Why doesn't the US do something about mass shootings?

[AdamSK]

A dude jumping out of a plane without a parachute is a media sensation.

But not a reason to change airline safety regulations?

Mass shootings are real. And they're a problem.

What percentage of homicides in the US are attributable to mass shootings?

On what date, this year, did the homicide total in the US for the year so far equal the bloodiest mass shooting in American history?

 

[NoahFence]

But not a reason to change airline safety regulations?

Not when he does it on purpose.

What percentage of homicides in the US are attributable to mass shootings?

On what date, this year, did the homicide total in the US for the year so far equal the bloodiest mass shooting in American history?

Irrelevant mumbo jumbo. Are there mass shootings? Yes. Should we try to fix the problem? Yes.

that's all.

 

[truethat]

But not a reason to change airline safety regulations?


What percentage of homicides in the US are attributable to mass shootings?

On what date, this year, did the homicide total in the US for the year so far equal the bloodiest mass shooting in American history?

This is a game of equivocation. Shootings are one thing. But terrorist attack type mass shootings are a real problem.

There will always be gun homicides as long as there are guns in this country, which we agree will not change.

However, what is happening now is that there is a specific type of terrorist attack related to shootings.

When we realized that terrorists were able to sneak weapons and bombs onto planes in their shoes, we regulated it better. We made people take off their shoes in the airports.

When we realized that people were using Sudafed to make Meth, we regulated the sale of Sudafed.

When we realized that people were using our gun laws to traffic weapons we regulated the sale of multiple weapons to the same person.

When we realized that fertilizer was being used to make bombs we started investigating and now we are regulating the sale of ammonium nitrate.

When it starts to really seem like a problem that is putting the public safety at risk, we REGULATE IT.

So what needs to be regulated in this case is the type of preferred weapon used by these nut job "terrorists."

I fail to see how this infringes on the rights of responsible gun owners.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

When people in even this very thread call for banning "the AR" I can't help but wonder, once again, what exactly they think they need to ban? Gas operated semi automatic rifles? Semi auto rifles collectively? Rifles that use .233 aka 5.56mm ammo? Or just scary black rifles? Or any firearm utilizing the rotating star-bolt designed by Eugene Stoner?

Is it magazine capacity?

Does it need to have separate upper and lower receiver pieces?

Do I need to post the Hello Kitty AR pictures again?



{full disclosure: I'm an armed leftist, and have many times called for training, licensing and insurance for firearms - and had to put my own thread on the subject on Ignore because some of you people are incapable of following simple instructions.}

 

[truethat]

Detailed background checks would work for me.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

We have detailed background checks already.

Next step?

 

[truethat]

Do better ones. The guy who did the Orlando shootings had already been investigated. I get the whole "tyranny of the government" and "personal freedom" schtick that's been done to death. But we have a long way to go before that starts happening.

Ease of access to guns that are used in these types of attacks can make a fantasy a reality to the perpetrator.

We need to have stricter limits on who has access to guns. The problem with those who insist that "everyone has a right to a gun" is that they pretend the bad guys are all somehow street savvy criminals who can easily hook up with a gun they want to buy.

They also act like they are being patriotic instead of stupid when they are essentially arguing "I'd rather let a school full of children be shot into smithereens than deny an American the right to own a gun, as is their right!!!"

They try to spin that into some "I disagree with what you say but I shall fight to the death your right to say it" nonsense.

We need to accept that SOME people are going to be unfairly denied the right to own a gun because of their own behavior regardless of freedom of speech or freedom to live as one chooses, religious freedoms etc etc etc.

If you are the type of person who is so worried about Government take over, then I suggest you throw in with a bunch of guys who agree with you but make sure they are responsible gun owners and don't walk around threatening people or getting arrested for fighting with people.

In the future since said background checks seem to accomplish NOTHING, then it can't just be a medical diagnosis that is the litmus test.

Any reports of you threatening anyone, reported anonymously but backed up with evidence.

Any history of violence and hurting or attacking others. (Domestic violence, child abuse, fighting with coworkers)

Any reports on you on these types of things and you don't get to buy lots of guns.

 

[Tero]

It's just one of them areas where Americans decide that the arms race is best for "you", the heck with anybody else:
SUVs, guns, Trump. Bigger is better or penis rules.

As far as guns go, we will have to deny some people, aside from convicted felons, the guns. Make gun possession a felony if you were denied a permit.

 

[BStrong]

Excellent point. Did you also notice that when the shootings of Black Men carrying weapons with permits happened the NRA said absolutely nothing?

So it's ok for us to have open carry in this country. But when cops shoot black men legally carrying guns, it's not the same issue and the NRA is suddenly silent?

Someone once said that once Sandy Hook went down the debate on gun control was essentially over, because once Americans became OK with children being killed the limits have been set.

In my opinion, the issue needs to be addressed by discussing the "Well Regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment. Regulation is the only way we will be able to do anything because the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct and people are not willing to touch them.

But there is a possibility to focus on regulating weapons. What can be sold, banning Gun Shows or at least requiring background checks before leaving shows.

It is disgraceful and embarrassing as an American that our country isn't doing more to solve this problem. We look like gun savages to the rest of the world. And as you point out, it seems like everyone is waiting for "someone else to solve the problem."

When shootings happen we get a lot of speeches, hand wringing and promises to do something and then nothing ever changes.

And the NRA is hiding under the skirts of the 2nd Amendment instead of being a leader in guns. They need to stop pretending this is an issue of Freedom and realize that it's an issue of RESPONSIBILITY and take responsibility for promoting proper responsible gun control instead of painting it as the evil government is trying to take their guns away.

We don't need to take the guns away to promote responsible gun ownership.

(hmmm what's this? I'm reading the thread and I'm seeing Americans not being unwilling to admit there is a real problem with our country. I'm not seeing Americans shifting the conversation to discuss another country instead. You don't say?)

Could you cite an example of the NRA commenting on the shooting by police of an individual with a concealed carry license?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Here in Czech Republic we have shooter license, and you have to pass an exam from related laws and also from safe handling (you even have to hit the target). It has to be refreshed every 10 years. You also need medical exam, but there is no mandatory psychological test. That might change, as we had mad legal owner mass shooting case recently.
Self defense is special category of the shooter license, but it requires no special requirement, and it should be issued, unless there is reason.
There are some fees and waiting involved on every step by they are not prohibitive.
You need license for every gun you buy. You can only buy ammo with both licenses.
Generally it's about as complicated as learning to drive and getting driver's license.
You also have to present the gun for inspection at any time, and it's quite easy to loose such license, especially for unsafe handling on public.
What I like about the system is that it allows anyone to own a gun, even for self defense, but since it's registered, it also makes you personally responsible for it.
It prevents middle man purchases. It allows confiscation of guns in the moment you break the conditions to own one. It makes owner care where they weapons are and how they are stored.
I know many US folks oppose idea of government knowing what weapons they have. Well I want the government to know who has what guns.
True, Norway has similar system, and it didn't prevent Breivik to get guns. But then he is "generally sane" person, with no prior record. The goal of such system is to get guns of people as soon as there is any problem, legal or psychological. And you must know they have them in the first place.

I think US should go this way, rather than banning irrelevant features on ARs. I would understand magazine size, but pistol grip ? Barrel threading ? That just shows incompetence ..

 

[truethat]

It's just one of them areas where Americans decide that the arms race is best for "you", the heck with anybody else:
SUVs, guns, Trump. Bigger is better or penis rules.

As far as guns go, we will have to deny some people, aside from convicted felons, the guns. Make gun possession a felony if you were denied a permit.

This is really what's going to have to happen. We have two options it seems. Either "people are going to die because a lunatic slipped through the background check." or "Background checks might unfairly deny someone a gun."

Well guess what? I've never had a gun in my life, never wanted one, will never own one. I'm fine. The poor schmuck who is unfairly denied their gun will just have to deal with being one of us regular ol' people who doesn't need or want a gun. It's fine, trust me. They'll get over it just fine.

Being shot is much harder to get over than not being able to buy a gun.

 

[Polaris]

Would it be possible to put the "scary black rifles" into a category similar to Class II? (Question is generally directed toward RanB, for the legal ins and outs). Not to price them out of most people's reach (and they're fairly expensive as it is), but for the additional hoops one's required to jump through that will hopefully weed out those who want to put holes in people rather than paper targets and feral pigs.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

(re background checks upthread)

Do better ones. The guy who did the Orlando shootings had already been investigated.

These two statements contradict. How does the FBI crawling up Mateen's ass and through his garbage and finding no connections with terrorism prove that "better" background checks would save lives? Does every single firearm purchaser need the FBI investigation Mateen had, or more? In what way? I had a Top Secret security clearance and the investigation, while thorough, missed many very significant details about me and accepted certain statements at face value.

The background check for firearms really is just a record search to find people who are on any of various lists. Mental health and medical records are not among them.

 

[truethat]

I added more to the post than that.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I added more to the post than that.

And I will address individual components of any random post to which I reply in any order and timing I choose, or not at all.

Respond to the comments I make then complain about the ones I don't.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Here in Czech Republic we have shooter license, and you have to pass an exam from related laws and also from safe handling (you even have to hit the target). It has to be refreshed every 10 years. You also need medical exam, but there is no mandatory psychological test. That might change, as we had mad legal owner mass shooting case recently.
Self defense is special category of the shooter license, but it requires no special requirement, and it should be issued, unless there is reason.
There are some fees and waiting involved on every step by they are not prohibitive.
You need license for every gun you buy. You can only buy ammo with both licenses.
Generally it's about as complicated as learning to drive and getting driver's license.
You also have to present the gun for inspection at any time, and it's quite easy to loose such license, especially for unsafe handling on public.
What I like about the system is that it allows anyone to own a gun, even for self defense, but since it's registered, it also makes you personally responsible for it.
It prevents middle man purchases. It allows confiscation of guns in the moment you break the conditions to own one. It makes owner care where they weapons are and how they are stored.
I know many US folks oppose idea of government knowing what weapons they have. Well I want the government to know who has what guns.
True, Norway has similar system, and it didn't prevent Breivik to get guns. But then he is "generally sane" person, with no prior record. The goal of such system is to get guns of people as soon as there is any problem, legal or psychological. And you must know they have them in the first place.

I think US should go this way, rather than banning irrelevant features on ARs. I would understand magazine size, but pistol grip ? Barrel threading ? That just shows incompetence ..

This sounds like a rational system that functions as designed. I've suggested methods by which we could use something like this in the US without a specific registry of who has guns, or what guns they have. They've been poorly received by the irrational on both sides.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

We need to have stricter limits on who has access to guns. The problem with those who insist that "everyone has a right to a gun" is that they pretend the bad guys are all somehow street savvy criminals who can easily hook up with a gun they want

I would like to address this comment but I'm not quite positive I understand you and hesitate to go the wrong direction. Can you expand upon this point for clarification please?

 

[truethat]

I did in the post. We can't rely on "Medical diagnosis" of mental illness because some people have not been diagnosed. And as you point out, we certainly can't waste tons of money on researching everyone else.

So instead we have to change the law and basically we're going to have to make rules based on behavior of the person a litmus on the background check.

For example, if someone has a history of Domestic Violence complaints against them, someone who has a history of violence. IOW reports at work for fighting (physically) with coworkers. Someone who has been accused of making threats against people. Someone who has been arrested even if they are not convicted. Anyone with a DUI conviction etc.

It would be fairly easy to set it up as a database. There will be a certain number of code points. For example, one fight at work could have some rational reason behind it. But once you pass a thresh hold of code points, you can no longer buy a gun. You'll just have to live like the rest of us in the country that don't own guns. (We're fine, in case you are wondering)

And what the pro gun people are going to have to accept is that somewhere along the line there will probably be cases of people where a vindictive friend or ex girlfriend or whatever, calls up and reports the person and he is unfairly denied the right to have a gun.

A similar comparison is how someone could manipulate the use of a restraining order to affect a police officer's job. If they have a restraining order against them, they can't use their weapon which affects their job (if I'm wrong about this please correct me.)

So the point is that it's better to deny a law abiding citizen who has been lied about, the right to buy a gun, than it is to risk a lunatic getting one.

 

[AdamSK]

Irrelevant mumbo jumbo. Are there mass shootings? Yes. Should we try to fix the problem? Yes.

How do we know when we've fixed the problem? My your own admission, it's not about "prevention," just "mitigation." Mass shootings are statistically insignificant as a source of death, even as a source of homicide. I'd say they're "mitigated."

Instead of worrying about more gun legislation, why not mandate that every vehicle on the road be autonomous by the end of the decade? That would save a thousand times as many lives as preventing every mass shooting ever.

 

[AdamSK]

IFor example, if someone has a history of Domestic Violence complaints against them, someone who has a history of violence. IOW reports at work for fighting (physically) with coworkers. Someone who has been accused of making threats against people. Someone who has been arrested even if they are not convicted. Anyone with a DUI conviction etc.

How you feel about the fact that the database you just set up is mostly going to be flagging poor Americans and black Americans?