Gunman shoots 18 people.

[Mobyseven]

Doesn't that wind up with EVERYONE living in Australia?

I like Australia as is. If the gun culture comes here and gets the law changed, I move to Canada.

 

[Parsman]

I think for most of us outside the US it isn't the right to own firearms but the laxity of ownership regulation that confuses us. It should be harder to get a lethal firearm than a box of cookies but it often seems that it isn't. Is that a fair perception? I ask the question genuinely as a European who has little knowledge of US firearm regulations.

 

[baron]

I've got news for you: Firearms just make killing easier.

Not really news. That's what I said.

Not having a firearm just moves the target selection to more helpless targets

More helpless than a roomful of kids?

or escalates the nature of the weapon.

Escalates from a gun?

In 1996 in the UK a paranoid schizophrenic took a machete and tried to kill as many 3 - 4 year olds as possible in a crowded classroom. How many did he kill? Er, none. Zero. Not one single one.

How many would he have killed with a gun? Well, how many were there in the class again...?

...and as for having to become, "experts at covert bomb-making," there are books at the public library (this IS the USA, after all) and websites that will tell you how to make a very serviceable bomb with stuff you can pick up at the hardware store and the grocery.

For goodness sake, I know that it's possible to build a bomb. My point is that nowhere near the number of people who would take a gun and go blasting would take this route, and even fewer would be successful.

I could construct a device to catapult frozen turnips that would prove pretty lethal but I don't see a need to restrict access to elastic material and heavy root crops prior to addressing the shambles that is US gun control.

 

[332nd]

There is nothing dishonest and my point is quite clear. Lots of people are saying they are happy that mass murders are a price worth paying. I am asking what that price is for ?

If it is an uncomfortable question for you by all means ignore it. Alternatively if the point has offended you so much feel free to put me on ignore.

Who said they are happy that mass murders are a price worth paying?

 

[Autolite]

I think for most of us outside the US it isn't the right to own firearms but the laxity of ownership regulation that confuses us. It should be harder to get a lethal firearm than a box of cookies but it often seems that it isn't. Is that a fair perception? I ask the question genuinely as a European who has little knowledge of US firearm regulations.

Well, lets look at the gun control laws that we have in Canada. Here, a gun owner must apply for a "Possession/Acquisition Licence" through the Chief Firearms Officer of their respective province. A background check is carried out to look for a history of criminal behaviour, domestic violence, mental problems and the like.

Then the applicant must take any necessary training and/or pass written and practical examinations to demonstrate that they have a comprehensive understanding of firearms including the laws pertaining to their storage, use, transport and transfer.

Then the application must be approved by the applicant's spouse. As a matter of fact, an ex-spouse or anyone with whom the applicant has had a conjugal relationship with in the past three years (IIRC) can veto the application.

If the applicant passes the checks, exams, and has spousal approval the Chief Firearms Officer, at his/her discretion, can issue the "Possession/Acquisition Licence". The licence is valid for five years at which time another background check is carried out, and spousal approval again sought, if the applicant seeks a renewal.

If the applicant is granted the licence, it can then be used to make firearm purchases either from a authorised firearm dealer or a private licenced gun owner. In any case the transaction (AKA "transfer") is recorded and the firearm is tracked on a national firearm data base (a gun registry).

Certain firearms, such as handguns and some rifles, are classified as "restricted" which requires that the applicant have a "restricted" endorsement on their "Possession/Acquisition Licence". (There is also a "prohibited" endorsement but that encompasses a relatively small percentage of firearms owners). The acquisition of a "restricted" firearm again requires authorization of the Provincial Chief Firearms Officer for each individual transfer.

Once the firearm is purchased the gun owner has to apply to the Chief Firearms Officer for a transport permit (in the case of a "restricted" firearm) to bring the firearm from the place of purchase to the gun owners residence (where the firearm will be kept and stored) by the most direct route. (In other words, no stopping off anywhere to show your buddies the "neat" gun you've just bought).

Once home, the firearm must be stowed and secured as per the applicable laws. Consider also that having firearms stored on the premises, the gun owner by default, is subject to a search and or inspection of the premises at any time by anyone authorized to carry out such search and inspection. If the gun owner wants to hunt, then another set of tests must be passed in order to obtain a hunting licence.

If the firearm is a handgun, then in 99.999% of the cases the gun can only be fired at a target practice range that has been approved by the Provincial Chief Firearms Officer. In this case, the gun owner must apply again to the Provincial Chief Firearms Officer for another ATT Permit (Authorization To Transport) in order to bring the firearm from the place of residence to the shooting range (shortest possible route, no stops). The ATT is granted as a one time permit or for a specified period of time at the discretion of the C.F.O.

In any case, whether hunting or target shooting, the gun owner must have the applicable gun registration documents, the P.A.L. (the gun licence) and transport permits (if required) readily available for inspection by any authorized officer.

So we have all these checks, double checks, authorizations, permits and licences to ensure that responsible people can own firearms. The problem is that irresponsible people tend to ignore the processes involved. Say gang- banger "A" in Toronto needs a gun to blow off the head of gang-banger "B" in Mississauga. Gang-banger "A" goes downtown, buys a gun on the black market and then heads to Mississauga to carry out the deed.

The next morning the newspapers scream "Gang-banger In Mississauga Gets Head Blown Off". The gun control advocates scream that "THERE AREN'T ENOUGH GUN LAWS, WE NEED MORE GUN LAWS" and the responsible gun owners are once again vilified simply because they own guns.

Go figure ...

 

[Kestrel]

So we have all these checks, double checks, authorizations, permits and licences to ensure that responsible people can own firearms. The problem is that irresponsible people tend to ignore the processes involved. Say gang- banger "A" in Toronto needs a gun to blow off the head of gang-banger "B" in Mississauga. Gang-banger "A" goes downtown, buys a gun on the black market and then heads to Mississauga to carry out the deed.

So what is the source of the black market firearms sold in downtown Toronto?

I suspect most of them are smuggled in from the United States.

 

[Drudgewire]

What "other way" would that be? Killing 5, 10, 15 with a knife? With a bat? It's impossible. Or will these disillusioned folk all become experts at covert bomb-making and terrorism and go down that route?

How covert to do you really have to be to get instructions for a shrapnel bomb off the Internet? Where there's a will there's a way and suicide bombers ruitinely kill a lot more innocent people than the worst shooting rampages.

Of course, we could always ban nails and batteries I guess.

 

[Lothian]

Who said they are happy that mass murders are a price worth paying?

The following people all said that mass murder by firearms is a consequence of a liberal gun ownership policy. They all said they are happy with the policy and accept the consequence. You can try to argue that this means something different to them being satisfied that mass murders are a price worth paying for liberal gun ownership, but that is the way 99% of people will read it.

If you want to clarify your post (second one down) feel free.

Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence

Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

So, you were saying?

"Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence."

I am not a pro-gun poster, but:

Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

ETA: One more thing; yes, in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment, with which I am happy. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence, provided I am armed as well.

Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

 

[Drudgewire]

We said we're happy with the 2nd Amendment. Being happy with a medication doesn't mean you're happy with the side-effects, it means you accept it.

But thanks for the blatantly dishonest generalization.

 

[Lothian]

We said we're happy with the 2nd Amendment. Being happy with a medication doesn't mean you're happy with the side-effects, it means you accept it.

But thanks for the blatantly dishonest generalization.

I obviously don't mean you jump up and down with glee every time a mass murderer goes lose.

You accept that consequences of liberal gun ownership is that there will be mass murder by firearms. Do you accept that this is a price worth paying for liberal gun ownership ? I am struggling to see any other reading into the above statements.

 

[332nd]

The following people all said that mass murder by firearms is a consequence of a liberal gun ownership policy. They all said they are happy with the policy and accept the consequence. You can try to argue that this means something different to them being satisfied that mass murders are a price worth paying for liberal gun ownership, but that is the way 99% of people will read it.

If you want to clarify your post (second one down) feel free.

I see no where in any of those statements where anyone said they were "happy with mass murder". You are either mistaken or a liar. Which one are you?

 

[Skibum]

I obviously don't mean you jump up and down with glee every time a mass murderer goes lose.

You accept that consequences of liberal gun ownership is that there will be mass murder by firearms. Do you accept that this is a price worth paying for liberal gun ownership ?

I realize that we were asked not to bring up the car comparison when we were prompted to make those statements, but in your particular post I think a comparison to cars is valid.

Like guns, allowing liberal ownership of vehicles leads to incidents of mass deaths. While sad and tragic in both cases, I accept it as the price to live in a somewhat free society.

I am struggling to see any other reading into the above statements.

I think you are trying to read too much into them.

 

[sugarb]

Hi

I don't believe that anyone has said that they are, "happy," about mass murders.

Accepting a price for something of value does not equate with happiness over the price. Ask anyone who bought a new house in the US before the Fed brought down the prime rate. $2,000 a month is downright painful.

They're not happy about the price, but they get a HOUSE.

Freedom is a messy thing.

Part of that is pretty much having to wait until after someone has done something bad to punish them. This allows the possibility... indeed the CERTAINTY... that someone is going to jackassulate, but in a country that really believes in, "innocent until proven guilty," you're kind of obligated to allow that periodic and unhappy jackassulation.

Law abiding people in this country can purchase, own and carry firearms. That's a freedom. We also have the freedom to put bars on our windows and reinforce our doors to help keep us safe. We have the freedom to buy samurai swords if we want to. Part of the price we pay is that someone, somewhere, is going to be a jerk about the whole thing.

We're not happy about the price, but we get freedom.

In my opinion, this was a very good post. While reading this thread, and others with comparisons between guns and motor vehicles, what came to my mind was something happening in our family only settled yesterday: my aunt is a law-abiding person. She recently had to have some surgeries on her eyes. Immediately after the surgeries, she was fine, but a few weeks later some problems developed. Her greatest worry in all of this three month mess was losing her drivers license due to loss of sight...something that all of the doctors treating her eyes told her was a very real possibility.

Fortunately, yesterday we took her to a final appointment, and barring any unforeseen problems with the final corrective surgeries, her vision has been saved and she can keep her license to drive. What has been running through my mind is this: were she to own a gun, and lose her vision, no agency would take that gun away. Gun ownership is a freedom we have, but also a privilege, or felons wouldn't lose that right. Driver licensing is much the same. Both, in the wrong hands, are extremely dangerous. Medications are labelled with warnings about driving while using. A whole lot of people ignore those warnings and drive anyway--we have to, after all, go to our places of employment. Most of us can't afford to not work while on certain medications.

In a very real way, knowing that there are a whole lot of folks on the roads this time of year taking OTC cold medications, not to mention people on prescription drugs with side effects that may impair one's ability to drive safely, I feel much more threatened on the road by irresponsible people driving vehicles (note that I feel threatened by the people IN the vehicles, not the vehicles themselves) than I do by the guns many of the people in our semi-rural community own.

Anyway, just thinking, but there are many "rights" we are given as American citizens that most people are responsible about. Rights come with responsibility, after all. Some people choose to abuse those rights, and it is more than abuse of gun ownership that we are threatened by on a daily basis. Still, I'd rather have those rights than not. In my mind, the answer isn't removing the instruments of whatever threat. Instead it is in better oversight as to who enjoys the privileges of the freedoms we are granted.

 

[articulett]

I obviously don't mean you jump up and down with glee every time a mass murderer goes lose.

You accept that consequences of liberal gun ownership is that there will be mass murder by firearms. Do you accept that this is a price worth paying for liberal gun ownership ? I am struggling to see any other reading into the above statements.

I agree with you. They have an illusion that their guns make them safer... that their guns would never be used to harm a life via accident, mental illness, a sudden rage, poor impulse control etc. They are so sure. But don't all gun owners feel that? Doesn't a gun have to be loaded and accessible to actually save a life. Isn't that asking for tragedy? That's the same as on the thread where the kid used his fathers legally owned gun to kill his own family. I'm sure both the son and father would have made the same arguments about their gun... and both lives are ruined by that gun that was bought to protect the family...

Plus the father's own sister was killed by a similar tragedy in his own family in his youth and yet he was still deluded into the idea that he was safer with his gun. I think this idea that guns make people safer is a complete fraud believed by fearful (and often irrational) people. It makes an impulse bad mood so readily transformed into a tragedy--suicide, accident, homicide, prison sentence, life long guilt and loss.

It's obvious that there will be more gun tragedies--not just dead people but the destroyed lives of survivors and the maimed and the people who get the most horrible phone call of their life saying that their kid is dead-- we can guarantee that this will happen with the more guns that are accessible to more people. Countries that have taken pains to lessen the availability of firearms like Australia are a testament to the fact that less guns that are less available means less of these kinds of tragedies.

But to a gun owner... the increased numbers of destroyed lives are worth it for their "feelings" of safety. Guns so rarely save a life... and they have to be relatively unsecured to be accessible in an emergency anyhow-- they are just so much more likely to destroy a life no matter how safe it makes the owner feel. Look at all the gun tragedies this month... Couldn't the owner of those guns be making the exact same arguments as the gun owners here? Aren't they just really saying that they "feel" safer and it's their "right" and so the cost of liberal gun ownership laws is worth the devastation.

In America, many men have a strong emotional attachment to their gun. It feels like it's impossible to have a dialogue on the subject because they fear people are trying to take away their guns. The assurances of men from other countries where firearms have been restricted don't comfort them. I would not allow a gun in my home, and I feel bad that the people in my country who would like to see less guns so readily accessible have no voice... they are seen as trying to take away rights rather than prevent tragedies.

A government should allow it's people to balance the rights with the costs... it's why we allow ourselves extra time to be investigated more thoroughly in airports. But there is so much obfuscation that goes on every time there is a tragedy like this where a perfectly reasonable sounding guy who sounds as normal as any gun owner on this forum takes their legally owned gun and kills a bunch of people before killing themselves.

I don't think your rhetoric and your rights are much comfort to the parents of the victims... including the parents of the kid who did this act. And people will blame everything... including the parents to avoid having to say, maybe guns shouldn't be so easy to get. A gun makes it possible for horrible horrible things to happen on a whim... in guarantees they will. And rarely does a gun save lives. Hand guns are designed to kill people. They work.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I think for most of us outside the US it isn't the right to own firearms but the laxity of ownership regulation that confuses us. It should be harder to get a lethal firearm than a box of cookies but it often seems that it isn't. Is that a fair perception? I ask the question genuinely as a European who has little knowledge of US firearm regulations.

If you want to buy a handgun in the US, you need to provide an accepted photo ID, like a driver's license, and a social security number. Most US drivers' licenses have the social security number ON them, but I think a few just have a drivers' license number.

You fill out a federal form, in your own hand (that is, someone can't fill it out FOR you) and that information is sent to the FBI to be looked up in their database of persons denied the right to buy firearms. It used to take a few days, but it's pretty much while-you-wait now.

Most states have a parallel system of documentation, as well, so you wind up filling out two documents.

I seem to remember having the FBI check on the last long arm I bought as well, so the regulations may have tightened up a bit.

The federal and state regulations for accomplishing the transfer are part of the requirements to possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to own and operate a store that sells firearms. The records are fairly detailed, and the penalties for fudging them are pretty steep.

So... yeah... it is as easy to buy a firearm, here, as it is to buy a box of cookies... providing you have to check with the FBI to buy cookies.

 

[baron]

How covert to do you really have to be to get instructions for a shrapnel bomb off the Internet?

Not particularly. Once downloaded, however, I suspect the bomb does not magically appear, fully primed and ready for action. Obtaining the components, building the bomb, building the detonating device and smuggling it to the desired location would require a good deal more skill. What's more, it's highly unlikely to work.

However, this is pretty much irrelevant. If people (i.e normal people, not religious fanatics) were willing to become suicide bombers they'd have done so already, in the US, the UK and elsewhere.

So where are they?

The fact is that it simply does not happen and will not happen on any remotely significant scale.

Where there's a will there's a way and suicide bombers ruitinely kill a lot more innocent people than the worst shooting rampages.

So why do all the killers discussed in these forums use guns if a suicide bomb is (a) more effective and (b) simple to engineer?

Suicide bombers have completely different aims and motives to people who go on killing sprees. If you don't understand this you need to read up on some psychology.

Of course, we could always ban nails and batteries I guess.

When dozens of people are being killed on a daily basis by nails and batteries, and nails and batteries somehow cease to have any other useful function, then that would indeed be an option worth considering.

 

[LostAngeles]

What "other way" would that be? Killing 5, 10, 15 with a knife? With a bat? It's impossible. Or will these disillusioned folk all become experts at covert bomb-making and terrorism and go down that route?

This argument that things would be just as bad without guns is ridiculous and flies in the face of all the evidence.

Awww, that's so cute how you conveniently cut out the other way I keep mentioning.

Unless you didn't realize what it was, in which case, I presume someone else does your housecleaning.

 

[Ranb]

I think for most of us outside the US it isn't the right to own firearms but the laxity of ownership regulation that confuses us. It should be harder to get a lethal firearm than a box of cookies but it often seems that it isn't. Is that a fair perception? I ask the question genuinely as a European who has little knowledge of US firearm regulations.

Why don't you read the laws that are on the books in the USA first before engaging in hyperbole? Even though a person can by a gun without a background check in many places in the USA, they are not as available as cookies. It is not a fair perception. I do not believe you are genuine.

I do believe that you are keeping yourself ignorant of American culture on purpose to relieve yourself of any responsibility for making informed statements. If you want to learn about American gun culture or culture in general, then there is no substitute for visiting the USA and learning about it first hand. Thinking you can learn about it from the biased statements (mine included) on internet forums or equally biased news programs from any country is a big mistake. If you actually care, then you owe it to yourself to find contacts in other countries who can show you around and let you discover the real country, not the one presented on the news or internet.

Whenever I have visited other countries, it was the times that I was traveling with a local that were the most memorable. They were very rewarding experiences and ones I will never forget. You may want to try this yourself.

Ranb

 

[sugarb]

Hi

I don't believe that anyone has said that they are, "happy," about mass murders.

Accepting a price for something of value does not equate with happiness over the price. Ask anyone who bought a new house in the US before the Fed brought down the prime rate. $2,000 a month is downright painful.

They're not happy about the price, but they get a HOUSE.

Freedom is a messy thing.

Part of that is pretty much having to wait until after someone has done something bad to punish them. This allows the possibility... indeed the CERTAINTY... that someone is going to jackassulate, but in a country that really believes in, "innocent until proven guilty," you're kind of obligated to allow that periodic and unhappy jackassulation.

Law abiding people in this country can purchase, own and carry firearms. That's a freedom. We also have the freedom to put bars on our windows and reinforce our doors to help keep us safe. We have the freedom to buy samurai swords if we want to. Part of the price we pay is that someone, somewhere, is going to be a jerk about the whole thing.

We're not happy about the price, but we get freedom.

In my opinion, this was a very good post. While reading this thread, and others with comparisons between guns and motor vehicles, what came to my mind was something happening in our family only settled yesterday: my aunt is a law-abiding person. She recently had to have some surgeries on her eyes. Immediately after the surgeries, she was fine, but a few weeks later some problems developed. Her greatest worry in all of this three month mess was losing her drivers license due to loss of sight...something that all of the doctors treating her eyes told her was a very real possibility.

Fortunately, yesterday we took her to a final appointment, and barring any unforeseen problems with the final corrective surgeries, her vision has been saved and she can keep her license to drive. What has been running through my mind is this: were she to own a gun, and lose her vision, no agency would take that gun away. Gun ownership is a freedom we have, but also a privilege, or felons wouldn't lose that right. Driver licensing is much the same. Both, in the wrong hands, are extremely dangerous. Medications are labelled with warnings about driving while using. A whole lot of people ignore those warnings and drive anyway--we have to, after all, go to our places of employment. Most of us can't afford to not work while on certain medications.

In a very real way, knowing that there are a whole lot of folks on the roads this time of year taking OTC cold medications, not to mention people on prescription drugs with side effects that may impair one's ability to drive safely, I feel much more threatened on the road by irresponsible people driving vehicles (note that I feel threatened by the people IN the vehicles, not the vehicles themselves) than I do by the guns many of the people in our semi-rural community own.

Anyway, just thinking, but there are many "rights" we are given as American citizens that most people are responsible about. Rights come with responsibility, after all. Some people choose to abuse those rights, and it is more than abuse of gun ownership that we are threatened by on a daily basis. Still, I'd rather have those rights than not. In my mind, the answer isn't removing the instruments of whatever threat. Instead it is in better oversight as to who enjoys the privileges of the freedoms we are granted.

 

[baron]

Awww, that's so cute how you conveniently cut out the other way I keep mentioning.

Unless you didn't realize what it was, in which case, I presume someone else does your housecleaning.

You mean -

Like I said, if you took away the guns they'd find another way to get their name splashed up on CNN and then you have to take away the 409 and Clorox.

?

First of all I had no idea what Clorox was until I googled it, on account of living in a country which is not the US (yep, it's not just a rumour, these places do exist).

More to the point, are you suggesting that you have some kind of logical argument here that I'm deliberately skipping over because it has me foxed?

Household bleach? If people didn't have access to guns they'd use bleach?

Are you kidding?

I've already communicated my argument against the likelihood of killers using other equally effective methods if guns weren't available. Just because I decided I had better things to do than list all the items that could be used to lesser effect in a gun replacement scenario (e.g. knives, bats, tyre irons, spades, kettles, scarves, tree branches, dictionaries, a frozen rabbit on a rope and yes, household bleach) it doesn't mean they weren't implicit in my argument. I simply quoted a subset of these for ease of presentation.