply to all firearms are now defined as Military Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs) and will also include assault rifles.

2. What semi-automatic firearms will NOT be affected by the ban?

There is a balance to be struck between public safety and legitimate use. The changes exclude two general classes of firearms which are commonly used for hunting, pest control, stock management on farms, and duck shooting:

    Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than ten rounds
    Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine which holds no more than five rounds

3. What semi-automatic firearms are affected by today’s Order in Council?

Two types of firearms are now defined as Military Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs):

    A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges
    A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges

[Sos24]

But restricting access to more potent weapons will reduce mass shootings, meanwhile we can still work on those root causes.

If only that was the case, but unfortunately I highly doubt it. 

Too many have tunnel vision.  Too many people want the government to “fix” the problem rather than taking personal and community actions to do what they can.  And too many politicians care more about optics than actually resolving real issues. 

Just so you know, this is coming from someone who has done a lot of research on this and other topics for about a decade.  I read the actual text of proposed laws and follow who votes how or recommended changes.  I contact individual politicians whether I agree or disagree I read professional studies and article to include some of their references.  I look up statistics from actual credible sources.  And most of all I have personal knowledge or experience on some of it.

[Sos24]

But restricting access to more potent weapons will reduce mass shootings, meanwhile we can still work on those root causes.

If only that was the case, but unfortunately I highly doubt it. 

Too many have tunnel vision.  Too many people want the government to “fix” the problem rather than taking personal and community actions to do what they can.  And too many politicians care more about optics than actually resolving real issues. 

Just so you know, this is coming from someone who has done a lot of research on this and other topics for about a decade.  I read the actual text of proposed laws and follow who votes how or recommended changes.  I contact individual politicians whether I agree or disagree I read professional studies and article to include some of their references.  I look up statistics from actual credible sources.  And most of all I have personal knowledge or experience on some of it.

[GearedForwards]

If only that was the case, but unfortunately I highly doubt it. 

Too many have tunnel vision.  Too many people want the government to “fix” the problem rather than taking personal and community actions to do what they can.  And too many politicians care more about optics than actually resolving real issues. 

Just so you know, this is coming from someone who has done a lot of research on this and other topics for about a decade.  I read the actual text of proposed laws and follow who votes how or recommended changes.  I contact individual politicians whether I agree or disagree I read professional studies and article to include some of their references.  I look up statistics from actual credible sources.  And most of all I have personal knowledge or experience on some of it.

I think it would be better to reword what you quoted as instead reducing the number of mass shootings, reducing the effect of them (number of deaths and injuries). It's already been pointed out in this thread that user skill is important for a firearm, taking away things that compensate for lower proficiency would have an impact. The question is whether or not that impact is statistically significant enough to warrant the legislation.

Where a lot of other countries come to at this point is: so what if it doesn't work out as well as planned? If the reduction in fatalities/injuries is 0.5% it's still an improvement for the people/families spared.

[Nix]

Guys, I think we here in the USA just value our freedoms more. We're willing to accept the risks and responsibilities that come with freedoms. This may change as people become less acquainted with firearms and more frightened by hysteria. It may be the case that we will end up trading freedoms for the hope of more security, as other nations have done. Time will tell.

The shooting in Uvalde was horrific, absolutely. But I think we are more apt to blame the shooter than the weapon. Sure, the shooter picked a particularly lethal weapon. But I don't think that it means we need to reflexively ban all access to said weapon. When a man drove through a parade last year, killing several and wounding dozens, were we supposed to ban SUV's?

Rifles, of every kind, account for less than 10% of all homicides (maybe 1000 murders/year). Handguns, which require more skill to use and are far less lethal, account for something around 10,000 homicides per year (rounding). So, rifles are not really an issue here. More people are killed in the USA with knives (or sharpish stuff) than all rifle and shotgun homicides combined. I sure don't want to adopt Australian or British knife laws, but following the logic presented here, banning knives would seem to be more important that banning assault rifles (by any definition).

I'm curious why this issue is so important to so many people. Especially non-residents. Why the concern?

We have between 30,000 and 40,000 motor vehicle deaths per year. Are there certain models of cars or truck we should ban?

Drunk driving causes some 11,000 deaths per year in the USA. The Lancet estimates that alcohol-use causes some 2.8 million deaths in the world every year. (50% of homicides involve alcohol.) Compared to 400-1000 rifle homicides in the USA, alcohol use would seem to be a much bigger issue. Should we repeal the 21st amendment?

We've had nearly 9,000 people die of covid-19 in just the past month. Too many freedoms again?

Europe has stumbled into another major war, one that threatens to go global, maybe nuclear. But you are worried about assault rifles in the USA?  Less than 1000 deaths per year? How many have died in the war in Ukraine? I find I am more horrified by the events in Ukraine than here in the states, but perhaps I'm just distracting myself from the mess in my own house.

Keep in mind, too, that there are wildly unreliable reports of firearms being used for self-defense 50,000 to 2,000,000 times per year here. As I said, unreliable. But, going with the lower number of 50,000, a good number of those self-defense incidents will involve an AR-type rifle. So, while the AR rifles may have been used to murder 100's, their use may have also saved 100's.  Alcohol saves.....zero. There are no health benefits associated with alcohol. Do we have our priorities in good order?

I continue to value freedom and the liberties encoded in our founding documents. I accept the risks intrinsic to those freedoms. That isn't true of all my fellow citizens, and that is their right. I do think we could do much better in addressing firearms violence, but only if we focus on more root causes. I'm less concerned with the matches than the fire and the arsonist.

(I do drink alcohol. I do NOT own an AR-type rifle. I do NOT drink alcohol and use firearms at the same time.)

[Top-Gear-24]

Great topic for a place where politics and religion are a no go  .

Luckily we're almost at page 3, which is usually around the time topics like this get locked...

We've all seen how this goes, all "pro gun" statements are allowed, but all it takes is one  person who suggests some restrictions in gun ownership rights might be in order.  At first, that person will get slapped in the face with numbers, statistics and constitutional rights. 

And if after that, he still has the audacity to repeat his original statement, he will get bullied and ridiculed by the opposition, and when he finally decides to "bite back", mods will step in asking everybody to keep it civil, which won't happen, and the topic gets closed.

All that should be said here is "my thoughts go out to the victims and their families", and maybe it would be even better not to post anything at all when the next incident like this occurs, sadly enough...

Anyway, my thoughts go out to the victims and their families.

Oh, and comparing a school shooting to a terrorist attack or an international conflict is just beyond words...