School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[MikeG]

......... I lose track of how many Europeans .............who tend to be apologists for Muslim bombers...

What?

I'm going to have to ask for some references for this wild assertion.

Mike

 

[Ranb]

I'm addressing Americans in general, not just StankApe here: What do you think your country could do to lessen gun crime and gun deaths in general, as well as these spree killings?

Improve mental health care so that we can identify those people who would harm themselves and others.

Improve the economy so that some people will not resort to crime to support themselves.

Keep violent criminals behind bars longer.

More stringent gun storage laws and tougher the penalties for supplying felons with guns.

Reform law enforcement. Too many of them "lose" their guns or are corrupt in other ways.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Look at the resources of the US military. If that was in the hands of a tyrannical government they would piss all over what ever guns happened to be in the hands of private citizens. Sure the guns might cause complications, but the private citizens would be overwhelmingly outgunned in a way that I don't think would have been true when the constitution was written.

You are assuming that the US military would kill their own countrymen. Instead you might find that many would desert to the rebel cause. If the various governments that fell during the arab spring had been able to keep tight control over their military, then they might still be around.

Ranb

 

[gumboot]

Would you feel better if it was hit-and-run?

You mean, if someone had deliberately run down a classroom full of primary school children in a car?

No, I would feel equally sick. What a bizarre question.

 

[Ranb]

With the facts as they are being reported at the moment...

Right now, I am blaming the mother. She obviously has missed the warning signs that her son was becoming a danger to both himself and others. Also, she dismally failed in her responsibility as a gun owner in that she did not secure her weapons properly so that her mental son didn't have access to them.

I think it is a bit early to be blaming one of the victims. What facts other than she was the gun owner are you basing your accusation on? What steps did she take to secure her firearms? Hide in the closet or lock in a safe? What steps did she take to care for her son's mental condition?

I have not seen enough to start blaming her yet, what do you have?

Ranb

 

[Nessie]

Interestingly, the "Anders Breivik" thread took 6 months to reach 32 pages, yet let it happen in the US, and it's 22 pages in less than 24 hours--and I lose track of how many Europeans who made the point anders was a lone nut are asserting that the US incident was a "gun culture" problem (and who tend to be apologists for Muslim bombers...

Thing is, an incident like this has happened yet again in the USA. That is down to US gun culture and in Europe, where the culture is different the very rare massacres are down to loan nuts.

Even if the USA had a more European gun culture, there would still be the occasional massacre. There is nothing that can be done to end massacres, only reduce them.

The USA is not prepared to take the necessary action to reduce the number of massacres primarily because of the Constitution and the right to bear arms and protect from tyranny.

So expect Europeans (and Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders) to react like this when ever there is a massacre in the USA.

 

[StankApe]

That is terribly sad - I understand that it is easier to fight back rather than address the underlying societal issues, but it's perpetuating violence. Is there the political will there to address the cycle of inner city poverty and violence and the gang culture?

I'm addressing Americans in general, not just StankApe here: What do you think your country could do to lessen gun crime and gun deaths in general, as well as these spree killings?

Do you think it's possible to lower your murder rate from 4.2 per hundred thousand to numbers more comparable with say Canada (1.6), the UK (1.2) or Australia (1.0)? If so, what measures should be taken to do so?

I think the number 1 thing we could do to lower gang related gun violence (which is most of our nation's gun violence) is to decriminalize and strictly regulate drugs. Drugs are the fuel that powers street gangs. Take away their product,and they lose much of their motive and ability to do gun violence. Sure they would still do prostitution and some other things, and there would still be shootings, but the earning potential would be much less and there would be less motive to protect territory so strictly.

 

[gumboot]

really? I find that to be amusingly naive , do you think gangs buy their guns at legit dealers ? nope because most couldn't pass a background check so where do they get guns from?

They mostly steal them from people who own them legitimately.

 

[joesixpack]

Thing is, an incident like this has happened yet again in the USA. That is down to US gun culture and in Europe, where the culture is different the very rare massacres are down to loan nuts.

Even if the USA had a more European gun culture, there would still be the occasional massacre. There is nothing that can be done to end massacres, only reduce them.

The USA is not prepared to take the necessary action to reduce the number of massacres primarily because of the Constitution and the right to bear arms and protect from tyranny.

So expect Europeans (and Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders) to react like this when ever there is a massacre in the USA.

You're half right. It's not "US gun culture", it's "US culture" which happens to have guns in the mix. There is demonstrably a very distinct cultural difference between Americans and Europeans, and propensity to violence is most of it. Gun laws and gun ownership is a symptom, not the driving force behind this difference. I'll leave it to the anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists to say WHY.

 

[Rat]

It doesn't have to be a public list; as I described above. For instance, the gun dealer will never know whether the application was rejected for a felony conviction or a mental health issue; he will only know it was rejected.

Yes, my objection is to the existence of the list as stated. While you did mark out 'suicidal thoughts' as a criterion, you also included behavioural disorders and prescriptions of psychoactive medications. While I am these days not in favour of the general public owning firearms, if they are going to have them, I don't see why I should be excluded. It is simple discrimination.

 

[Rat]

That is down to US gun culture and in Europe, where the culture is different the very rare massacres are down to loan nuts.

I think the financial crisis can be blamed on loan nuts, but pinning massacres on them is a bit much.

 

[Nessie]

The constant references back to the Constitution, the US's role in fighting for freedom as the world's super power since WWII and the general attitude towards freedom combined with a fear of its own government and tyranny, the frontier spirit and machoism. I am sure that is a reasonable summary of why Americans will never give up on widespread civilian ownership and use of guns.

Then add in the the genuine desire and need for self defence from criminals who are armed on a scale that is frightening, plus the self perpetuating situation of criminal gets gun, civilian gets one and so one, and I can see why even the apparent saturation of guns in society is still not enough guns for Americans.

Finally, no massacre, even young children is enough to make Americans in sufficient numbers to want to change the present situation, so I can see no chance of the USA what so ever reducing the number of gun deaths.

 

[Checkmite]

Yes, my objection is to the existence of the list as stated. While you did mark out 'suicidal thoughts' as a criterion, you also included behavioural disorders and prescriptions of psychoactive medications. While I am these days not in favour of the general public owning firearms, if they are going to have them, I don't see why I should be excluded. It is simple discrimination.

Do I need to explain why I feel that people taking mind-altering substances are not appropriate candidates for owning machines designed solely to kill people?

 

[shuttlt]

One question from a naive European. How come the constitution seems to be so beyond renegotiation? Some folks who've been dead for more than 150 years made a list of things they thought would be good rules to run the country by. I get the impression from across the ocean that they are treated by some as if they were handed to Moses on stone tablets. Is my impression wrong?

 

[Rat]

Do I need to explain why I feel that people taking mind-altering substances are not appropriate candidates for owning machines designed solely to kill people?

Yes, I think so. Although I suppose that if it's only people who are currently taking psychoactive drugs then I'd be fine anyway. And, as I say, if you make this the law, then people with mental issues will be less likely to report their symptoms, meaning that they can still get the guns but will not be treated for their illness. If they are suffering a serious psychosis, then I would agree that they should not be licensed to have a gun, but they will probably then have significant other limits to their freedom anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by mind-altering, anyway.

 

[Checkmite]

One question from a naive European. How come the constitution seems to be so beyond renegotiation? Some folks who've been dead for more than 150 years made a list of things they thought would be good rules to run the country by. I get the impression from across the ocean that they are treated by some as if they were handed to Moses on stone tablets. Is my impression wrong?

No, you are not. The Constitution and the people who wrote it are practically deified in the US, so much so that a person who becomes aware that this one or that one owned slaves or was a wife-beater for instance, they consider themselves cleverer and more enlightened than the average American. The US Constitution was designed with a mechanism for changing it when parts of it became less useful over time; this full implications of this fact are usually lost on most people.

 

[StankApe]

One question from a naive European. How come the constitution seems to be so beyond renegotiation? Some folks who've been dead for more than 150 years made a list of things they thought would be good rules to run the country by. I get the impression from across the ocean that they are treated by some as if they were handed to Moses on stone tablets. Is my impression wrong?

They can be modified (see prohibition and the repeal of prohibition amendments as examples) However, 2/3rds of the states must ratify any amendment to the constitution and with 200 million gun owners, that simply would not happen.

 

[StankApe]

I think something our Euro bretheren might be missing (due to their continual utterance of "a small minority giving up their rights for the good of all") is that it ISN'T a small minority here. There are an estimated 200+ million legal gun owners in the USA (and god knows how many illegal) it's the majority of the population. Hence any sort of legislation isn't going to be viewed very kindly and legislators sure like getting re-elected....

 

[ServiceSoon]

One question from a naive European. How come the constitution seems to be so beyond renegotiation? Some folks who've been dead for more than 150 years made a list of things they thought would be good rules to run the country by. I get the impression from across the ocean that they are treated by some as if they were handed to Moses on stone tablets. Is my impression wrong?

There is a procedure to amend the Constitution. It's nowhere near "beyond renegotiation." At this time, the majority of the people in the US do not want to completely remove firearms from society. It's really that simple.

 

[zeggman]

They can be modified (see prohibition and the repeal of prohibition amendments as examples) However, 2/3rds of the states must ratify any amendment to the constitution and with 200 million gun owners, that simply would not happen.

This is why, naive European. The last time an amendment even got to the "states voting" stage was in the 1970s, and the Equal Rights for Women amendment was defeated.

The Republicans have made noise about a Constitutional amendment to specify that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but I think the window of opportunity has closed on that too.

The US Constitution was designed with a mechanism for changing it when parts of it became less useful over time; this full implications of this fact are usually lost on most people.

It isn't lost on anyone, but that design has a built-in bar which will not be cleared if the proposed change is repealing the 2nd Amendment.