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

[Myron Proudfoot]

we do lots about them.
1. we pray!
2. we Tweet our sympathies.
3. We change our Facebook status!
4. We put flowers around the site of the shootings.
5. If it was kids that were killed, we put teddy bears at the memorials! Teddy Bears don't grown on trees you know.

if there are any other actions we could take I sure haven't heard of them!!!!

 

[Ranb]

Gun shows?

Anyone required to obtain a bkgd check for a sale away from a gun show is still required to do so at a gun show. Anyone who is not allowed to use the NICS system is also prohibited access to it at gun show.

There is no gunshow loophole; it was something invented by those who have a low opinion of people in general and think any stupid thing they say will be believed.

 

[Ranb]

" Mr. Speaker, the weapon which Sullivan used to kill David Chetcuti was an assault rifle, a class of firearm that many of us thought we had
succeeded in removing from our Nation's streets....

It is sad that anyone could be so ignorant. The AWB of 1994 did not remove a single firearm "from the streets" nor was it intended to. It simply made a short list of guns illegal to manufacture or import for civilian use and banned future manufacture of semi-auto guns with certain features which were easy for most to do without and still remain available as "post-ban" versions. Are we supposed to be convinced that this person's naivete is somehow a noble gesture?

 

[cullennz]

Anyone required to obtain a bkgd check for a sale away from a gun show is still required to do so at a gun show. Anyone who is not allowed to use the NICS system is also prohibited access to it at gun show.

There is no gunshow loophole; it was something invented by those who have a low opinion of people in general and think any stupid thing they say will be believed.

25-50% of gun show sales are "allegedly" private

Gun shows present a special case, in that large numbers of licensed retailers and private-party sellers are active in the same setting and competing for customers.16,20,21

Between 25% and 50% of firearm sellers who rent table space at gun shows are private
parties.16,20 Such tables frequently carry “Private Sale” signs conveying the message that purchases require no paperwork, no background check, no waiting period, no recordkeeping. Individual attendees who do not rent table space but bring firearms to sell are common. In a study by the author, as many as 31.6% of gun show attendees were armed, and many of these were unambiguously offering their firearms for sale.20

 

[Ranb]

25-50% of gun show sales are "allegedly" private

Which does not mean a bkgd check wasn't obtained.

I can make a private sale of the firearms I've made, but the buyer has to obtain ATF authorization before I deliver it to them.

Where are you getting your numbers from? So does this mean that 25 to 50 guns were bought in the USA at gun shows or 25000 to 50000 guns?

Here are some numbers; might be accurate, might not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/

Clinton claims, “Forty percent of guns are sold at gun shows, online sales.” It seems only 35.7% of a sample of 251 people claimed to have bought their gun from other than a licensed dealer. Is your data as sad as Clinton's?

 

[BStrong]

It is sad that anyone could be so ignorant. The AWB of 1994 did not remove a single firearm "from the streets" nor was it intended to. It simply made a short list of guns illegal to manufacture or import for civilian use and banned future manufacture of semi-auto guns with certain features which were easy for most to do without and still remain available as "post-ban" versions. Are we supposed to be convinced that this person's naivete is somehow a noble gesture?

Exactly.

Tom Lantos never bothered himself with the facts.

 

[cullennz]

Which does not mean a bkgd check wasn't obtained.

I can make a private sale of the firearms I've made, but the buyer has to obtain ATF authorization before I deliver it to them.

Where are you getting your numbers from? So does this mean that 25 to 50 guns were bought in the USA at gun shows or 25000 to 50000 guns?

Here are some numbers; might be accurate, might not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/

Clinton claims, “Forty percent of guns are sold at gun shows, online sales.” It seems only 35.7% of a sample of 251 people claimed to have bought their gun from other than a licensed dealer. Is your data as sad as Clinton's?

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/CBC White Paper Final Report 022013.pdf

 

[BStrong]

Pointing out one states laws while ignoring others does your argument no good

It should be federal

I cited federal law and explained that states are generally free to enact or not enact laws that place additional restrictions on firearms sale and possession.

Asserting that firearms sales are unregulated when the facts in evidence state otherwise just doesn't just make your argument no good, it perpetuates misinformation.

Since I recently had a discussion in RW where somebody I know stated that the law in California was such that "anyone can walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun for cash, no questions asked" I'm not surprised.

 

[Ranb]

From the link;

But perhaps 40% of all firearm acquisitions, and at least 80% of those
made with criminal intent, are made from private parties. No identification need be
shown; no background check is conducted; no record is kept.

There's that 40% claim again. Never let facts get in the way of your (Garen Wintemute's) claims. To be fair he later goes on to show us the numbers and how poor the claim is.

Because federal statutes do not regulate private transfers, persons ages 18-20 may legally purchase handguns from private parties.

Title 18 Part I Chapter 44 section 922 prohibits sales to certain persons.

This is one of the better pieces I've read on gun control.

25-50% of gun show sales are "allegedly" private

25% - 50% of sellers (Wintemute) does not equate to 25% - 50% of sales (your claim).

 

[cullennz]

I cited federal law and explained that states are generally free to enact or not enact laws that place additional restrictions on firearms sale and possession.

Asserting that firearms sales are unregulated when the facts in evidence state otherwise just doesn't just do your argument no good, it perpetuates misinformation.

Since I recently had a discussion in RW where somebody I know stated that the law in California was such that "anyone can walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun for cash, no questions asked" I'm not surprised.

But they aren't regulated in the massive market of so called "private" gun sales at gun shows which make up such a huge proportion

 

[truethat]

The point I'm making is that background checks as they are done right now are NOT WORKING.

We have tons of rights in this country which we regulate in a more strict way in order to protect public safety, especially when it's related to TERRORISM. Mass shootings are a form of terrorism.

I find it ironic that the people who an concede that shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater is a just exception to the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech, cannot realize that carrying a loaded gun into a crowded theater is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they talked about a "Well Regulated Militia."

Or do you all believe that when the Government plans it's tyrannical take over, they are going to storm the movie theaters?

 

[Polaris]

This is the statement that I say that people talk about as if they are being patriotic when they are just being stupid.

Let's reword that to reflect the real issue. "Better a school full of children be killed than an innocent man be denied a gun due process be chucked in the trash can."

That's what you're actually saying when you say that.

False dichotomy, special pleading, straw man and appeal to emotion all wrapped up in one concise post. Bravo! All the same, I FTFY.

Seriously, your proposed solution rubs elbows with secret government lists and official harassment of "undesirables".

 

[truethat]

False dichotomy, special pleading, straw man and appeal to emotion all wrapped up in one concise post. Bravo! All the same, I FTFY.

Seriously, your proposed solution rubs elbows with secret government lists and official harassment of "undesirables".

It does? What do you call body scans in airports and making people take off their shoes and "watch lists" for profiling people getting on planes?

What do you call mandatory reporting for people that buy lots of the same guns?

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center...firearms-sales-or-other-disposition-reporting

The Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales or other dispositions of handguns to the same purchaser.

The sale or disposition of two or more handguns must be reported if they occur at the same time, or within five consecutive business days of each other.

ATF views the recovery of one or more firearms used in crimes that were part of a multiple purchase as an indicator of firearms trafficking.

What do you call limits on the amount of Sudafed a person can buy? And control lists for Pharmacists to electronically track the sales?

http://www.ncbop.org/faqs/Pharmacist/faq_MethamphetamineAct.htm


Reporting seems logical to me. The Gun store owner had to legally sell Omar Mateen his gun. But he reported him to the FBI as a suspicious gun buyer.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/0...cious-customer-weeks-before-orlando-shooting/


Because Omar Mateen had a 'clean record' they weren't able to do anything.

But if you have a database, and in that database if you'd need to get to a certain number of points, it would prevent a one time incident in a person's life from preventing them from buying a gun. But also create a way to prevent a dangerous person from buying a gun.

The argument I keep seeing is that you'd rather risk the death of dozens of people than to prevent someone who is not dangerous but has mistakenly been identified as such from buying a gun.

Well there could EASILY be an appeal process to this. In other words, you could go to court with character references and appeal the rejected application.

So for example, you'd be excluded and required to appeal the decision if you came up with 9 points on this list

• Domestic violence complaint 3 points
  
• Any prior arrests 3 points
  
• DUI conviction 3 points
  
• History of restraining order 3 points
  
• Public complaint 3 points
  
• Discretion of the gun store 3 points

Granted with this system you could have a vengeful ex that tries to prevent you from being able to buy a gun, but you'd be able to appeal this in court.

Additionally, we're talking about the right to have a gun. The majority of people in the United States do not own guns and we're doing just fine. So worst case scenario you are framed and innocent and still denied the ability to buy a gun, you are just living like anyone else who doesn't own a gun.

The percentage of households that have a gun has been falling pretty steadily since the 1970s, to 31% in 2014, as shown in a report this year from NORC, a social sciences research group at the University of Chicago that has been surveying Americans for decades.

http://qz.com/518477/charted-this-i...ica-that-has-a-big-impact-on-national-policy/

 

[Polaris]

It does? What do you call body scans in airports and making people take off their shoes and "watch lists" for profiling people getting on planes?

What do you call mandatory reporting for people that buy lots of the same guns?

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center...firearms-sales-or-other-disposition-reporting




What do you call limits on the amount of Sudafed a person can buy? And control lists for Pharmacists to electronically track the sales?

http://www.ncbop.org/faqs/Pharmacist/faq_MethamphetamineAct.htm

I call those irrelevant because they're not preventing specific people from buying anything and in most of your cases they're not preventing anybody from buying anything at all.

The airport removal of shoes I call security theater - a farce. I also don't agree with the No Fly List because of the same due process reasons.

The argument I keep seeing is that you'd rather risk the death of dozens of people than to prevent someone who is not dangerous but has mistakenly been identified as such from buying a gun.

That might be the argument you're seeing but it's not the argument people have been making, and this is where the fallacies I listed come in. "If you don't like my idea then you're in favor of DEAD CHILDREN!!!11!!" What people are saying is that we're not in favor of scores of dead people, but your idea stinks and there must be another way.

If someone is so dangerous that they should be prevented from have a gun, then charge them with something and lock them up if they're convicted! If you wouldn't strip them of any other rights using the same standard, but because it's guns you're willing to overlook that, that's the definition of special pleading.

Well there could EASILY be an appeal process to this. In other words, you could go to court with character references and appeal the rejected application.

So for example, you'd be excluded and required to appeal the decision if you came up with 9 points on this list

• Domestic violence complaint 3 points
  
• Any prior arrests 3 points
  
• DUI conviction 3 points
  
• History of restraining order 3 points
  
• Public complaint 3 points
  
• Discretion of the gun store 3 points

From the rest of your post it's clear that you see the great potential for abuse of your system, but you don't care because reasons.

Granted with this system you could have a vengeful ex that tries to prevent you from being able to buy a gun, but you'd be able to appeal this in court.

Additionally, we're talking about the right to have a gun. The majority of people in the United States do not own guns and we're doing just fine. So worst case scenario you are framed and innocent and still denied the ability to buy a gun, you are just living like anyone else who doesn't own a gun.




http://qz.com/518477/charted-this-i...ica-that-has-a-big-impact-on-national-policy/

Do you have any idea how pompous that sounds? Most people don't lead protests and opposition movements. Would you as glibly strip them of their rights to do so because a vindictive ex had an axe to grind? After all, opposition movements have been known to attract fringe elements and give them an excuse to commit violence. What's better, dozens of dead people or a whiny contrarian not annoying us anymore?

 

[truethat]

I think you are being melodramatic in your reply. The point is when public safety is at risk more than normal then we do things in society to regulate it.

I'm not saying you want dead children, I'm saying that the argument presented has all the logic of saying that. Obviously that's not what you mean but that's actually what you are saying.


Take the example I gave before about Sex Offender lists and what constitutes a Sex Offender.

There are quite a few examples of someone getting caught up in this in a way that is a corruption of the original intention of the law.

For example, a 17 year old boy dating a 15 year old girl. The boy is black and the girl's mother is racist. A few months after he turns 18 she has him arrested for "Statutory Rape." Even if he winds up marrying his girlfriend he's on the Sex Offender list for the rest of his life. This causes restrictions in the way he can live his life. He can never become a teacher, he can never use internet chat rooms, he can't live in certain areas.

There are quite a few cases of this happening or something similar.

http://www.today.com/id/43909060/ns...-offender-sleeping-his-own-wife/#.V5_VVLgrK70

This is a huge problem with the law and yet people consider it worth the risk of something happening to an innocent person because we consider the safety of children more important. This is a law that is easy to abuse. The purpose of the law is to protect children. Not to be used to ruin someone's life who is innocent.

Not being able to own a gun doesn't impact a person's life in the same way. And since the restriction would be able to be appealed, I fail to see why you are treating it so severely.

Worst case scenario is that an innocent person is restricted from buying a gun and has to live like someone who doesn't own a gun. Nearly 70% of this country doesn't own a gun and we're doing FINE. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[Polaris]

I think you are being melodramatic in your reply. The point is when public safety is at risk more than normal then we do things in society to regulate it.

I'm not saying you want dead children, I'm saying that the argument presented has all the logic of saying that. Obviously that's not what you mean but that's actually what you are saying.


Take the example I gave before about Sex Offender lists and what constitutes a Sex Offender.

There are quite a few examples of someone getting caught up in this in a way that is a corruption of the original intention of the law.

For example, a 17 year old boy dating a 15 year old girl. The boy is black and the girl's mother is racist. A few months after he turns 18 she has him arrested for "Statutory Rape." Even if he winds up marrying his girlfriend he's on the Sex Offender list for the rest of his life. This causes restrictions in the way he can live his life. He can never become a teacher, he can never use internet chat rooms, he can't live in certain areas.

This is a huge problem with the law and yet people consider it worth the risk of something happening to an innocent person because we consider the safety of children more important. This is law that is easy to abuse. The purpose of the law is to protect children. Not to be used to ruin someone's life who is innocent.

Not being able to own a gun doesn't impact a person's life in the same way. And since the restriction would be able to be appealed, I fail to see why you are treating it so severely.

Worst case scenario is that an innocent person is restricted from buying a gun and has to live like someone who doesn't own a gun. Nearly 70% of this country doesn't own a gun and we're doing FINE. It's not that big of a deal.

The fact that the Sex Offender list is used to ruin people's lives is still unacceptable even if a majority are okay with it. You seem to be less than okay WRT that fact, but you don't have any problem with the same state of affairs should it prevent someone from owning a gun even if they've done nothing wrong.

I'm treating it severely because, unlike you, I can't hand-wave away the potential for abuse - and not just a vengeful ex. Rights are rights, and you can't pick and choose which ones are okay to infringe upon based on your personal preferences.

 

[HenryLee]

I find it ironic that the people who an concede that shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater is a just exception to the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech...

Show me the law that says I can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

 

[truethat]

The fact that the Sex Offender list is used to ruin people's lives is still unacceptable even if a majority are okay with it. You seem to be less than okay WRT that fact, but you don't have any problem with the same state of affairs should it prevent someone from owning a gun even if they've done nothing wrong.

I'm treating it severely because, unlike you, I can't hand-wave away the potential for abuse - and not just a vengeful ex. Rights are rights, and you can't pick and choose which ones are okay to infringe upon based on your personal preferences.

Right so as I'm pointing out, your argument is that you consider it worth the risk of dozens of people to be killed rather than preventing a person who is innocent from being able to own a gun.

It's a stupid argument.

 

[Ranb]

Show me the law that says I can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

As far as I know there isn't one. But the courts have said it is not protected speech. Here is some background on the idea; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Right so as I'm pointing out, your argument is that you consider it worth the risk of dozens of people to be killed rather than preventing a person who is innocent from being able to own a gun.

It's a stupid argument.

Preventing people owning guns would prevent shootings. But you would take ALL guns, starting with illegal ones. Starting with "responsible owners" will solve nothing. In the first place, they won't give you their guns. They will rather risk having illegal gun hidden somewhere, than being unarmed. And nobody knows how many guns people have ..
Gun control must be slow and gradual. All countries which have total gun control now were working on it for decades, typically already before WW2. And no country in the world has a history so tightly connected with guns and being able to defend yourself as US.
As I said, I would appeal to responsibility, and start with registration, handling exams, things like that. Also I would work on dissolving myths like "we need guns to keep government in check".