These Gun Safety Ideas WOULD Reduce Mass Killings
The following ideas would, I think, go a long way to REDUCE (not eliminate) mass killings in particular and death by gun overall.
1. Heavily regulate ownership of any weapon classified as "semi-automatic", whether pistol or rifle.
2. Heavily regulate possession of any magazine over 10 rounds (you don't need more than that to protect yourself).
3. Approve universal background checks (meaning ALL transfers of ANY gun).
4. Raise age to buy any gun to 21.
5. Allow federal agencies to study the effect of guns on society
6. Allow federal agencies to maintain databases of all guns used in crimes
7. Mandate that all state and federal law enforcement agencies share criminal use of guns with the FBI.
8. Go back to 1960s laws regarding helping people with mental health issues
9. Increase the number of red flags as part of the background check
10. Register guns and require annual or bi-annual proof of possession of any gunYour list seems like something you'd in North Korea, Cuba and other such examples of less than free societies. #4 is really ridiculous. You're going to tell an 18 year old they can go to war, be in firefights with M-16s, fires tanks, rocket launchers, grenades....but they can't be trusted to go home and have a gun? Seriously? Of course #1 is a classic as well as "All" guns sold legally are semi-automatic. This just means you pull the trigger once, and one bullet is ejected. #6..."Allow federal agencies to study the effects of guns on society. What's stopping them? Who says you only need 10 rounds to protect yourself? You need to stop making stuff up and realize you really don't understand the situation. I found your suggestions to be a good source of humor.
No, it reads like it would save a lot of lives. In NK, Cuba, etc citizens are not allowed to have any guns. My proposals don't take guns from anybody other than those who shouldn't have them.
As to #4, my step-son made the same argument. It is a good argument, but it in my way of thinking, there is no comparison between the 18 year old who is just kicking around just being a kid and the 18 year old who is mature enough to join the military, subject themselves to very rigorous training and discipline as well as serious firearms training. The former is too immature to own a gun while the latter has proved he or she is quite mature.
What is stopping the federal agencies? How about NRA-backed laws that make it illegal, from the ATF to the CDC.
I would think you would know the definition of a semi-automatic; you know, the kind of weapon whose cycle consists of extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. Revolvers don't do that, bolt action rifles don't do that, you get my point.
If the FL shooter, either one, had a bolt action rifle, how many people do you think would be alive today?You proposal punishes responsible gun owners. Remember, gun laws only punish the law abiding, they have no affect on the lawless.
Do you have proof that the NRA prevents the United States government from conducting any type of study? Seriously?
Sorry, # 4 doesn't take into consideration the number of responsible 18 year olds who are responsible enough to own a gun. They shouldn't be punished. I have neighbors who have 18 and 19 year old sons who are very good guys and own weapons. I have no problem with it. They were raised with guns in their home.
Again, as I've said before, a gun is an inanimate object. It is only as dangerous as the person who uses it.
The same with knives. Hundreds of people are stabbed each year and many are stabbed to death. Should we be ban knives? Should people have to register their knives? Should there be a control put on what knives a person can own? I have a friend who has a collection of combat knives. Should such a collection be illegal? How do we stop all of the stabbings that occur in the United States each year?
Look at the number of stabbings from the FBI criminal report.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … s/table-20
Should we begin a program of "Knife Control?"
There was an incident in Pittsburgh last where a student brought a kitchen knife into a school and stabbed a dozen people. How can we prevent such thing from happening?
Given Australia's experience with "heavily regulating" (banning) semi-automatic rifles, only to see the mass murder rate rise considerably, how do you figure that #1 and #2 will have the opposite effect here?
As the large majority of gun deaths are with illegally obtained weapons, why do you think #3 will reduce either the mass murder rate or even the gun death rate (you cannot possibly expect that guns obtained illegally will have background checks done on them whatever the law says)?
Why do you expect #4 to have much effect at all, given that very few killers under 21 use their own, legally obtained, guns?
Why to you expect a national database of all guns used in crimes will reduce the murder rate?
Why do you expect registration of guns to reduce the number killed in mass murders? Do you believe that knowing the cops have a record of a gun will prevent a madman from stealing and using it to kill with, or prevent an insane owner from killing with it or any other weapon?
It's one thing to say you believe these things, it's quite another to give factual, well reasoned arguments to support them. Can you expound on the "why" of your belief?Love to see the data that supports the claim that mass murder rates increased considering the following research done by the University of Sydney on the topic:
From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.
The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards, the study found.
In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.None of your information concerns mass murders - the closest it comes is the smaller subset of mass shootings. So let's answer your question:
20 years prior to 1996 (1974 through 1995): 78 mass murders in 12 incidents.
20 years post 1996 (1997 through 2017): 242 dead in 13 incidents. The black friday total is incorrect; it should be 173, but notice that even if the wrong figure is used the number of dead still climbed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires)
It's interesting to note that when the guns were taken away the killers turned to matches, with far more arson cases and far more deadly ones. When we pretend that taking guns means no more deaths it is a complete and total falsehood; an intentional misdirection to appeal to fear and horror and coming to a false conclusion.
And yes, there were at least 2 mass shootings after the gun grab.
Not sure this is going to come through, so it's coming from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _AustraliaI just have to laugh at you sometimes. 120 of those 173 deaths happened when high winds downed power lines and sparked a fire. In fact, according to the same page you pasted, only 12 of the dead were attributed to arson. So let's dial back the false information please.
Oh? I wonder why the Australian sheriff labeled it as murder then.
*edit* looking through a dozen different sites it appears the wiki article is right (it used to say 173), and only 10 deaths were considered to be from arson.
But either way, 10 murdered in the black Saturday fire or 173, it very plainly shows that 1) taking guns did not stop mass gun homicides. It greatly reduced the number but did not end it. And 2) that taking guns did absolutely nothing to end, or reduce by even a single lost life, the people killed in mass murders in Australia over the 20 years prior vs the 20 years post 1996.
Is it comforting to know that those killed in mass murders, although still dead, were not shot to death?"taking guns did not stop mass gun homicides. It greatly reduced the number but did not end it. " - DUH, who ever said it would end anything?? As previously stated, these reasonable restrictions will R E D U C E the number of dead from semi-automatic fire.
Now I know reducing the number of dead kids. or adults for that matter, is not high on your side's agenda of important things such as not keeping weapons of war out of the hands of civilians. That continuing the carnage is more preferable to greatly reducing semi-automatic weapons available to mow down innocent people. How do I know, because I have been told that by my own step-son as he tried to justify that killing one person is as bad as killing 100 people and therefore there is not a good reason to keep weapons that can kill massive numbers of people in a few minutes.
"... mass murders - the closest it comes is the smaller subset of mass shootings..." - LOL. Would you care to explain the difference given the subject IS mass shootings? Are you trying to tell me there is a set of "mass shootings" in America that aren't also murder?
I'm telling you that there are mass murders that are NOT mass shootings, and that to pretend that if you can end the shooting it will end the murder is not particularly smart.
Go through the mass murders in Australia since taking guns and you will find only two mass shootings, but a great many mass murders. Which is what we're aiming for when we try to take guns as well, and I really don't think the dead OR the survivors care one iota whether a gun was used or not.
It may be a shock to you, but killers determined to kill (and particularly, it seems to me, those madmen simply out to murder lots of people at a time) will not be stopped if you take their gun or make it harder to get. They WILL kill, and the Aussies found that out the hard way when the incidence of mass murder (but not mass shooting) by matches skyrocketed. They've accomplished nothing by spending millions and curtailing freedom.
Thanks for proving my point about making semi-automatic very hard to own. Your stats cover many different means of killing more than 5 people (one of the most common criteria to earn the term "mass") and they total somewhere around 200 people (if your arson claims are correct). By looking at just ONE mode of mass killing, semi-automatic weapons and counting the just the top 9 instances, the death toll far exceeds your total..
By the way, I only count 79 dead in 13 instances presuming the second column are the number of wounded which is standard in tables like that.But somehow you completely ignored that it didn't matter whether semi-automatics were in the hands of the people or not - pretty close to the same number died either way. So why in the world spend the money and reduce rights...for zero results except to make you feel better that the dead didn't die with a bullet hole in them.
My apologies for the totals - there was confusion about one specific case. When I first saw that chart over 200 were reported murdered in the black saturday fires. Then it changed to 10 (you know how wiki works) and I pulled up a report on the incident where the sheriff corroborated the first figure. I've later done more extensive looking and most of that 200+ died of natural causes, so the total should be 79 for the post 1996 figure.
(The definition of "mass murder" varies according to who is reporting it. The most common figure seems to be over 2, but the Aussies are one of the country that report 2 or more. And some, as you say, call it over 4 or even 5.
Defining mass shootings is hard to do. Most definitions involve something like 4 or 5 people killed, or sometimes killed or wounded, at the same location with no cooling-off period.
What reducing the number of semi-automatic will do, did do after 1994, is significantly reduce the body count in large mass shootings, you know, like Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and most recently Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. If the mass shootings can be kept to revolvers or any other weapon that doesn't self-load after the trigger is pulled.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … 1e72b3fc88
I also noticed that 3.5 and 5.92 NSW 31.9; 25.7; 20;10.5 (I'll get back to these numbers later)Esoteric, if we're to have any kind of rational discussion, you're going to have to get off the gun deaths and talk only murders. I don't care how the dead were murdered! It doesn't matter one iota to me whether by gun, match, car, bomb, plane, knife, rope, hands & feet or pinching the nose closed with a clothespin!
You keep pretending that if we take the gun there won't be a death, but the figures from Australia very, very clearly show that to be false; they took the guns and killers turned to matches. I can't conceive of any earthly reason to think that our experience would be any different; we take the guns and insane killers use a different weapon. You can pretend that a semi-auto rifle will kill more people faster than a bomb and therefore if the killer doesn't have one lives will be saved but it isn't true. When you can show real world experience that I'm wrong, something more that rationalizing that it has to be that way, that logic demands it be that way, all in spite of history that shows otherwise, come back and we'll talk how to end gun murders rather than any murders at all. Until you can do that I'm simply not interested in discussing just how we should go about forcing killers to use a different tool in the forlorn hope they won't use any at all, that if they can't have their favorite gun they will stay home and eat ice cream instead of killing people.
(And you complaining that 78/12=6.5 deaths per incident as opposed to 79/13=6.07 is significant isn't going to cut it. You know as well as I do that the size of the data field is far to small to make any such conclusion).*Edit*
In arson related cases, 83.2% of fires targeted a sole individual. You have really three fires with victim totals in double digits (15, 10, 11).
In fact, if we look at the last 18 years of incidents between mass murders using guns and arson, here are the numbers. In Australia, the arson related homicides from 2000-2018 have death counts of 5, 3, 11, 10, 10, 12 and 15. Grand total dead - 66. And that's only seven cases in 18 years with multiple deaths.
In the same time period, there have been fourteen mass shootings in the United States with fatalities totaling 313 fatalities. Even if arson was being used more, that's a significant amount of lives saved.Won't run the figures, but would guess that in gun murders, 99% targeted a sole individual. Your point, then, is...?
No, you don't get to pick as small a time period as possible to show the difference the buy back made, cherry picking the years so as to give the impression desired. Instead, use as large a period as possible - that 20 years used above without regard to desired results and then look at what happens.
Nor do you get to compare vastly different cultures while trying to claim that the difference in homicides is due solely, or even primarily, to the proliferation of guns in one of them. Fact is that there is zero correlation between homicide rate and gun ownership rate."No, you don't get to pick as small a time period" - 18 years is small??
And you do know, don't you, that the subject is reducing the number of people getting killed in MASS MURDER (since you tossed in arson) events, and not single person engagements.
Of course, we could go back to 1994 (is that long enough?) when Assault Weapons were banned to good effect when deaths from semi-automatic fire plummeted. Of course, they sky-rocketed again when your side stupidly let the ban expire.
Oh, BTW, American culture is different from Japanese culture, but American culture is not significantly different from Australian culture since we both come from the same stock.
"Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%"
I won't dispute that. But I WILL add that the period between 1996 and 2006 did not see the same decline; rather, it was virtually identical with the earlier period prior to the buyback. Given that the buyback occurred entirely over a one year period in 1996 it is more than suspicious that it took 10 years to cause a change in the rate of decline. The pretty obvious conclusion is that it did no such thing; that something other than the buyback eventually changed a slow decline (it was falling, not rising in the 5 years or so prior to the buyback) into a somewhat quicker decline.I won't dispute that. But I WILL add that the period between 1996 and 2006 did not see the same decline; rather, it was virtually identical with the earlier period prior to the buyback.
I think it's important to point out that Australia is an island and shares a boarder with no other country. It's much easier for them to control who gets into their country and who does not. I imagine things would be different if they shared a common boarder with a crime-ridden country like Mexico. THAT is a huge difference between Australia and the United States.
Think about it, because Australia is Continent, it has orders of magnitude more coastlines than the US does. After normal ports of entry into the US, the coast is the next favorite way things are smuggled into America. So bottom line Australia probably has a larger problem keeping guns out, yet No Mass Murders since 1999.
As to the border being a problem at all for the US vis-a-vis guns, did you know that one study shows that 2000 guns PER DAY cross the border ... INTO Mexico. https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analy … every-day/"No Mass Murders since 1999."
LOL you might take a look at the charts above before you make silly statements that are so far removed from reality. 70 people killed in 13 different cases of mass murder is hardly "no mass murders"!
But coastlines: we have a little different problem than Australia with coastlines. To get to theirs you have to cross a thousand miles of open sea; to get to ours just far enough to go around the border, or perhaps 90 miles from cuba. That's quite a difference.
Your link indicates there are "cheap military...weapons available in the US". Have you any idea what those might be or where they can be found? Or do you think "cheap" is relative only; that a military assault rifle costing a couple grand more than a normal semi-auto is considered "cheap"? Maybe army surplus that should have been destroyed but instead is trafficked to Mexico? I wonder what they're talking about?
Wilderness, "Given Australia's experience with "heavily regulating" (banning) semi-automatic rifles, only to see the mass murder rate rise considerably," - Your facts are dead wrong https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
"As the large majority of gun deaths are with illegally obtained weapons, " - First, that is not true either. Since over 50% of all gun deaths are suicides your claim fails. In any case, I am talking about mass murders. In the 9 (i stopped counting) most deadliest slaughters (270), every gun used was acquired legally.
(What is true is that most guns found at crime scenes were illegally acquired)Sorry, but you need to actually read your links. Snopes concerns itself solely with gun homicides rather than all homicides, and violent crime. It does not even mention mass murders. Apples and oranges, and I have to wonder how many times you're going to try and slip that one through the cracks without anyone noticing.
I did speak sloppily, for I never meant to include suicides. Suicide, as far as I'm concerned, is a totally separate issue and not to be considered in gun control debates.
Odd that all the guns were all obtained legally, for I recall one just a few months ago that didn't even belong to the shooter. But again, you're talking apples and oranges, for I mentioned gun deaths (meaning homicide by gun) and you're changing it to mass gun deaths as if all those gang killings aren't gun homicides.
"Why to you expect a national database of all guns used in crimes will reduce the murder rate?" - That is simple. EVERY law enforcement agency will tell you that It improves the odds of solving gun-related crimes, especially cross-state borders, AND by doing so, it takes more illegal guns off the streets.
Ah. So if the cops can find the killer that used a legal weapon he won't kill again. Wonder just how many of those legal owners would ever kill twice anyway?
Don't forget that you will NOT have illegal guns on the database (with their illegal owners) no matter how hard you try. That was the point.You're simply being obtuse now. I keep coming to the conclusion that for some odd reason you don't want to lift a finger to reduce the number of people who die or are wounded from gunshot. Sort of like "stuff happens" so why bother.
No - I asked what registration would do to save lives and you replied that it would help cops find the killer (unstated was that it must be registered). From which I deduce that you think a legal gun owner will kill more than once; that to save the second life (or third, fourth, and so on) he must be found and stopped.
I disagree; I think there are very, very few legal owners, registering their gun, that would ever kill once with it and far fewer that would do it twice if not caught the first time. Simply put, registering guns will not save lives and can only be used to know who has one. The reason for that is obvious.OK, let's try again.
1. You buy a gun and register it (oh, I forgot one of the things to do, test fire the gun to get a ballistics reading)
2. You give sell your gun to a friend (happens a lot normally or through straw purchases)
3. Your friend commits a crime with the gun that was fired.
4. Forensics says it is your gun and they come to arrest you.
5. You tell them you sold your gun to your friend
6. They go arrest your friend, but he doesn't have the gun now, he gave it away to a criminal friend and tells the cops so.
7. The cops go find the criminal friend and recover the gun. The odds are greater than zero that the criminal friend would have shot someone, maybe kill them.
That's just one possible scenario and there are many, many more.Friend, if a legal gun owner "lends" his gun to a "friend" that then gives it to a known criminal that owner should never have had a gun in the first place and didn't have a "friend" at all. Not to mention that your scenario of registration includes any and ALL sales, including gifts.
Yes, you can make up all kinds of wild possibilities, but when we're talking 12,000 murders per year none of them amount to a hill of beans. After all, the odds are greater than zero that the original owner would have shot another 50 people if not caught. .00000000000001 perhaps, but that's greater than zero. We have better things to spend our resources on.The person that purchases the gun in the first place should be held responsible for what happens with that gun in some way. I he sells the gun to someone without certification of some kind, he should be held accountable.
Again, why? To put teeth in a law that does nothing to save lives and can only be used to 1) solve crimes and 2) fill the database of gun owners for whatever use Uncle Sam determines it wants?
Would agree, though, that any buyer should have gone through a background check; that owner that sold it should have required that somehow.
And this says it all about why you take the position you do --- "... but when we're talking 12,000 murders per year none of them amount to a hill of beans."
Man, that is so cold. But you are right, since human life has no meaning to you, I can now understand why you are probably against ANY laws that limits your freedom of action in order to try to reduce the loss of life. So, sad."But you are right, since human life has no meaning to you..."
Stupid, inane and offensive comments do not help your case. Particularly as the exact same can be said of you - you KNOW that taking guns won't prevent anything at all, yet would put our entire program on that basis.
"YOU WANT THE CHILDREN TO DDIIIEEE!" - the rallying cry of the liberal and in more areas than this. Absolute malarkey, an outright lie, but often used when factual, reasoned arguments aren't available. Says something about those that use that ridiculous "argument", doesn't it?
As to why registration is so important to solving and reducing gun related crimes then tell me why
- the vast majority of local and federal law enforcement want it to happen
- the states that do require it are among those with the lowest rate of death by gun
And then there is this from one of the most famous victims turned activist Gabby Giffords (btw, there were at least two people at the shooting with concealed weapons and didn't use them ... I thought that is why they are allowed to have them), don't worry, it is not an opinion piece but chock full of facts. http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/ … istration/"the vast majority of local and federal law enforcement want it to happen "
So they can look good by finding killers even if they didn't stop a murder?
"the states that do require it are among those with the lowest rate of death by gun"
Still harping on a particular subset of murders, are we? And while knowing that it is NOT the topic; saving lives is. For shame.
Scanned your link. "chocked full of facts" my eye. Not a single chart of data, absolutely nothing showing lives saved by gun registration. Just more propaganda about how gun controls "may" do this and that. I feel bad for Gifford, but her experience has turned her into an idiot with but one thing on her mind - disarming the population. She has nothing of value to add to a discussion of how to prevent murders. (The section on registration that states it can be used down the road to disarm people that purchased their weapon quite legally is disgusting, but indicative of where her interests lie.)Anyone who has been shot in the head by a rightwing nut would perhaps take a similar stand as Gifford. Next time you go through a similar experience you can tell us for sure though.
They very well could. Unfortunately that does not make emotion based arguments more credible than factual, well reasoned ones - they still lag so far behind as to be basically worthless at anything but convincing naive or ignorant listeners that a falsehood is actually true.
Unfortunate, isn't it, that such arguments are so effective, and without any need for such irrelevant things as truth, honesty or facts?Wilderness and my esoteric: My esoteric, I applaud you for your list.
Currently, each state has its own set of gun laws. There needs to be uniform gun laws that are controlled by the federal government, not a mishmash of confusing state-to-state gun laws. Here are the current gun laws for the 50 states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ … s_by_state
I propose that all state gun laws be abolished and have the federal government uniformly control all gun laws. They could be a part of Homeland Security and control registration of all guns by serial number and certification of all gun owners to prove they are capable and responsible for the safety of themselves and others. They could control the entire data base, instead of it being fragmented as it is today. This concept would be no different than the FAA certifying pilots to fly airplanes. We don't have pilot certification by states. The NRA could serve as the certifying agent.
Now let's talk about the NRA. The NRA is a civilian organization whose leadership is controlling the direction of government gun laws. The gun industry pays the NRA who in turn fund congress' campaigns via their very powerful lobby groups. This is a big problem and needs to be addressed. Why should a civilian organization have so much influence over government lawmakers, unless their purpose is to sell more guns?
Now let's talk about the "scary looking guns" that were used in Las Vegas, Parkland, and many other mass shootings and why they should be banned.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -body.htmlI would rather see a national law as well...except that any such effort will absolutely be used to stretch restrictions just as far as possible and make it much easier in the future to continue the fight to ban all guns. Were that not the case I'd jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat. You even indicate that, mentioning that a federal registration would be required though it obviously won't save any lives.
You want to end citizen participation in government - do you also support the end to corporate payments to lawmakers? From ALL citizen organizations or is it just that one that you don't like that would have to stop? Would you pick and choose - pro-choicers can buy a legislator but not pro-lifers?
Have to love your link; it talks about the terrible "assault gun"...and repeatedly compares the damage to pistols. Somehow the idea that ALL rifle bullets are far more energetic than those from pistols is set aside while the scary looking one is demonized. Going to ban ALL rifles? Better get rid of shotguns, too - they are used to kill more people than all rifles combined, and when it comes to pistols, well, they are the next that will have to go as they kill more than all other weapons used in all murders. Right?
I don't know whether are not such arguments are effective, but I do think a shot to the head may affect one's ability to know whether they want another or not.
That's what I said, isn't it? A fear is a great motivator and should always be used rather than reason, right? "I'm afraid of guns so no one can have one." And yes, that is absolutely Giffords attitude.
Correct me if I'm wrong Dan, but didn't some rightwing outlet print posters of Gifford with crosshairs on her head? And this was BEFORE she was shot. That also may make a difference in how one views certain firearms.
What are you saying? That we should regulate printers like we do guns? Those black assault printers can be really bad, right? Not sure what else that comment would have to do with gun controls or why we need them...
Never mind, Dan. I thought we were discussing how Gabby came to her conclusions about gun control. Sorry your memory failed you...
Randy, I completely agree. A shot to the head would cause an instant change in attitude.
All you people who think I'm advocating for more government control: Right now, there is the FBI, the ATF, local law enforcement and many other agencies that don't even talk to each other. That's what happened at Parkland. Those who were responsible had bits and pieces of the pie, but could never see the whole pie. The responsibility of gun law enforcement needs to be put under one cohesive organization that can keep a database that is connected to many different source of illegal sales and gun practices and that communicates with law enforcement at all levels.
You people who are worried about big government are living in a very dangerous fantasy world. The reality is there are somethings that are handled better at the federal level than the state level. And I believe gun control is a better handled at the federal level. The only reason it is at the state level is because of the misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment that doesn't apply anymore and that is the part about the state militia. Whether you like it or not the well regulated militia is the Armed Forces of the United States of America. The only MinuteMen are the missiles that are in silos.
This is what the Supreme Court said, the last paragraph is very important.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[4][5]
The four dissenting justices argued that the majority had broken prior precedent on the Second Amendment,[6] and took the position that the amendment refers to an individual right, but in the context of militia serviceHi peoplepower73, I think your statement about "... the misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that doesn't apply anymore ..." is wrong. It may be your opinion, but I don't think you can find support to validate it.
Our military forces, both standing and auxiliary, are not the militia spoken of in the 2nd, as you say they are - in my opinion of course. But I think our Court's rulings support that opinion.
This, and other past comments of yours indicate that you think our standing military forces equate to a militia, but I think the Framer's words, intentions, and their times, plus the currently defined meaning of the word, contradict that.
There are arguments that our State's National Guard units equate to a militia, but there are also just as supportable arguments that they do not.
I haven't seem any Supreme Court rulings that tied the Right to bear arms to active militia membership. If they had, then I think we would have already seen an individual's Right to bear arms -- without militia membership -- curtailed. Since that hasn't happened, then it seems your statement is merely your opinion, not a judgement of the Court.
GAMay I re-phrase your post into something shorter but meaning the same thing?
"The federal government has already grown in size and power to something far beyond what was ever envisioned so therefore it is time to ignore that one intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide for defense against that very thing and add to the already excessive power of that government the option to control the ability of the people to defend themselves from such excessive growth and, if desired at some point, to totally remove that ability."
You have to know how that sounds. Hiding the intent behind reams of "Some things are better at the federal level", "One branch of the federal government says the right is not unlimited)" and "No one wants all our guns" doesn't change a thing. The fact, the irrefutable fact, that the framers of our constitution recognized the danger of excessive government control and wrote into it provisions to control and limit that growth and power says it all.
Repeat after me this truth - Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away; Nobody of import is trying to take your guns away ...
YOU repeat it. I have no need to - I have eyes and have watched for decades as the efforts to minimize gun ownership never stop. It can be pretty neat to live in a fantasy world for some, but truly I prefer the real world and in that world there is no apparent end to controlling the arms of the people. Not until they're gone.
One of the favorite arguments that pro gun people like to use is that cars kill more people than guns. Why do you need a drivers license, a license plate with registration, and proof of insurance when you buy a car? The answer is accountability. Of course there are many more safe drivers than those who would use a vehicle to kill someone whether accidental or intentional. But everybody who drives is subject to those laws, whether you or a safe driver or not.
There are three factors involved in those who don't want any type of gun control. One is why should I be subject to any type of accountability? I'm a responsible gun owner. Two, it is too much work and there are already too many gun laws on the books. And three it is my inalienable rights to bear arms in case of threats that were reality in 1791.
Yes, the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms, but because of that right, innocent people are killed everyday. It doesn't matter if the shooters are mentally ill or terrorists or any other reason, everybody is afforded that same right to assault weapons.
Yes I used the term assault weapons. The AR15 style whether you like it or not is an assault weapon base on the fact that it was designed to rapidly fire .223 rounds in an assault scenario and to do maximum damage to the human body in the least amount of time.
It’s possible to argue about everything when it comes to the politics of guns—including about the definition of “assault rifle” itself—but it’s harder to argue about physics. So let's consider the physics of an AR-15.
A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.
The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange.
RELATED STORIES
JOANNA PEARLSTEIN
America’s Deadly Gun Addiction, by the Numbers
ISSIE LAPOWSKY
The Orlando Nightclub Shooting Just Redefined the Race for the Presidency
JOANNA PEARLSTEIN
If You Want to Stop Gun Violence, Start With Bullets
These high-velocity bullets can damage flesh inches away from their path, either because they fragment or because they cause something called cavitation. When you trail your fingers through water, the water ripples and curls. When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripples as well—but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That’s why, says Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten.
Then, multiply the damage from a single bullet by the ease of shooting an AR-15, which doesn’t kick. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” says Ernest Moore, a trauma surgeon at Denver Health and editor of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery, which just published an issue dedicated to gun violence.
Handguns kill plenty of people too, of course, and they’re responsible for the vast majority of America’s gun deaths. But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15."One is why should I be subject to any type of accountability?"
Biggest single answer is that enough of them and it becomes onerous in terms of time, privacy and money. And you are insisting on "accountability" that is all three, while providing for no accountability at all for the common criminal. Just honest, law-abiding homeowners that will never harm another person.
"And three it is my inalienable rights to bear arms in case of threats that were reality in 1791. "
Please show those last 5 words in the amendment. Those are pure PeoplePower and nothing the framers wrote or intended at all. And you know it, too.
I fully understand the mechanics and physics of why rifle bullets are more deadly than those from most handguns (the energy of a 357 magnum pistol, for instance, is far above any .22 rifle). The comment was to point out that your link forgot to mention that simple truth, instead pretending it only applies to the AR-15 in an attempt to make that specific gun (and by association, any other gun painted black) sound worse than other, similarly performing, ones. A more relevant comparison would be to a common 30-06 hunting rifle, which has double or more the energy of an AR-15 round, is easily acquired from many manufacturers, is generally cheaper and far more accurate. Or to a shotgun, which has about triple the energy, is better for the purposes of a mass murderer and cheaper than an AR-15.
It is things like this that a reasoning, questioning person thinks to ask, but somehow they never enter your mind. Just the basic fact that "Wow! AR-15's have more energy - we have to ban that!" without ever considering "More than what?".This is probably the silliest question I have ever heard in my 70 years of life - ""One is why should I be subject to any type of accountability?" The answer is obvious to any rational human being but I will give you just one of a hundred - Because you are a citizen of a free country which guarantees your liberty. As such, you are subject to its laws as well as being responsible for doing your part to the society as a whole to ensure it remains safe and prospers.
If you aren't willing to do that and be accountable for your actions, then society has no responsibility to ensure your safety or liberty.
I see you changed your story from "take all of the guns away from everybody" to a much more believable "efforts to minimize gun ownership never stop."
So yes, there has always been, and I hope there will always will be, a push to make sure, as much as is humanly possible, ONLY those (which means minimize) who own guns are responsible, stable, and well trained.
I tweet #BanAssaultWeapons a lot because it is a sound bite and that is all people will listen to. But, I don't believe in it 100%, only 98%. Instead, I think people can own semi-automatic or even some automatic weapons. They can own them only, however, if they are heavily enough regulated to ensure the odds are so low that it will be very rare that they end up in a school blowing scores of kids away or in a tall building taking out scores more adults; and at twice a year, that makes them rather common.
Unfortunately, your side seems to think 2 or 3 high casualty murder events a year is a small price to pay to make sure the already well protected 2nd Amendment is, driven by a deep-seated, unreasonable paranoia, even more protected ad nauseam.Good. We agree the ultimate goal is to minimize gun ownership.
min·i·mize
[ˈminəˌmīz]
VERB
reduce (something, especially something unwanted or unpleasant) to the smallest possible amount or degree:
In the case of guns, that means that not a single citizen owns one or has access to one. An obvious impossibility as somewhere in 300,000,000 people someone will own a gun legally or illegally, but it is still a goal to work towards.
"Why do you expect registration of guns to reduce the number killed in mass murders? " - That is also simple. Registration, tied with proving you still possess the gun periodically and maintaining a database, will help solve more crimes (including the one when the owner gave their gun to a criminal and maybe prosecuting the criminal who stole it).
You have to understand and know that solving a crime doesn't prevent that crime in the first place. And you have to know as well that legal owners aren't very darn likely to kill twice.
It may or may not prevent a crime, why do you presume it Never will?
Considering that we drive more than 20 MPH, how much are you willing to spend (whether financial, emotional or in lost rights) to save one life?
But how does knowing who owns a specific gun prevent that gun from being used in any crime, let alone a murder? If you suspect someone might commit a crime will you confiscate that gun based solely on suspicion?
Some of these are already law. They really just need to enforce the laws they have before worrying about making new ones that they won't follow anyway.
Only in some states, Gregas. And my analysis of the effect of various strengths of state gun laws does indeed show that the stronger the laws, the fewer death by gun incidents there are.
Hi My Esoteric,
From your list;
"1. Heavily regulate ownership of any weapon classified as "semi-automatic", whether pistol or rifle.
2. Heavily regulate possession of any magazine over 10 rounds (you don't need more than that to protect yourself)."
What did you have in mind, regarding "Heavily regulate?"
For #5, concerning studies; I recently caught a news blurb that the new head of HHS, Alex Azar, (the son of one of our hometown eye doctors), says that HHS will now begin those "gun effect" type studies. I haven't followed up, but it did get my attention when I heard it.
GAHi GA,
Last one first. Unlike virtually all of Trump's appointees, Azar is familiar with how the gov't works and much of its health related laws and regulations. Hopefully there isn't an NRA-directed law hiding out there that forbids his research (I have an open-mind at the moment that he is being serious and honest).
Heavy regulation, which is different from what I would suggest for pistols and normal rifles and shotguns would include, but not limited to:
- Approval from ATF
- Deep-dive background check
- Registration
- Strict Liabity
- Annual proof of possession
- Training and periodic retraining
- Can use at approved firing ranges
- Stored at an approved facility
- Follow the Israeli model of ammunition possession
Among other thingsI also don't have a problem with HHS researching "gun effects" studies My Esoteric.
But, I can see that you were serious when you said "heavily regulated."
To be sure I understand your indented targets for that heavy regulation, you said "any semi-automatic rifle," but in a later comment seemed to exclude hunting rifles. Do you intend to include semi-automatic hunting rifles too, like ones that don't look like an "assault weapon" or have high-capacity magazines? Such as Wilderness' .22 Varmint and "plinking" guns, or 30-30 deer hunting rifles. These are also usually semi-autos?
If you are putting "assault" rifles only in that class, that is one conversation, but if you are including any semi-automatic then it is quite another, and I think your heavy regulations would be beyond serious consideration.
GAYes, I do exclude hunting rifles, their purpose is not kill 120 people a minute (assuming you can pull the trigger 2 times a second). I couldn't find the cycle rates of the rifles you mentioned, but in any case, they aren't designed to carry into war. Also, not that they can't be, I haven't read that those types of rifles have been used in Columbine-type mass murders.
Probably one of the most important of those regulations is the "Israel-style control of bullets"; they limit a person to 50 rounds per year and you can't accumulate them. Having said think that 50 is a ridiculously small number and that magazine size rather than the number of bullets should be what is regulated, but you get the idea.
I think that regulating magazine size is so important that, if well controlled, some of the other regulations could be dropped.
By the way, I just thought of another regulation, periodic background checks done at the time of "proof of possession".
Yes, I agree, those suggestions will never see the light of day (although some states have many of those), but to gun enthusiasts, they are better than going back to an outright ban, which I prefer not to put back in place if a better alternative can be found."Yes, I do exclude hunting rifles, their purpose is not kill 120 people a minute (assuming you can pull the trigger 2 times a second). I couldn't find the cycle rates of the rifles you mentioned, but in any case, they aren't designed to carry into war. Also, not that they can't be, I haven't read that those types of rifles have been used in Columbine-type mass murders."
I've been there when a lever action 30-30 was fired that rapidly. But there is another problem with this statement; no one firing that rapidly is going to "kill 120 people a minute" as you suggest. That's merely more scare tactics without any chance of it actually happening. Even the Vegas shooter, firing some 1,000 rounds, didn't come anywhere close to that figure.
Nor is an AR-15 "designed to carry into war"; it is specifically designed as to make it NOT appropriate for that task. Again, more scare tactics without basis in reality, and one reason that the "arguments" presented by the anit-gun crowd aren't listened to by those that actually understand what is being said.
Do you know how the Israelis prevent accumulation of ammunition? Do they bring explosive sniffing dogs into each house each year and count the rounds there, giving a chit specifying how many more can be purchased this year?
Magazine size I could support as a small price to pay for at least a tiny bit of protection. It won't do much good - magazines are quick and easy to swap out - but it will help placate the anti-gun folks...until they figure out it doesn't work. Should last through one more school shooting, at least.
Will you cover the cost of those periodic background checks (it's for YOUR safety, after all, not the safety of the owner) or will you shove the cost onto those exercising their rights under the theory that a guaranteed right means a guaranteed cost to go with it?I think I understand your intended targets now My Esoteric; AR-15 "Assault-style" weapons. And I won't repeat the "it's just a scary looking gun" criticism. That point has already been well debated. Nothing will change either side's perception of it.
I am thinking it is Rambo's fault. Those guns are so 'awesomely cool and manly,' that owning one is almost like being Rambo. Imagine that concept in a screwed-up mind.
I think that as long as those type of guns exist, someone with a messed-up mentality will find a way to get one, and no acceptable form of regulation will stop them. But it will probably stop a law-abiding person from getting one. So, I don't think your proposed "heavy regulation" is acceptable.
It seems I can't avoid coming back to the same point most gun threads illustrate; it is the case of a logical argument against an emotional one, and, an argument of costs vs. benefit.
Logically, you are asking 8.5 to 15 million "assault" gun owners to accept a restriction to help restrict the actions a a few dozen. Emotionally, you are asking that the lives of a small number, (what is a small number of deaths? 10, or 200?), of lives restrict the actions of millions. And that is the costs vs. benefit question.
Is it reasonable to restrict the actions of 1 million to save the life of 1? Or of 10 million to save the lives of 10? Of course those were only rhetorical questions. The point is what ratio is reasonable to you.
It is probably even an unanswered question whether the argument can be viewed in that context, but if it can; what ratio would you think reasonable?
GAThere is another part of that cost vs benefit as well, and as much as we like to think money doesn't count, it does. It will cost a great deal of resources (money) to get rid of all the "assault rifles" in the country. I saw a thing on facebook about "safe zones" - a small enclosure that would protect students in case of tornado, hurricane and bullets. Even had a built in air and power supply. Can be put into a classroom in just a day.
Now I don't know if they would be effective, but if they are it might be a valid answer to school shootings, at least after the first classroom. But they cost money, and LOTS of it considering the number of school classrooms in the country. Are we better off spending our resources for classroom security or futilely attempting to rid the country of the most popular gun in it? No matter how much we pretend that we have unlimited funding to save lives it simply isn't true - we will always have to pick and choose where to put that limited resource.And why "get rid of ALL assault rifles" currently in circulation? They weren't taken away in 1994 and it was still effective, so why would they be taken away this time? While it would be nice to solve the problem in one fell swoop, that is an impossible task. Nevertheless, it is a good start (actually, I'd rather no ban them at all, just heavily regulate them).
I don't actually know the answer to this but where were most of the 17 kids killed? In the hallways or in the classrooms?Why is it impossible? Australia did it in just one year, although it is true that no lives were saved. What do you have to show that lives were saved outside of very limited data that portends to show there weren't as many bodies with bullet holes in them? Just a belief that if we pass a law that insane killers will obey it?
I believe (without knowing) that they were killed in the hallways. I did see a report that the killer tripped the fire alarm, joined the rush to get outside, and began firing. Don't actually know if that's true, though. If it is (and we can expect to see more of the same) those safe zones won't help at all.
Sure would like to know why Americans have such a propensity to kill - if we could just address that we could actually solve the problem instead of playing games that we know won't work.
That is a fair consideration Wilderness, but it isn't one I would want to see, (just imagine the symbolism of its implementation), and the "cost" I was speaking of -- holding to the context of my point -- was the further restriction of a Right, not money.
GA
After the massive failure of government in the Florida shooting and others...what makes you the government is able to effectively do any of this? Talk about the massive failure of government in Florida. THAT should be our first discussion.
I'd like to understand just what happened in the FBI there. Do they receive so many thousands of "complaints" that they simply can't follow up on all of them? Did they look at it and decide there was no legal reason to go further? Did they not believe it? Did it fall off the desk into the trash can?
Or did someone see it, recognize it as a real threat and decide to ignore it? What really happened there?They said normal protocol wasn't followed (human error) and the complaint wasn't given to the South Florida FBI office.
If they are anything like the AF (I worked for them for 20 years), there is a major investigation going on to see why protocol wasn't followed.So "office A" got it, but it wasn't their jurisdiction or problem. It should have been handed off to "office B", who had the jurisdiction, but it never made the trip. Right?
I could almost accept that as a reasonable reason. Not to say it's a good reason and it's OK - nothing needs changed to prevent it from happening again - but it at least makes sense.
Why, Readmikenow, do you hyperbolically characterize it as a "massive failure of government"? That trivializes the rest of your comment (which I didn't bother finishing since there was probably nothing factual in it). Why don't you tell the truth and that it was, at worst, a process failure in the FBI, although more than likely is was human error from one FBI employee.
I think you need to read more about the incident in Florida. It was a "massive failure of government". Here is a USA Today story I easily found. You need to read more before you make such comments. Why don't you tell the truth and admit you don't know the facts. Your continued statements prove it.
From the story "People are being asked to trust the government to keep them safe, when the government is patently unable to do so. And then, when the government fails, it engages in blame-shifting deflection. Why should people listen? Increasingly, they won’t."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 371372002/That is one man's opinion, not USA Today's. It says so right up front "Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Opinion columnist"
In other words, like you, he is just giving his opinion and had he included the word "massive", I would not be inclined to read it or at least go into it with the idea it is a Right (or Left)-wing hit job.
But, since he didn't, I read further.
His opening line has one true part ("From the FBI to local law enforcement to the schools, every institution failed.") and one part hyperbole ("We have more government than ever, but it isn't working.") You cannot conclude from the first sentence that the second sentence is nothing more than right-wing opinion.
He then says without supporting facts the sweeping generalization "The chief problem facing America today is the decline of its institutions, coupled with the denial of that decline by the people in charge of its institutions." - I could argue, with as much (or little) authority that it is the right-wing assault on these institutions that are responsible for the decline.
Finally, he does state the obvious for "this particular case" that "From the FBI, to local law enforcement, to the schools, everyone failed. There was failure early, there was failure in the middle, and there was failure late. And no one has taken responsibility." - True enough and he goes on to provide examples.
One "fact" that is offered is about the inaction of the school resource officer Scot Peterson. He says "A school campus cop heard the gunfire, rushed to the building but never went inside — instead waiting outside for another four agonizing minutes as Cruz continued the slaughter. . . ." - Now I will give Reynolds the benefit of the doubt for leaving out the rest of the story as he might not have heard at the time of his writing is that "Peterson's defense is that he thought the sounds of gunfire were coming from somewhere else other than the building, maybe off school grounds, and he did exactly as protocol required." I am not saying that is true, but it is certainly plausible and needs to be verified before casting anymore stones.
The rest of his opinion is just that, opinion from a somebody who leans far-right.
As to people listening, you still have 30% of Americans still believing anything that proven serially liar Trump says.He like you only have opinion, but unlike you, provides more than opinion. Government has a history of "massive" failure when comes to mass shootings. Simply because you choose to live in a state of denial doesn't mean the rest of us can't see the emperor has no clothes.
More facts to ponder on the "massive AND continued failure of government" to address the situation. This may be more reality than is comfortable for you.
"But the bigger question is this: We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before. Yet failures like this keep happening. The FBI, after all, missed the Tsarnaevs (who committed the Boston Marathon bombing) despite being warned by the Russian government. It missed the 9/11 attacks even though it was investigating Zacarias Moussaoui — agents investigating Moussaoui hit so many roadblocks that they joked that Osama bin Laden must have had a mole in the Bureau HQ. And, of course, the San Bernardino shooters and Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen escaped the net as well."Show me where he provided any evidence at all that "Government has a history of "massive" failure when comes to mass shootings". The Fact is, they don't (other not have effective gun safety regulations and we both know who is responsible for that.)
What was the gov't screw-up for Columbine?
What was the gov't screw-up for Aurora?
What was the gov't screw-up for Sandyhook?
What was the gov't screw-up for Pulse? (before you go there, the shooter was a U.S. citizen.)
What was the gov't screw-up for San Bernardino? (before you go there, they were U.S. citizens.)
What was the gov't screw-up for Las Vegas?
None of them have anything like what took place that allowed Cruz to kill all those people (which would not have happened if assault weapons had still been banned).
Yes, he opined that "We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before. Yet failures like this keep happening." - the implication, of course, is that if the gov't were smaller then at least Douglas H.S., and by your theory, none of the others would have happened at all. Obviously, that is a nonsensical conclusion (Yet failures like this keep happening) from the original statement (We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before).
Actually, the basic premise (We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before) is also false. Gov't was Bigger at the beginning of the Clinton administration (2.139 million fed civ employees) than 2016 (2.045 million). Even you toss in contractors who support all but DoD, gov't has not grown. (I exclude defense because it has no bearing on mass shootings)
So much for "We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before"Either you can see the truth or you can't. You provide NO facts to back up your assertions. That is why your list of things you believe would decrease gun violence are so funny. Read about the Tsarnaev brothers and the Boston bombing...another "MASSIVE" failure of government. The FBI was warned about these two by the Russian government as well as people who knew them and the FBI, just like with Cruz...did nothing. The bottom line is government can't protect us so we have to be willing and able to protect ourselves. Based on what you've written, you know next to nothing about what happened during the Florida shooting. If you choose a path of ignoring facts and reality...there is really nothing I or anyone on HP can do for you. It's how you've chosen to live your live.
It is you that provide no facts. What I said was the assertion that "We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before." is FALSE based on the facts I offered which you apparently didn't see.
Further, I am still waiting on your answer to:
- What was the gov't screw-up for Columbine?
- What was the gov't screw-up for Aurora?
- What was the gov't screw-up for Sandy Hook?
- What was the gov't screw-up for Pulse? (before you go there, the shooter was a U.S. citizen.)
- What was the gov't screw-up for San Bernardino? (before you go there, they were U.S. citizens.)
- What was the gov't screw-up for Las Vegas?
AND NOW, What was the gov't screw-up with the Boston bombing?
I suspect I know why you didn't answer but I'll give you one more chance.
I agree! The position of the NRA (and I respect members of this organization who respect gun ownership, and do so responsibly), that the only controls we need to put into place is guarding against the ownership and use of gun by the "mentally ill", just isn't feasible and is impossible to enact, fully, with any sustainable measure.
ME, No. 8. is a huge problem. One reason is because very few states, including my own, have facilities in which to diagnose and house the criminally insane. And if they did, would they include criminally insane juveniles or would these kids be sent to "juvie" and receive a slap on the wrist instead of the help they need?
Texas is one of the few states that have such a facility, at Rusk, but I haven't read the statistics to see how or if it fares in keeping down the crime rate. We can charge a teenager as an adult and put him or her in with hardened criminals, and I don't have to describe the result for you as to what happens when that kid is all grown up and released back into society. As a result, a lot of these criminally insane kids are ignored until they kill somebody or go out and shoot up a school.
I'm old enough to remember why some of the laws of the 60s and before were changed. Before civil rights laws for the mentally ill were enacted, very little stood in the way of a guy with influence or money who wanted to put aside his wife without an expensive divorce and upkeep of an ex-wife Back then most wives did not work and have their own personal income. These laws were also used to put away mentally challenged children and annoying or disturbed family members in general. The result has been that the courts are heavily chained when it comes to trying to get help for an adult person who cannot take care of himself or herself. Many of the mentally challenged homeless are good examples of that. A person must show that he or she is a danger to society or in come cases, himself, before the court can act, and by the time that happens, it is often too late.
So, I appreciate your mention of No. 8 because it constitutes a big problem of balancing the rights of the individual with the rights and safety of society. We need laws to make it easier to diagnose and put away from society's reach people of all ages who make it known publicly that they are dangerous like the FL shooter did. The FBI and local authorities really dropped the ball on him. I think that institutions for the criminally insane and changing the laws to allow investigations of people behaving suspiciously would be a step in the right direction because they are becoming a problem.Miz Bejabbers,
I understand what your saying about the heavy duty psych wards. What I had in mind where the kinds of mental health programs that Reagan got rid of California's robust mental health system. Unfortunately, the rest of the nation followed suit and here we are today with millions on the streets with no help in sight.. Go back to 1960s laws regarding helping people with mental health issues
Like what? Can you give more detail?This gives a good synopsis of what happened to mental health treatment in the United States.https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/08/did-the-emptying-of-mental-hospitals-contribute-to-homelessness-here/
It goes from horrible, think of Bedlam, to helpful. The downside was many were put in hospitals against their will, even though in almost all cases it was necessary. In 1959, CA mental hospitals held 37,000 patients. In 1973 there were only 7,000. There was no real support systems set up to replace the help these 30,000 mentally ill people previously received so an obscene number of them ended up on the streets. This happened nationwide and is still the case.This is what I suspected. It is nearly impossible to get help. I have been rejected due to lack of "beds" during psychosis. You have to be suicidal or worse to get help these days.
It seems like the topic has gone from reducing mass shooting deaths to just more government control.
How would gun registration stop mass killings, or even reduce gun deaths?
Statistics would probably show that legal gun owners aren't repeat killers. And even if a legal gun owner registers his gun(s), how would that stop him from becoming a mass murderer, (or even just a murderer)?
So what purpose would gun registration serve except to give government and law enforcement more control over our lives?
Also, consider the irony of our society "evolving" to the enlightened level of judging people by what they are, not what they look like, or where they come from. An intelligent person won't "judge a book by its cover," but that same intelligent person now wants to ban something because it looks "scary?"
As for the point of dumping all State laws in return for uniform Federal Laws ... wouldn't a logical extension of that thought be to just dump the States altogether and have America be one big nation state - instead of a federation of individual states forming a Republic?
GAAnyone who thinks more government control is the answer...please explain the monumental failure of government on local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in the Florida shooting? This guy did everything but give law enforcement the exact date and time of his shooting. Then, law enforcement stayed outside the building didn't confront the shooter killing children. You gun control people need to explain this one.
I asked the same question and the answer was that an owner might loan their gun to a friend who might then give it to a criminal who might then kill with it. The owner might think twice about it if it was registered.
Gabby Gifford (link in another post) would require re-registration yearly, with a new background check. An endless series of checks in order to exercise 2nd amendment rights, and always with the knowledge that if you don't pass this year cops will be knocking on your door to confiscate your gun.That re-registration process begins to sound like permission for a privilege, rather than a condition for holding a Right.
I know referring to Hollywood movie themes is a hollow effort, but so many of our recent Politics and Social Issues threads, (particularly these gun-issue threads), bring to mind the societies depicted in Demolition Man.
GAOf course it is a precondition for a privilege, for that's how that constitutional right is seen by the nanny state. Along with many others, I might add.
If I remember Demolition man, correctly it was about a government in total control of everything the people did, that had pacified the country into a nation of sheep simply following the edicts of the govt. If so, yes, it is pertinent.Yes, you got most of the Demolition Man plot right. Except... you forgot the part about the other half of the country, (the non-PC folks), that became second class subculture citizens and lived in an underground society.
GAHey - I'm not 25 years old any more! What I saw more than a week ago is gone forever!
I try and not go on and on about the genocide against the Ukrainian people known as Holodomor. It was a horrible thing. Here is an article I believe is important for people to read. We should learn from Holodomor. Prior to the start of Holodomor, one of the first things the Russians did was disarm the Ukrainian people. They then had total power over them.
“The Holodomor stands as a permanent warning of what happens when unlimited state power destroys God-given rights. A cursory review of America's Bill of Rights demonstrates that virtually every right mentioned was trampled on by Stalin in Ukraine. Yet although the dictator used every means to eradicate the people's will, the national spirit lived on unbreakably, until Ukraine gained its independence in 1991.”
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ … in-ukraine
Self promotion is frowned on in the forums...
Not sure what that has to do with following HP rules for the forums. Can you expound on it some?
But I did read the link - just another article where someone doesn't know what the results of the Aussie buyback were but thinks we should do the same anyway.
My- What are your thoughts on why similar regulations are not placed on motor vehicles which are responsible for much more death than guns? eg, do cars really need to reach speeds of 120mph?
I don't think suggestion #4 is so ridiculous. After the recent horrendous high school mass killing in Florida, Dick's Sporting Goods decided not to sell firearms in their stores anymore, and many others may follow suit. Some stores that sell firearms have actually raised the age from 18-21 as a restriction to purchase an automatic weapon, but a nationwide law would be more effective. Maturity of a few extra years could make a big difference. People are losing their patience with endless mass killings in public schools. Donald Trump is facing heat for opposing the NRA on an attempt to ban certain high-caliber weapons such as the AR-15. Many Republicans still support the NRA one-hundred percent. Your thread is getting numerous opinions. You're correct that addressing mental health issues deserves top priority.
Not a single store has raised the age to buy an automatic weapon to 21. Such weapons are extremely well regulated and there are only a few in the hands of private citizens at all.
Perhaps you meant semi-automatic guns, like the common hunting rifles? Or even the same ones, painted black, that are termed "assault" weapons by those ignorant of guns in general?
The AR-15 is not a very high caliber, either; most common hunting rifles or pistols are substantially larger. It is actually the same caliber as the little 22 caliber "varmint" gun, often the first rifle a child shoots.
How many mass killings have happened from people 18-21 years old that legally purchased their own weapons? One? How will it make a "big difference" to make such a purchases illegal when there has been only one such crime in history?Slow down buddy. I don't think your comparison of the Ar-15's .223 bullet to a .22 caliber varmint bullet statement paints a true picture.
You are right, of course, that the .most common caliber for the AR-15 is the 223 bullet, but it is also available in larger calibers, and they, (the larger calibers), are not unusual choices. But even going with the 223, it typically carries a bullet that is almost 40% heavier than a standard 22 Long Rifle, (22LR - the typical varmint gun), and has almost three times the muzzle velocity.
Don't let that .003 difference fool you, (as it did me when I first learned that they were only .223 caliber bullets - before I checked out the actual cartridges and their performance specs), there is a hellava difference between a .22 and a .223. Just take a look at the cartridge images - that would be the true picture.
GAThat was the point, GA - that the caliber does not determine either the energy or the deadliness of the gun. In the case of the .223, it has a diameter (caliber) of .224", identical with that .22 varmint round. But as you point out it is far heavier and even more importantly it is being driven by a far heavier load of explosive (the part that gives it that energy).
I was replying to a comment that said "Donald Trump is facing heat for opposing the NRA on an attempt to ban certain high-caliber weapons such as the AR-15.", yet the AR-15 is NOT a "high caliber weapon" at all. Indeed, the caliber of the round doesn't actually have much to do with the killing ability of that round!
Still, if we're to ban guns based on being "high caliber" like the AR-15, all those 30 caliber hunting rifles will have to go, right down to that little .22 "plinker" my grandson shoots. (Could be mistaken, but I think the common 30-06 round is a larger caliber than the largest available for an AR-15).I don't care what kind of rounds it fires or whether it is an AR15 or a sig sauer, or glock. The problem is that whatever they fire, is designed to do maximum damage to the human target. Just talk to the surgeons that have to save those poor victims and the morgues that have to deal with the deaths caused from this instrument of war.
The ArmaLite AR-15 was a select-fire, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964. Designed by American gun manufacturer ArmaLite in 1956, it was based on its AR-10 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight assault rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow the infantrymen to carry more ammunition. The rifle was not available for civilian use. Modifications (most notably, the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver),[6] Colt rebranded it the Colt ArmaLite AR-15. Colt marketed the redesigned rifle to various military services around the world and it was subsequently adopted by the United States military as the M16 Rifle, which went into production in March 1964.[4][7] Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic-only rifles marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers, known as Colt AR-15. The Armalite AR-15 is the parent of a variety of Colt AR-15 & M16 rifle variants.The AmrLite AR15 was originally designed as an assault rifle for the military from which the M16 evolved.
Read this if you want the whole story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15Thank you. You confirm what I said - it isn't the caliber that matters, but the energy of the bullet. Although "maximum damage" isn't true, for I'm positive other shapes/construction can be found to do more damage. Probably at the cost of accuracy or other characteristics, but there is always a trade-off. Nor is the insinuation that manufacturers designed the gun to be used on human targets true; you have no idea what the designers had in mind. Probably making money, or at least that would be MY guess.
Not sure what the rest of the post is about; are you making a case for not allowing the sale of the fake "Hummer" because it is based on a military spec/grade vehicle?The caliber absolutely matters. The heavier (larger caliber) an object is, for a given velocity, the more energy it contains (not to mention the larger size leads to more damage all on its own). So, if a .45 caliber is travelling as fast as a .223, it will do massively more damage. (of course, getting it to that speed might be problematic)
Wilderness: You are right it is not the caliber, it is the velocity and the shape of the .223 that makes it do maximum damage.
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physic … lt-rifles/I just gave up my right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Wow!!!, what a difference that makes!
How about defensive gun use?
There was a study sanctioned by the Centers for Disease control (CDC) that found defensive gun use was equal to that of offensive gun use. According to the study, MILLIONS of people are alive today because they had weapons to deter or eliminate an attack. So, as a person who has had to face someone with a gun pointed at him, I am for defensive weapons. If the person entering my home has an AR 15, I want one to fire back at them. In my mind it's just that simple. If government bans worked, we'd have no heroin on the street, but government bans don't work.
Some of the things the report, commissioned by the Obama Administration, found would NOT work are the following:
“Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws" (Emphasis added.):
Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/c … -narrative"How about defensive gun use? "
He can still do that. Giving up the right to carry arms in a well regulated militia does not mean he gives up the right to carry one anywhere else. It's guaranteed by the constitution.
An interesting study. Most of their results seem to be "insufficient evidence to make a conclusion"; wonder why we don't supply the evidence (additional studies) to come to a conclusion rather than removing rights and then crying we have to do it again because it didn't work.
This doesn't seem to me to be rocket science; figure out expected (not "hoped for" but "expected") results before interfering in people's lives and playing with their constitutional rights. But I could be wrong - maybe the concept is beyond the reach of most legislators.Here is a pdf of the actual study and results. It provides some interesting points.
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Pri … e_2013.pdfLet me rephrase what I said before:
I just gave up my right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. Wow!,What a difference that makes.!!! I will no longer be able to defend myself against a tyrannous government. Now I'll have to rely on our law enforcement and our military to defend me. But I'm not sure I can trust them.SCOTUS seems to disagree with you, and as they are the only entity in the country with the ability to make that call it would seem that you have lost nothing.
LOL The first link references and provides a link to an earlier study, which I went over.
But both of these merely consolidate other studies; neither appears to provide any original data, work or even conclusions. Just conclusions as to whether prior studies by other entities were valid. I'd like to see some original work and particularly a study on whether gun controls save lives or just keep bodies from having bullet holes in them. My own limited study on that question indicates that no lives are saved; that killers wishing to kill will do so regardless of whether a gun is available to them or not, and that would seem (to me) to be of overriding concern. If preventing an American citizen from owning a gun, any gun, does not save a life, what is the purpose of that prevention? The answer is either utter stupidity (not ignorance; stupidity) or a wish to disarm the citizenry for reasons not related to (public) safety.You are quite wrong, on two counts, when you say "My own limited study on that question indicates that no lives are saved;"
1. It doesn't pass the logic test. For example, assume conservatives let not let the assault gun ban expire, exactly where would 18 year old Cruz have gotten his AR-15? The answer, of course, we couldn't have. Further, assume he still had a murderous intent and went to the school with a revolver (or even a 15 round Ruger semi-automatic pistol that he stole, since he couldn't buy one). Are you claiming he would have killed those 17 kids anyway? Not likely.
Now I assume you are not callous enough to think suicides by gun are not a subset of death by gun. In the case of suicides the statistics are clear, states that have stronger gun safety laws, have a lower rate of gun suicides. Further, only a small percentage of people who otherwise would have shot themselves, die by a different method.
So yes, strong gun safety regulations DO save lives.1) For some reason you seem to insist that not other tool is as deadly as a AR-15, or that no one will ever use such a tool. Both are patently false, so why do you keep making the claim? Coupled with that is the assumption that passing a law against so-called assault rifles will make them unavailable; were that even partially true we wouldn't have Heroin or Cocaine on the streets. Your ignorance as to just where Cruz would have gotten one most surely does not mean that he wouldn't have. I wouldn't know, for instance, where to buy Heroin, but I assure you that people that want it DO know.
But in any case, to declare that a study doesn't pass the "logic test" is irrelevant at best. Comparing your "logic test" to real life experience and history can only tell us if your particular brand of "logic" (and the assumptions and premises you used) are valid, nothing else. Not passing your test certainly does not mean that history didn't happen - people are trying that with the Holocaust and it doesn't work very well. And when the premise is that the only tool that will be used for mass murders is a fake assault rifle, or that if it's illegal it will not exist within the borders of the US, well, we already know that's false.
Of course they are a subset of "gun by death"'; they are also a subset of "suicides", "deaths", "violent deaths" and several other things as well. But neither one is indicative, IMO, that gun owners are responsible for stopping them, and certainly not by giving up their rights. Suicide, IMO, is a completely different problem and with completely different solutions. Because some people will kill themselves with a gun, or anything else, is insufficient reason to remove guns (or anything else) from everyone.
(Do you believe that re-registering a personal weapon every year will prevent any suicides? Or that banning the AR-15 will? Why?)
I am sorry, but the study that showed "millions" of lives saved in defensive gun use IS NOT the one you offer to prove your point. Instead, that study has been debunked many times over.
My own statistical analysis on gun deaths comes to the same conclusion the CDC study your investment adviser's source cites; that being that a little over 50% of all gun deaths are from suicide and that the link between gun regulations and homicides are inconclusive. (However, I did find a statistical link between weaker regulation and increased incidence of rape and a decrease incidence of robbery.
Also, I have seen at least one study that shows more harm and/or deaths occur from defensive gun use gone wrong than crimes prevented.
My final point is this, one which means more to people who care about human life as opposed to those that don't, "the fundamental purpose of guns, any gun, is to kill People." It is true that they are useful for killing animals for the fun of it, killing animals for food, killing animals for culling, and putting holes in paper targets. But the ONLY reason guns were first invented was for war and killing the enemy.
So, when I consider the topic of gun safety, what is foremost in my mind is reducing human death, any death, by gun. (Another goal is to reduce the number of animals killed just because it is fun killing them which, in my opinion and living among an extended family of hunters, is the main motive for hunters to "hunt".)
Since ANY death is part of my reasoning, I must also consider the violent deaths from suicide. It is extremely sad that that I haven't heard one argument from extreme gun advocates who admit suicides count as death, let alone violent death by gun.
What my studies do show is that there is a STRONG negative correlation between the strength of guns laws and suicides by gun. That means the stronger the laws, the fewer suicides by guns.
Some have tried to argue that suicides are SO motivated in killing themselves that if they can't find a gun, they will figure out another way to die. While appealing to the simple mind, that is not the case. If it were, I would find a positive correlation between suicides by other means of about the same magnitude as the decrease in gun suicides. The fact is, I don't."So, when I consider the topic of gun safety, what is foremost in my mind is reducing human death, any death, by gun."
Which is why you and I have such a difference of opinion, because I just want the death toll lowered while your priority is that the bodies don't have a bullet hole in them. A rather major difference.
"What my studies do show is that there is a STRONG negative correlation between the strength of guns laws and suicides by gun. That means the stronger the laws, the fewer suicides by guns."
No wonder I have such a problem following your logical conclusions: a statistical correlation does NOT indicate a causal one, and it doesn't matter how strong the correlation is. Logic 101, first day of the class!Well, I don't think millions of lives being saved with defensive guns has been debunked by any reputable source. ALSO, I speak from real world experience. Forget all this hoopla on HP, when a drugged up idiot has a gun on you and is about to kill you, I can honestly say, you're not worried about gun statistics. You're not thinking about gun suicide rates. You're thinking I'm going to die unless something happens. Luckily, a good man with a gun was able to prevent me from being shot. So, the laws didn't prevent this drugged up lunatic from getting his gun, why should the laws keep me from mine or the man who prevented me from being shot? This drugged up idiot had been previously convicted of two felonies and was a career criminal. Any gun law you pass won't affect him or his buddies. It'll affect me and my ability to defend myself against such people. So, that is the real world. It is not an intellectual discussion by people safe in their comfortable homes with a computer. It's a matter of life or death in many cases. I'm lucky, but that night, someone else was not so lucky. I will NEVER give up my right to be able to defend myself or my family against such people no matter what gun control advocates say.
Being reasonably cognizant with basic physics even if not a ballistics expert, I agree to a point. Velocity matters...a LOT. But so does mass and even shape to a lesser degree - a typical 50 caliber round travels much slower than a typical 223 round, but has a MUCH higher energy level and destructive capability. A sewing needle, on the other hand, travelling at even orbital velocities can simply pass through without doing much damage at all. It's all about energy, which is found in the equation E=1/2mv^2.
Or you can compare the energy levels of a typical 30 caliber round with those of the 223 - the common hunting rifle has considerably more energy in it because of the increased weight of the round.
Got it. Looks like I missed the context.
GA :-)
A few days ago I heard on the news, a couple of network stations, that Dick's Sporting Goods was going to discontinue the selling of certain types of firearms, and I heard another general market store decided to discontinue the sale of them also. I also heard one store wouldn't sell firearms to anyone unless they were 21 years of age. I don't recall the exact store. I don't think I was confused about what I heard. I can't refute your statistical facts if you have them. Many people are trying to make the world a safer place to live in. But I'd like to emphasize one point I made, it's not a national law that anyone eighteen years of age is forbidden to purchase a firearm. I'm not trying to start an argument with inaccurate facts.
You are correct in that Dicks will no longer sell the fake assault guns. What I took exception to was the comment that they will no longer sell automatic weapons, which is not what they said at all. As far as I know no chain store sells automatic weapons at all - they are quite rare and very difficult to purchase, not to mention very expensive.
Don't mean to pick on you, but there are enough flat out lies floating around out there, intentional lies, that we all need to be careful of what we say.I understand wilderness. I think the news is fresh enough to verify specifics. I had just commented on something I had heard. It's best to check up on something, first, for exact details. But increasing the age requirement could turn into a "I'll take the law into my own hands," sort of thing. I don't doubt that's what happened on one of the comments I heard. It's similar to the baker that won't acknowledge a gay wedding because it's against his religion. Some people don't care about obeying the law.
I agree overall, though I'm shaky on the 21 year age limit for a couple of reasons. First, I don't think there have been but very, very few mass murders by anyone in that age group, which means it won't help any.
Second, we consider those young people to be adults. They are responsible for their actions as adults, they are expected to care for and support themselves and lastly, we expect them to die from using a gun in the service of our country as the need arises. That's a real problem for me when we tell them they are too young to buy one of those fake assault rifles and then turn around and hand them a real one.
Still, I DO understand that their minds are not fully developed, that they are NOT mature adults even though we treat them like one legally. A conflict in my mind.Damn, we agree on something. While I argue for raising the age limit, primarily based on the maturity argument, I am not 100% sold on it.
Yeah, it's a tough one. I certainly see both sides, and remember similar arguments as a teen for alcohol. We could die in Vietnam for our country, but couldn't buy a beer.
Maybe the hinge point is the expected return for the law - how many 19-20 year old mass murderers won't kill if we change the law.Alcohol had an additional factor. Alcohol interferes with brain development. Add in the fact that the female brain doesn't stop making connections until around 25 and the male brain waits until 30 - 35 years, it is easy to make a case for postponing the ability to buy alcohol as long as possible (at least to 25 for women and 30 for men). Not going to happen of course, but I wish it had before before I became an alcoholic (recovering after about 38 years of seriously picking my brain).
While yes, we send our kids off to war to kill, as I think I brought up before, they are carefully and extensively trained how to use weapons. Not so your average, immature 18 to 21 year old.
Dick's itself stopped selling semi-automatic assault-type rifles shortly after Sandy Hook. Their Field and Streams franchise did not and it is those stores that will stop selling AR-15 type weapons. The whole chain will also stop selling magazines that are larger than the ones normally used for the weapon. They also raised the minimum age to 21 as did Walmart (who also stopped selling semi-automatics after Sandy Hook), Kroger, and L.L. Bean.
Hmm. Pretty sure I just saw that news that Dicks would no longer sell assault style rifles just recently. Could have been an old notice, though.
It will be interesting to see if their ploy results in more income, less or not much change. Delta found using their business as a political weapon to be rather expensive, I believe.You did, but if you read further, they were only talking about their Field and Streams stores who still sold assault weapons.
From what I read, they expect to lose money but felt they had a moral obligation.
So far Delta took a $40 million hit for 13, I think, uses of the NRA discount last year. However, Georgia may take a bigger hit if 1) they lose the Amazon headquarters bid because of it and/or Delta moves their hub; two cities have already said they will grease the skids tax-wise if they do.Money talks, certainly. Ethics and morals pale beside it most of the time.
Related Discussions
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 7 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
- 29
Gun Violence in America Year, to Date, as of April 22, 2023
by Mike Russo 12 months ago
I watched Fareed Zakaria's show yesterday and saw these shocking statistics that I thought were worthy of sharing.According to the Gun Violence Archive (The link to the site is at the end of this post)19,942 Americans have died in gun-related incidents this year.541 Children and Teenagers (0-17)...
- 123
When will people start thinking for themselves?
by movingout 11 years ago
Fear is a powerful tool to lead people to do stupid things! Example: running out and buying guns and ammo because they "are led to believe", the current administration is going to take away all guns! To listen to radio and tv news shows using the word "civil war!" Using our...
- 95
Mass Shootings
by Mike Russo 4 years ago
I am fed up with the gun people stating that more people are killed by other means than guns. Statistically that may be true. But at this point it is not about statistics. It is about keeping our environment safe. In this latest mass shootings, the shooter killed five people and...
- 21
Another Mass Shooting
by Celia Ribeiro 8 years ago
It's inevitable that the recent events in Newton i'm going to once again bring to light with some consider a gun control issue. 15 people injured and for dead including the shooter. The sheriffs department is reporting that at this time they have obtained enough information to...
- 21
Orlando. Isn't it time for banning fire arms in the US ?
by PeterStip 7 years ago
Orlando. Isn't it time for banning fire arms in the US ?Almost every day there is a mass shooting in the US. A mass shooting is 4 or more people shot. (http://www.shootingtracker.com/)Australia banned guns. Result - no more mass shootings.It's so simple. Less guns on the street, less mass...