School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Belz...]

It's funny how whenever this topic comes up, the people that you'd think would be die-hard critical thinkers seem to lose that "critical" part.

It's easy to be skeptical when discussing ghosts and UFOs.

 

[Belz...]

Why is that excessive though? Are my handguns hurting anyone? Are they putting me or others in danger? Will some of them randomly go off throughout the night?

No. I simply feel that having so many guns in your home denotes a marked and unhealthy fear of home invasion. Again, I don't know your situation so it's at best an uninformed guess.

 

[Dancing David]

Of course there are things we can do. That the best course of action, or at least the most realistic course, doesn't (or might not) include governmental restrictions doesn't mean we can 'do nothing'.

There are plenty of social and cultural reasons young men don't seek help for a plethora of issues, including mental health ones. We don't need a law to talk about those for example. Research into what treatments work, support for groups that address these things, finding out why people sometimes feel violence is their only, or most sensible, recourse are more examples.

It isn't the most emotionally satisfying thing to feel however. We tend to want something to attack, something to ban, something to force. A lot of the real work, the most important advancements, are long, incremental and difficult.

I believe that registration and making all guns sales trackable would go a long way.

 

[Quad4_72]

On the contrary, controversially representing yourself as a lethal weapon is a worrying glorification of it, just as someone representing themselves with an erect penis would be seen as glorifying erect penises.

How would you interpret it if I used this as my avatar:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2638950cf4c1f4baff.jpg

?

Given that I can't think of a possible reason that a suicide vest could be used as a legitimate means of self defense or for sporting, I would say you have problems.

No, I didn't. I'm perfectly aware that there have been mass school shootings in other countries. Your convenient (mis)interpretation is as manipulative as your brain-numbing "Thanks for clearing that up" spin.




Why do you think there are more crazy people in the US and how do you think this should be addressed?

I don't know the answer or how it should be addressed. That is the million dollar question right now. Perhaps better screening of our kids in our schools for mental health illnesses. Perhaps better education for the teachers to pick out kids with problems. I don't know, but hopefully someone much smarter then me comes up with a plan.

 

[Jono]

They don't allow you to carry firearms (as private citizens) at bars, clubs et al in the US do they?

 

[JihadJane]

I could live in a neighborhood that has never experienced a crime in it's history, and I would still have the same set up. I call it prepared, you call it paranoid. Makes little difference to me what others think though.

Yes, that's what Adam Lanza's mom called it, too, according to reports.

It would make a difference to you what others think if the other was a psychiatrist deciding whether or not your paranoia was a symptom of mental illness.

 

[Nessie]

Just this point. A right is something that one needs not apply to authorities in order to exercise. Simply because gun ownership is a privilege frequently granted does not make it a right. You have no equivalent right in the UK.

So going by the argument anyone who buys a gun in the USA and has to subject themselves to a background check to get a gun and has to have a licence to carry one no longer has the right to bear arms?

We have right to get a gun, just as you have. Just because we proudly have an unwritten consitution, as you proudly have a written one, does not mean we do not have the right to a gun. British civilians, at first primarily the nobility and then their men required to have been possessing guns since they were invented and first brought to the UK probably from Italy in the C14th and muskets were commonplace by the C16th.

Your argument fails in both aspects.

 

[Quad4_72]

No. I simply feel that having so many guns in your home denotes a marked and unhealthy fear of home invasion. Again, I don't know your situation so it's at best an uninformed guess.

Again comes the implication of some deranged paranoia that myself and other prepared gun owners have. We don't live in fear whatsoever. We don't stay up at night listening for strange sounds, and we aren't fearful of home invasions. We are well aware of the rarity of such an occasion, as we are also aware of the consequences that could possibly come from not being prepared for such a rare occurrence. We have taken what we believe are necessary precautions, and that's it. Other then that, we live as normally as any other individual.

 

[Quad4_72]

They don't allow you to carry firearms (as private citizens) at bars, clubs et al in the US do they?

Generally if an establishment makes I think it's 80% of it's sales in alcohol, that is off limits to firearms. States rights vary, but I believe that is pretty much the norm.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, the people who are paranoid don't seek treatment anyway, because they don't think they're sick. So there's actually no change there in the number of paranoid people seeking treatment.

However, people whose illnesses begin as children cannot avoid seeking treatment in favor of preserving an ability to legally own a weapon, because they end up being taken to treatment by their parents regardless of their objections (and therefore will end up on the list).

If this sort of blind inclusive list-making is too unfair, do you think perhaps mental health assessments solely for the purpose of purchasing a gun might be a better way to go?

No, I think registration and tracking of all fire arms would be reasonable. I would even say that the fees could be nominal at best. My biggest concern is the illegal arms trade. Requiring that all firearms owners have an FOID, which I hope is law, would be good as well.

The bast majority of gun deaths do not occur because of massacres, which we should address, but through the sheer prevalence of unregulated firearms.

I do not want to remove firearms, I want them to be registered and tracked.

Sure a mental health assessment would be a nice palliative touch, but little more than that. I think making battery a class four felony would help as well.

 

[Ambrosia]

How familiar are you with firearms? Are you aware that the rifle he had could be reloaded by the average guy in about 4 seconds? If he was proficient that time would be even less.

I am not familiar with firearms.

Lets suggest that this shooter was reasonably proficient with this rifle and could reload in 3 seconds.

How much time does it take for a person to say leap out from behind a desk and tackle a reloading shooter to the floor?

How much time in addition to those 3 seconds would it take for a surprised shooter to aim and fire his rifle at the person who's trying to disarm him?

If a shooter is rushed in such a way does his reloading time stay at around 3 seconds, or is he more likely to fumble the operation and take significantly longer?

But HOW? As I stated previously, reducing the number of guns a psycho has really isn't the answer.

I think it would help.

 

[JihadJane]

Given that I can't think of a possible reason that a suicide vest could be used as a legitimate means of self defense or for sporting, I would say you have problems.

That's beside the point (strawman argument). What is relevant is whether or not you'd think I was glorifying suicide vests.

I don't know the answer or how it should be addressed. That is the million dollar question right now. Perhaps better screening of our kids in our schools for mental health illnesses. Perhaps better education for the teachers to pick out kids with problems. I don't know, but hopefully someone much smarter then me comes up with a plan.

What is your evidence that there are more crazy people in the US than in other countries?

 

[Quad4_72]

No, I think registration and tracking of all fire arms would be reasonable. I would even say that the fees could be nominal at best. My biggest concern is the illegal arms trade. Requiring that all firearms owners have an FOID, which I hope is law, would be good as well.

The bast majority of gun deaths do not occur because of massacres, which we should address, but through the sheer prevalence of unregulated firearms.

I do not want to remove firearms, I want them to be registered and tracked.

Sure a mental health assessment would be a nice palliative touch, but little more than that. I think making battery a class four felony would help as well.

How do you propose that registering and tracking firearms would cut down on gun violence?

 

[Dancing David]

The point being that the ultimate goal of many of those advocating for tighter firearms restrictions seems to be the total elimination of private firearms ownership with no law being too 'silly' if it promotes that agenda.

Registering and tracking all firearms would not be about taking guns way at all. Gun regulation does not mean removal. But the fact that under the gun show clause anyone can buy a gun is a problem.

I have not researched the gun show clause in depth. I do not want guns removed I want teh sale of guns tracked and the Brady bill enforced.

 

[Nessie]

Sounds like a pretty well laid out plan to me. I have a similar set up. One gun in the kitchen, one in the stand in the living room, one by my bedside, one in the bathroom, and a rifle in the closet. I currently live alone.

I could live in a neighborhood that has never experienced a crime in it's history, and I would still have the same set up. I call it prepared, you call it paranoid. Makes little difference to me what others think though.

Unless all Americans have the attitude you have and all are prepared for armed or other attack, those who want to commit massacres will find places where others do not have a gun to fight back. Considering the number of guns and gun owners in the USA, they never seem to be where a massacre is taking place to stop them.

 

[Quad4_72]

I am not familiar with firearms.

Lets suggest that this shooter was reasonably proficient with this rifle and could reload in 3 seconds.

How much time does it take for a person to say leap out from behind a desk and tackle a reloading shooter to the floor?

How much time in addition to those 3 seconds would it take for a surprised shooter to aim and fire his rifle at the person who's trying to disarm him?

If a shooter is rushed in such a way does his reloading time stay at around 3 seconds, or is he more likely to fumble the operation and take significantly longer?

Ah yes, "What if" scenarios. What you are also forgetting is that it takes time to drop the rifle and pull out the handgun as well. While I agree that is quicker, a quick reload is still pretty fast. There would have to be an individual poised and ready and able to quickly recognize that the individual was reloading in order to leap out and heroically tackle someone from behind a desk. That scenario sounds a lot like fantasy though and is highly unlikely.

 

[Kestrel]

I think we need a change like so;

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of formally-inducted active members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

At the time our nation was founded, tyrants and kings typically restricted military service by religion, ethnicity or clan. Sending your army to suppress a religion, clan or racial group is much easier when the army has no members of that group.

The fact that our modern armed forces are not so restricted makes them a poor tool for a tyrant to use against our own citizens. Interpreting the Second Amendment as giving all citizens the right to bear arms for their nation provides far more protection of our liberty than a personal arsenal.

 

[joesixpack]

So going by the argument anyone who buys a gun in the USA and has to subject themselves to a background check to get a gun and has to have a licence to carry one no longer has the right to bear arms?

We have right to get a gun, just as you have. Just because we proudly have an unwritten consitution, as you proudly have a written one, does not mean we do not have the right to a gun. British civilians, at first primarily the nobility and then their men required to have been possessing guns since they were invented and first brought to the UK probably from Italy in the C14th and muskets were commonplace by the C16th.

Your argument fails in both aspects.

No, you are confused here. If I must apply for a permit, then it is no longer a right. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate a need. In the US it is the state's burden to demonstrate that you are not allowed to own a gun, the presumptive being that you are. You are not asking for the right to own a gun, you are giving the state opportunity to demonstrate that you should not have one. They are unable to say "no" without demonstrating that you are a danger.

ETA; The background check must be completed within a definite time window. If the government fails to respond within 7 days (I believe) to the request, the transfer takes place. A transfer is not a "license".

 

[IDB87]

Unless all Americans have the attitude you have and all are prepared for armed or other attack, those who want to commit massacres will find places where others do not have a gun to fight back. Considering the number of guns and gun owners in the USA, they never seem to be where a massacre is taking place to stop them.

Allow me to field the response on behalf of the pro-gun side:

The simple solution to your concern is to arm people like teachers, librarians, convenience store owners, busboys, nurses, etc.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yes the Army does go to the range. But many of us are avid shooters in our personal time as well. So again, should that right be taken away from me because a lone nut wants to go on a shooting rampage?

Of course not. As Jefferson himself noted, the loss of lives in the persuit of liberty is to be expected and it must be refreshed by the blood of patriots...

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.​

Especially 6 year old patriots giving their lives so folks like you can be "avid shooters" - just like the guys at Virginia Tech, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and Newtown were.

Their blood is on your hands.