2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[chazzyphizzle]

you sure seem to know alot about psychology salodin. also NL, stick to NFL threads where it is actually funny

[Mertron]

also NL, stick to NFL threads where it is actually funny

is it?

[Thunder]

The argument is the measures bought up in this thread would not remove these tragedies from existance. The first thing people jumped on in this thread is gun control, like that would have stopped this. That's ignorant. People will sometimes kill people. Gun control would make it harder, rarer, but it won't go away.

And enough with the strawmans. I already said I concur that we need more regulation, but that doesn't mean this type of tragedy will become extinct. This is how it'll go: we regulate guns more, and sometime down the road this happens again. We'll then have the same people in this same thread calling for more regulation, oblivious to the fact that no amount of regulation will stop a person dedicated to doing what they want to do. Maybe a month is enough for John Doe to blow some steam and prevent a murder, but it's not enough for Jane. So then what, make it two months? Now it's enough for Jane but not Bill. Three months? Where do you draw the line? Where IS the line?

Add into this the "don't take my freedom because of a few bad apples" and now you understand my reasoning.

Australia has had 2 massacres (killed 2+) done with guns since it enacted strict gun control in 1996. That's 20 years, btw. You can count the major crimes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...s_in_Australia but it seems like the gun violence wont be in the dozens over 20 years.

Are you psychic? How do you know it will not work for the US?

You know what's ignorant? You talking as if you know this wont work when there is evidence we have from domestic abuse homes, anger management clinics, psychiatry, and neurology THAT THIS DOES WORK. Where is any of your information coming from? The John Doe and Jane scenario for example, where have you gotten that from?

[Salodin]

you sure seem to know alot about psychology salodin. also NL, stick to NFL threads where it is actually funny

Are you're saying more restricted gun access would prevent this from happening? Because that's what people are saying when they see this tragedy and say "we need clip restrictions and wait times for gun purchases".

[NinjaLotter]

Tens of millions of law abiding gun owners are simply not just going to be disarmed on your whim.

When you say "Ban guns" you're essentially saying "I want the ATF to kick down the doors of millions of my law abiding countrymen, scare the shit out of their families, and either shoot them or arrest them," because that's the only way its going to happen.

More and more I am convinced that the United States is far too large and far too diverse for us to exist under one federal government. All it's now leading to is people in California trying to tyrannize over people in Virginia, and vice versa.

Not to change the subject, but how polarized people are politically, in ways where there can be no compromise, is really starting to highlight the fact that we would all be a lot happier if we were multiple different countries, instead of just one. I wonder if These States United haven't outlived their usefulness.

[Mertron]

lol

[Thunder]

Tens of millions of law abiding gun owners are simply not just going to be disarmed on your whim.

When you say "Ban guns" you're essentially saying "I want the ATF to kick down the doors of millions of my law abiding countrymen, scare the shit out of their families, and either shoot them or arrest them," because that's the only way its going to happen.

More and more I am convinced that the United States is far too large and far too diverse for us to exist under one federal government. All it's now leading to is people in California trying to tyrannize over people in Virginia, and vice versa.

Not to change the subject, but how polarized people are politically, in ways where there can be no compromise, is really starting to highlight the fact that we would all be a lot happier if we were multiple different countries, instead of just one. I wonder if These States United haven't outlived their usefulness.

I think it's already been talked about, on the last page even, that nobody's stupid enough to want to ban guns in a timespan of days/months/singleyear. So no, you're already off base with the assumption you're arguing against, "I want the ATF to kick down the doors of millions of my law....."

[FNH]

restricting access to more lethal weapons even when the person has a history of problematic behavior.

I'm all for that, just not a sweeping ban. Improve the system that is already in place.

From there, strict gun laws will still be one of the best forms of deterrents around. No one goes into making a law thinking that it will be a catch all fix -- it's a rule that would be enforced through law enforcement, like everything else, with very harsh penalties levied on the person(s) who get caught breaking the law, which would include jail time. With all the crazy shit going on right now in America, which seems to be now at the frequency of every 2-3 weeks on national television, it's sorely needed.

The downside here is the amount of people with guns already. Plus the prison systems are already overcrowded as-is. Adding another weak crime to throw another citizen in jail seems pretty detrimental to society. As for the frequency, it is certainly more frequent than anyone would say is good, but it isn't that frequent. Unfortunately the numbers for mass shootings are skewed because of how they are defined, but catches most of the events that are "high profile". From 1966 to 2012 there were 90 mass shootings. I give this statistic because these kind of cases bring out the most calls for gun bans, and I just don't like knee jerk reactions to shut down everything which are typically how laws seem to get made. Now if every firearm homicide/suicide brought about that reaction, then ok I guess you are consistent, but there are far more evils facing society than firearms.

I agree.

Really the only way to minimize damages from an attack like this would be to make gun ownership illegal. If he had used a knife, he probably would have killed one person at most.

http://www.ryot.org/22-children-stab...y-school/35114
none them died, but that might be because he was playing fast and loose trying to set the high score, like a crossfitter doing kipping pull ups.

First off, the obvious must be controlled -- that of banning assault and military grade weapons as well as high capacity magazines. This alone is a process that would take numerous years, but the sooner it's begun the sooner it will be that much more effective. The ban also cannot be a shitty one like the one we enacted in 1994, one which had 600 exemptions and was allowed to expire in 2004 due to a sunset provision. It has to be permanent, and have teeth. Example would be Australia's 1996 ban on assault weapons -- a straight up ban with a provision for a mandatory buy-back system for the newly banned weapons. This was done in a response to a mass shooting that happened that same year. Since then, there hasn't been any mass shootings in Australia, and the homicide rate caused by firearms fell 59% over the next two decades. Would this translate to a 0% rate of mass shootings over time? Of course not, but it would be largely effective because the idea of having an assault rifle to commit mass murder would be taken out of the equation completely. No one civilian in the US needs a high capacity assault rifle.

The reason for a lot of the exemptions (other than the involvement of the NRA in the writing of the bill) was the amount of those rifles and magazines already on the market. This was likely also because of the previous legal precedent set by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 that didn't retroactively make fully automatic weapons illegal. It just said you couldn't by new ones, similar to the AWB of 1994, but you were still free to buy and sell ones made before 1986. Personally I would not mind a system similar to what FOPA set up for NFA weapons. Put "assault weapons and High cap mags" into the NFA classification and follow that same process. This (and almost all gun control ideas) would cost more money from tax payers to make it effective because you would need more employees at the NFA branch so it doesn't take a year to get something done. For the record, around Sandy Hook it took about 6 months to get an NFA form processed to buy an automatic or make/buy and short-barrely rifle/shotgun or suppressor. Couple years ago it took like 2 months. Tax payer cost will probably prevent a nationwide buy back program, think of the logistics on that.

Furthermore, who are you to tell me what I need? muh freedums!

The next should be creating laws and regulations which would establish gun safety in America, much like Melena said earlier -- one that would require people to become certified (and re-certified) to be allowed to carry and keep guns, as well as constant, yearly (or bi-yearly) gun safety and gun storage classes that people must attend and pass in some manner, similar to a driver's license. If people violate the laws, a permanent revocation of the license to carry. These types of laws have a double and parallel effect of not only helping to prevent children from accessing firearms, but also making it that much more difficult for firearm theft to even happen.

Finally, there should be far stricter background and mental health checks than what we currently have in place.

Would this be federally funded or privately funded? What regulatory body would ensure the proper training? Just an aside there are laws requiring gun locks be sold with every firearm.

Would the mental health check by-pass the privacy laws? I have not worked for NICS to see what they see, but I think for mental health checks only rely on self reporting on the form 4473.

How can people be so sure when they say that banning guns and stricter gun control laws cannot help curb the problem of gun violence over time?

Look at what it's done to australia, a country that had a similar problem with gun violence
+Look at all the countries in europe with no/little guns. A bit different than the US, but still

How can people be so sure that it CANNOT work in the US?

Probably basing it on past laws in our country. Hi2u Prohibition. Also population makes it hard to compare Australia and Europe. Furthermore the American culture is firmly cemented in the firearm industry. Cheap excuse but it does set us apart from Europe.

Fundamentally we are discussing how dangerous a weapon people should be allowed to own. Given that some people are prone to doing crazy shit, how much should we handicap their destructive potential?

* Fully automatic weapons - Most people agree this should not be allowed
* Semi-automatic weapons with big magazines - These have been the gun rights battlefront since 1994, I think?
* Pistols - Concealment potential, no legitimate hunting purpose (unless you count more comfortably putting injured animals out of their misery), for some reason many people are okay with them.

For me, the line of what is allowable is probably just above Rifles and Shotguns. You can make a pretty solid argument for anything below that line being either useful for hunting or sport. Above that line, it's really only useful for killing either a lot of animals quickly or for killing large game at close range (aka humans).

Automatics are legal with the proper fee. No legal owner of an automatic has committed a murder with their legal firearm that I can find.

"Semi-automatic" is a broad term and a lot of those are used for hunting and sport. Same with pistols, there is a large population of hunters that prefer to use a pistol because it requires more skill to be proficient. Also, when hunting for feral hogs I will carry a sidearm if it is legal(not during deer season).

I always love the argument of "criminals aren't obtaining their guns legally anyway, they'll still have guns." Especially in the context of discussing it after this particular incident. This man was seemingly a law-abiding citizen right up until the moment he wasn't. It's fucking stupid to claim that criminals will still all have guns when a lot of people don't BECOME criminals until the moment they do something stupid or crazy with a gun they already had available.

Do you suggest that every citizen should be assumed a criminal? Sounds pretty 1984 to me. "You might do something wrong, so we will just prevent you from doing it"

I can't check the video again right now, and not that I really want to analyze this... but as I recall, if he had a pistol with only 5 rounds/clip he would've practically emptied the clip on just the blonde reporter. I remember at least 3 shots, if not 4 or even 5, caught on camera with the muzzle aimed at the reporter. That could have made the difference between the camera guy living and/or subduing the shooter or not, and/or prevented the lady from getting shot. It could've even saved the reporter, if the camera guy was able to get help quicker/deliver first aid.

I don't mean to get all hypothetical, but it definitely would've changed the chances here (for the better) and could have changed the outcome. I'm no expert but his aim and shooting seemed terrible and untrained too, which again would make things more difficult with less ammo.

And yeah, sure, magazine restrictions might not prevent an incident like this outright, but everyone seems to agree it could save lives in multi/mass shootings... so why isn't this worth it? What's the terrible aspect of this trade-off? Inconvenience while at the shooting range? Losing in an extended shoot-out with a bad guy? (has that ever even happened?)

I don't understand why this isn't something everyone can universally agree upon, at least on some level.

I'll admit to not watching the video to estimate his accuracy. I do think a 10 round mag would have limited the deaths in Aurora. Here, I think he would have just had a second gun, but we are venturing into hypothetical territory both ways. It might have saved lives. A lot of people who are gun owners are not supportive of magazine restrictions because this is America and they just want them. It sounds stupid but it's the same reason people want strong liquor, cartons of cigarettes, cars that have more than 150hp, and big macs to shove down their gullet. Further restrictions on those would save millions more lives than a magazine restriction, but it would still be met with opposition.



Do any of you that want a full on ban of firearms think about the impact to the economy? That is a lot of jobs lost between manufacturer of the firearms and ammunition and dealers. Even restricting certain weapons would lose quite a bit of jobs.

It took me a long time to work on this so I may have missed some posts.

[FNH]

Australia has had 2 massacres (killed 2+) done with guns since it enacted strict gun control in 1996. That's 20 years, btw. You can count the major crimes here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...s_in_Australia but it seems like the gun violence wont be in the dozens over 20 years.

Are you psychic? How do you know it will not work for the US?

You know what's ignorant? You talking as if you know this wont work when there is evidence we have from domestic abuse homes, anger management clinics, psychiatry, and neurology THAT THIS DOES WORK. Where is any of your information coming from? The John Doe and Jane scenario for example, where have you gotten that from?

The problem with that is Australia had 18 mil people in 1996. The US has 318 million, with 88 guns per 100 people. Far easier to enact strict gun laws when you have less people and likely less guns already.

[Churchill]

I think the solution is to stop reporting it on the news, no one would care otherwise.

[NinjaLotter]

The problem with that is Australia had 18 mil people in 1996. The US has 318 million, with 88 guns per 100 people. Far easier to enact strict gun laws when you have less people and likely less guns already.

And also because American culture and Australian culture are exact replicas, making the comparison useful.

NSFW


The left is always talking about underlying issues right up until they get to guns, then they ignore them completely and become absurdly simplistic.

Maybe you should ask yourselves how a capitalistic society of drug glorification, game shows and pornography could possibly become dysfunctional, violent, sociopathic, or prone to producing people with mental illnesses.

[Aksannyi]

I think the solution is to stop reporting it on the news, no one would care otherwise.

Well considering this one aired live on the news, that was going to be difficult to pull off.

[NinjaLotter]

And also… damn… the 7th grade feels from hearing The Chronic.

[Salodin]

I concede Australia's system worked, but I sincerely doubt proposing a similar system in America would pass; let me be clear, put that system any where and gun related crimes will plummet, but passing that law is your first step. Do you honestly believe such a reform could pass? Would you want it to?

My freedoms, etc. As much as I decry these acts, I wouldn't support sweeping changes to gun ownership laws. I'd support clip size restrictions, gun type restrictions, licenses, courses, etc, but I wouldn't support banning firearms. Australia didn't, but they might as well have. Also, keep in mind gun related deaths were already trending down before the massacre that prompted the sweeping legislation you cited; the legislation just made it plummet faster. Compared this to America where our numbers are only going up.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2...-gun-australia

What is your argument? Ban all guns? Make it harder? Using Australia as an example, they still have about half the deaths per year from gun related incidences ever since the legislation changed. Much improved yes, but murders are still happening... just like I said would happen in America.

[archibaldcrane]

Our gun murder rate is increasing? It's actually half what it was when I was in middle school.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files...-crime-1-2.png

[archibaldcrane]

And to put a finer point on it - handguns are the problem. We don't even have to fuck with hunters at all (and if you hunt with a handgun you are an asshole full stop so let's not get bent protecting them)

[Thunder]

I concede Australia's system worked, but I sincerely doubt proposing a similar system in America would pass; let me be clear, put that system any where and gun related crimes will plummet, but passing that law is your first step. Do you honestly believe such a reform could pass? Would you want it to?

uh, yeah I honestly believe such reform could pass if it were on a big enough timeline? Following mctharthyism and the cold war we have "socialistic" healthcare - that sprung up super quickly relative to the scope of it. The nuts couldn't stop that - are you laying down in defeat to the gun nuts who sleep with the 2nd amendment emblazoned on their pillow cases full of goose down?

Ok, so I think I get you. You think it'd be great to enact strict gun laws, but from a pragmatic point of view you're saying it would be really difficult? Are you worried you'll callus your hands if legislators tried to take this up? lol

My freedoms, etc. As much as I decry these acts, I wouldn't support sweeping changes to gun ownership laws. I'd support clip size restrictions, gun type restrictions, licenses, courses, etc, but I wouldn't support banning firearms. Australia didn't, but they might as well have. Also keep in mind, gun related deaths were already trending down before the massacre that prompted the sweeping legislation you cited; the legislation just made it plummet faster. Compared this to America where our numbers are only going up.

isn't this just another pass at, "it's difficult so let's not try"?

What is your argument? Ban all guns? Make it harder? Using Australia as an example, they still have about half the deaths per year from gun related incidences ever since the legislation changed. Much improved yes, but murders are still happening... just like I said would happen in America.

Ban certain guns, and make the rest much harder to get/maintain legal ownership of. Also, hope you don't feel supernatural with your claim of, "people will still be murdered by guns". Should that even be said in this discussion? When people legislated big pharma to chemically alter morphine to turn into a gel when mashed instead of powder to smoke, would you have been there to remind us "they'll still get high yall"? And when 80% sales of morphine evaporated thereafter you would have been there to tell us it wasn't a 100% solution to people getting high with morphine, I hope

Do any of you that want a full on ban of firearms think about the impact to the economy? That is a lot of jobs lost between manufacturer of the firearms and ammunition and dealers. Even restricting certain weapons would lose quite a bit of jobs.

Yeah, I've thought about it briefly. Have you thought about the disruption automated robots will have on the economy? All those jobs you're worried about will be gone in 5-10 years anyway. And I doubt anything short of a 5-10 year timeline on gun ban laws would work anyway

[FNH]

And to put a finer point on it - handguns are the problem. We don't even have to fuck with hunters at all (and if you hunt with a handgun you are an asshole full stop so let's not get bent protecting them)

How so?

Yeah, I've thought about it briefly. Have you thought about the disruption automated robots will have on the economy? All those jobs you're worried about will be gone in 5-10 years anyway. And I doubt anything short of a 5-10 year timeline on gun ban laws would work anyway

Nothing is fully automated.

[archibaldcrane]

How so?

Shit stopping power, leaves wounded animals suffering much longer, people who do it are douchebags, etc etc

[Thunder]

Nothing is fully automated.

right, but those jobs you mentioned specifically will be gone. For every 100 employees doing whatever in manufacturing and distribution you'll now have 1 overseeing/maintaining the automated trucks on the roads and the automated factories making the stuff