Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

And ANOTHER school shooting today


126 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#101 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17093 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 11:29 AM

You must be listening to different people than I am. The ones I know (both online and IRL) are absolutely adamant that no gun control measures are in any way acceptable--not the ones that have already been enacted and certainly not any that libtards might wish to enact in the future. All attempts at controlling gun violence that might involve putting any controls on the purchase and use of firearms are unconstitutional. 

 

The ones you're describing are not the people I'm referring to in my previous posts. That kind of reasonable approach is being drowned out by the far more adamant side of the group, and I don't see the reasonable folks gaining any actual traction in the discussion. 

When you write this kind of thing, I just shake my head, because people take the positions I have described over and over RIGHT HERE on these boards, and constantly get ignored and caricatured by posts like yours.  


  • transientChris and Halftime Hope like this

#102 ILiveInFlipFlops

ILiveInFlipFlops

    Hoarder of Blood Orange Mike's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6026 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 11:46 AM

When you write this kind of thing, I just shake my head, because people take the positions I have described over and over RIGHT HERE on these boards, and constantly get ignored and caricatured by posts like yours.  

 

:confused1:  I'm not saying these people do not exist. Of course they do. I'm saying that in the real world, these people are getting shouted down by the more extreme segments and prevented from implementing any real change. Please, feel free to show me where these reasonable people are making an impact. I'm completely serious. Link me to studies, pending legislation, movements that are gaining traction, etc. I'm wide open to being proved wrong on this. Show me where the folks who advocate thoughtful and reasonable measures are making change happen. And please don't just tell me to look it up myself, because I have and I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing lots of the other BS though.

 

Or are you trying to tell me that I don't actually know the people I know in real life? That I haven't had the discussions I've had? Because that's pretty condescending. Caricatures indeed.


  • 8circles, gwennn and fraidycat like this

#103 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17093 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 11:52 AM

 

 

Or are you trying to tell me that I don't actually know the people I know in real life? That I haven't had the discussions I've had? Because that's pretty condescending. Caricatures indeed.

I'm saying that you are ignoring the people HERE with those positions, who are far more numerous than the ones (if any) who actually hold to your caricature.  You mentioned 'online and IRL' in the post I was replying to, which was pretty ironic.


  • transientChris likes this

#104 poppy

poppy

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:00 PM

Straw man argument utterly. 

What people who are concerned with rights say is much more nuanced than that.

They say,

1.  We should start by enforcing gun control laws that are already on the books. Because if we don't even do that, what good does it do to pass new laws?  Passing laws that we don't enforce is an ineffective feel good move.

2.  We should look at places in this country where there are gun control laws to see whether and which ones are effective in deciding what to implement nationwide or at least in other states.

3.  When we implement new gun control laws, we should do so with appropriate caution to preserve our constitutional rights.

4.  In parallel we need to address the entrenched mental health treatment issues in this country as well as societal standards breakdown, because time after time we see that those are associated with gun fatalities.  The most common mode of shooting deaths in this country is suicide.  The second most common is urban gang violence. 

 

Personally, I see room for tons of middle ground there.

And I have seen these things brought up again and again in these threads, so it's not novel or new. 

 

For point #1:

Enforcing what's on the books would not save Sandy Hook's children.  It would  not have saved the victims of the Vegas shooting. What would you do about those?

 

It would have saved the people in Texas.  When the NRA  and gun rights advocates use their very considerable political clout to limit gun sales to the mentally ill or unqualified ... I will be very, very surprised that day. 

 

For point #2:

Without delving too far into politics, there is a move by the US House of Representatives allow anyone with concealed carry in any state to be able to conceal carry anywhere in the United States.   Which tells me the gun lobby's agenda is  to strip away local voices on gun control.   Do you think that is appropriate? 

 

For point #3, I agree,

 

For point #4 - 

 

Yes we need much better funding for mental health care in this country.  I have NO IDEA if "urban gang violence" is the most common homicide. Reporting on gun violence is curtailed, as you very well know.

 

The most common way children to experience by gun violence is at home, with unsecured guns.   At least one a week.  Though again, reporting is very very spotty.  Children who die from guns at home are listed as "accident" not "homicide" so they are not included in gun violence statistics. 


  • 8circles, creekland and gwennn like this

#105 ILiveInFlipFlops

ILiveInFlipFlops

    Hoarder of Blood Orange Mike's

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6026 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:03 PM

I'm saying that you are ignoring the people HERE with those positions, who are far more numerous than the ones (if any) who actually hold to your caricature.  You mentioned 'online and IRL' in the post I was replying to, which was pretty ironic.

 

 

I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm saying that these people are not who I was referring to in my earlier posts, and they're NOT the people blocking change being made. I also never said that everyone I know online holds those views. 

 

So what you're saying is that instead of backing up your argument, you'll continue to condescend to me and shake your head. Well done. 


  • 8circles likes this

#106 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17093 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:05 PM

I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm saying that these people are not who I was referring to in my earlier posts, and they're NOT the people blocking change being made. I also never said that everyone I know online holds those views. 

 

So what you're saying is that instead of backing up your argument, you'll continue to condescend to me and shake your head. Well done. 

 

You speak very broadly and inaccurately include the people here with the positions I described in the direction of your comments.  That is what is condescending.  I'm glad to hear that you did not mean it that way.


  • transientChris likes this

#107 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17093 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:12 PM

For point #1:

Enforcing what's on the books would not save Sandy Hook's children.  It would  not have saved the victims of the Vegas shooting. What would you do about those?

 

Mental health limitations would have prevented the Sandy Hook thing.  How would you have prevented it?
I don't know enough about the Las Vegas developing details to comment on that one.

 

It would have saved the people in Texas.  When the NRA  and gun rights advocates use their very considerable political clout to limit gun sales to the mentally ill or unqualified ... I will be very, very surprised that day. 

 

For point #2:

Without delving too far into politics, there is a move by the US House of Representatives allow anyone with concealed carry in any state to be able to conceal carry anywhere in the United States.   Which tells me the gun lobby's agenda is  to strip away local voices on gun control.   Do you think that is appropriate? 

I don't know enough about this to have a firm position, but tend to oppose it.

 

For point #3, I agree,

 

For point #4 - 

 

Yes we need much better funding for mental health care in this country.  I have NO IDEA if "urban gang violence" is the most common homicide. Reporting on gun violence is curtailed, as you very well know.

Actually I don't know that.  We have stats on every death in this country.  That I know for sure.  Or are you talking about casualties as well?  Because I don't know about those.

 

The most common way children to experience by gun violence is at home, with unsecured guns.   At least one a week.  Though again, reporting is very very spotty.  Children who die from guns at home are listed as "accident" not "homicide" so they are not included in gun violence statistics. 

Again, the most common mechanism for gun deaths in this country is suicide.  Consequently I would think that better suicide prevention efforts, including work on mental health services would be the highest priority in addressing gun related death.


  • transientChris likes this

#108 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24211 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:28 PM

It could be time to post this website that lists gun violence incidents in oodles of charts and maps.  Here's one detailing unintentional shootings:

 

http://www.gunviolen...34-1576259fed80

 

The first page (at the moment) is filled with shootings only back to Dec 2nd.  One week.

 

Here's children killed or injured:

 

http://www.gunviolen...f5-3c8316431f0c

 

The first page goes back to Nov 22nd.  Not even a month's worth fit on one page.

 

Here's teens killed or injured (the school shooting this thread is about comes in here):

 

http://www.gunviolen...f5-3c8316431f0c

 

It only goes back to Dec 4th.  Less than a week again.

 

It boggles my mind that there are folks who think having oodles of guns out there (legal or not) helps our (collective) safety, but then again, there are folks who feel it's safer to drive than fly too, so... often stats mean nothing to many.

 

I still don't think anything will ever change in the US.  It's a mindset this "Great" nation has.  

 

Out of curiosity, I googled gun violence and deaths and got this World Atlas site:

 

http://www.worldatla...ted-deaths.html

 

Apparently, we're still #11 in the Firearm Related Deaths category with an interesting list of (non 1st world) countries above us (and many below too).  I'm sure if we keep on track we can move up into the Top 10 at least.  Our Great Country should never be below the Top 10 in anything! (sigh)


  • chiguirre, Happy2BaMom, 8circles and 4 others like this

#109 mellifera33

mellifera33

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1342 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 12:44 PM

 

 

It boggles my mind that there are folks who think having oodles of guns out there (legal or not) helps our (collective) safety, but then again, there are folks who feel it's safer to drive than fly too, so... often stats mean nothing to many.

 

 

 

I think it boils down to a false sense of control. If I'm driving then I can prevent an accident, whereas if the pilot is in control he'll crash. If I have a gun, then my lightning-fast reflexes and cool head will prevail when the bad guy shows up and I'll take him down before he can cause any harm. 


  • Carol in Cal., Laura Corin, creekland and 2 others like this

#110 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24211 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 01:10 PM

I think it boils down to a false sense of control. If I'm driving then I can prevent an accident, whereas if the pilot is in control he'll crash. If I have a gun, then my lightning-fast reflexes and cool head will prevail when the bad guy shows up and I'll take him down before he can cause any harm. 

 

'Tis pretty much what every TV show and movie tells us happens, after all.

 

Well, except Mythbusters.


  • gwennn likes this

#111 poppy

poppy

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 01:13 PM

Again, the most common mechanism for gun deaths in this country is suicide.  Consequently I would think that better suicide prevention efforts, including work on mental health services would be the highest priority in addressing gun related death.

 

From what I understand, countries with strict gun control do not have fewer suicides.  Gun control is not an effective means of curtailing suicides.

Countries with strict gun control have infinitely fewer mass shootings, including school shootings.  That is something we take action about. 

We are choosing to do nothing at the moment, and more children die every month.



#112 poppy

poppy

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 01:20 PM

Mental health limitations would have prevented the Sandy Hook thing. How would you have prevented it?


By "mental health limitations" do you mean that a person should not have a lot of guns in the house if another household member has documented, serious mental health challenges?

The shooter has Aspergers, sensory processing disorder, and unknown other mental health issues including, apparently, psychotic episodes .... the latter, he opted not to treat.

I think it would be far more intrusive to force mental health treatments than to limit recreation firearms ownership .

Edited by poppy, 09 December 2017 - 01:25 PM.


#113 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17093 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 02:06 PM

By "mental health limitations" do you mean that a person should not have a lot of guns in the house if another household member has documented, serious mental health challenges?

The shooter has Aspergers, sensory processing disorder, and unknown other mental health issues including, apparently, psychotic episodes .... the latter, he opted not to treat.

I think it would be far more intrusive to force mental health treatments than to limit recreation firearms ownership .

 

The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter took her son shooting.  Despite his psychotic episodes.  That is criminally irresponsible.  While I am not saying she can't have guns in her house, he should not have had access to them, let alone learned to shoot with his mom for fun.  There are excellent gun locks and gun safes, and either one would have prevented him from using them.  Totally unacceptable behavior on her part.

 

Regarding forced mental health treatments, they were indeed intrusive back in the day, but they are far too hands off now.  There must be a middle path.  There is a woman who is fixated on the house she grew up in kitty corner across the street from ours.  She is homeless and dangerous, delusionally mentally ill.  It was pretty scary to see her whacking at neighborhood bushes with a machete.  Or screaming a nonexistent enemy in the gutter as she walks up the block.  She needs help that she is not getting under our socalled system, and we need protection that we are not getting either.  She won't stay in any homeless shelter or halfway house--she checks herself out and leaves for good.

 

To forestall any obvious stuff--yes, some of us call the police when she is really off, but mostly that just results in, at most, a three day hold, and she comes out focussed on revenge.  One time when she worked herself up into one of her crescendos she broke all the windows in the childhood home, including a 5 foot one in the front door.  30 day mental treatment in an institution that time.  At one point she threatened someone with a weapon after entering their home without permission, and they were able to get a restraining order keeping her off our street, but while that helped us it did not help her.  


Edited by Carol in Cal., 09 December 2017 - 02:07 PM.

  • transientChris likes this

#114 poppy

poppy

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts

Posted 09 December 2017 - 02:47 PM

The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter took her son shooting. Despite his psychotic episodes. That is criminally irresponsible. While I am not saying she can't have guns in her house, he should not have had access to them, let alone learned to shoot with his mom for fun. There are excellent gun locks and gun safes, and either one would have prevented him from using them. Totally unacceptable behavior on her part.

Regarding forced mental health treatments, they were indeed intrusive back in the day, but they are far too hands off now. There must be a middle path. There is a woman who is fixated on the house she grew up in kitty corner across the street from ours. She is homeless and dangerous, delusionally mentally ill. It was pretty scary to see her whacking at neighborhood bushes with a machete. Or screaming a nonexistent enemy in the gutter as she walks up the block. She needs help that she is not getting under our socalled system, and we need protection that we are not getting either. She won't stay in any homeless shelter or halfway house--she checks herself out and leaves for good.

To forestall any obvious stuff--yes, some of us call the police when she is really off, but mostly that just results in, at most, a three day hold, and she comes out focussed on revenge. One time when she worked herself up into one of her crescendos she broke all the windows in the childhood home, including a 5 foot one in the front door. 30 day mental treatment in an institution that time. At one point she threatened someone with a weapon after entering their home without permission, and they were able to get a restraining order keeping her off our street, but while that helped us it did not help her.


Ok so what is there to prevent every other person who has a dangerous family member from not doing the exact same thing? S there any enforceable law to make people use gun safes or similar precautions ?

I find the risk of the next Sandy Hook massacre to be unacceptable and would like to see measures in place to prevent it. What I hear is ‘she was irresponsible so it’s not something we can do anything about ‘. Or ‘criminal break laws so there is no point in any other laws’. Which leaves us exactly as vulnerable to tragedy as we were five years ago when those kids were killed. That is unacceptable to me. Is it unacceptable to you ?

As for problems with mental health treatment in this country , I am intimately and painfully aware. I have a brother I’ve been scared for, and of, for years . I don’t really want to talk about it.
  • Eliana and 8circles like this

#115 TheReader

TheReader

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 10 December 2017 - 06:08 PM

What options exist between "I support gun control legislation because I believe it will reduce the number of murders by gun" and "I believe that any legislation is an infringement on my rights and don't support it"? That's what I'm referring to here. You either believe gun control is a part of the solution to the problem or you believe that the problem is just what we have to suffer along with in order to live in a free society. I don't see a middle ground.

 

If you don't believe that gun control is a possible part of the solution, then what is? I don't see a lot of overlap between people agitating for improved mental health care that accessible to all and those lobbying against gun control.

 

What I would like to see, as a gun owner who desperately wants to figure out *something* that will actually help in these cases, is for those who negligently allow a person access to a gun, a person who shouldn't have one, to also be charged. A friend was detailing all that is on the line for her if she, as a cashier, sells alcohol to someone underage. She could be arrested, jailed or fined, and/or lose her job. There should, in my opinion, be similar laws in place for those who sell, give, or provide access to a gun to a person who otherwise would not be allowed to have one. And/or charges for that person related to whatever crime is committed. Or something. 

 

Granted, this is likely unreasonable and impossible to enforce. But maybe it would curb private sales of firearms, friend to friend, family member to family member, etc. Maybe it would encourage parents to actually lock up their firearms, either all the time, or if they know that a family member is at-risk. 

 

I feel like.....there are laws on the books limiting who can own guns. They are not enough, and I doubt they will be effective. Why? Not because I am hell bent on keeping my right to buy ever more guns in the future, but because laws that go into effect in the future about who can purchase a gun do nothing at all about who already owns a gun, do nothing about faulty reporting, do nothing about private sales, gifts, or gun thefts......instead, they say "we think xyz citizen is not entitled to his/her constitutional rights, because of situation abc" and that simply gets people agitated, angry, worked up, etc. 

 

Circling back around to middle ground, then, let's make laws that go after those who help at risk folks get around existing laws. Let's maybe make/hold responsible the person who supplied the gun that was used in a crime, unless it was a documented theft or a fully legal purchase w/no oops factor. It won't solve all of it, it won't prevent all of it, but it should make the average gun owner think twice about how he stores his gun, who he lets access it, who he lends it to, and how he sells or gives it away later on. Hopefully. 

 

It could be time to post this website that lists gun violence incidents in oodles of charts and maps.  Here's one detailing unintentional shootings:

 

http://www.gunviolen...34-1576259fed80

 

The first page (at the moment) is filled with shootings only back to Dec 2nd.  One week.

 

Here's children killed or injured:

 

http://www.gunviolen...f5-3c8316431f0c

 

The first page goes back to Nov 22nd.  Not even a month's worth fit on one page.

 

Here's teens killed or injured (the school shooting this thread is about comes in here):

 

http://www.gunviolen...f5-3c8316431f0c

 

It only goes back to Dec 4th.  Less than a week again.

 

It boggles my mind that there are folks who think having oodles of guns out there (legal or not) helps our (collective) safety, but then again, there are folks who feel it's safer to drive than fly too, so... often stats mean nothing to many.

 

I still don't think anything will ever change in the US.  It's a mindset this "Great" nation has.  

 

Out of curiosity, I googled gun violence and deaths and got this World Atlas site:

 

http://www.worldatla...ted-deaths.html

 

Apparently, we're still #11 in the Firearm Related Deaths category with an interesting list of (non 1st world) countries above us (and many below too).  I'm sure if we keep on track we can move up into the Top 10 at least.  Our Great Country should never be below the Top 10 in anything! (sigh)

 

Interestingly a lot of the countries on the list with higher rates of gun deaths than us also have stricter gun laws than us. Not all, but some. It would only let me read those top 5, and 3 of the 5 require a license to even own a gun, let alone carry it. One doesn't allow gun ownership at all (#2), and one limits how many guns & how they can be kept, and where they can be carried/how (#1), including not allowing guns in public spaces at all. I don't know about all of #s 6 through 10, but Brazil has similarly restrictive laws as well. Yet.....all higher than us.

 

It's not a matter of desperately clinging to my own gun, passionately protecting our constitution, blindly fighting for the right to own a weapon...it's that when we look around, it doesn't seem too effective. That's not to say let's pass zero legislation...it's just to say, let's make sure whatever legislation we *do* pass, is something that will actually work. Because "you can't own a gun" doesn't seem to be one that works. 

 

From what I understand, countries with strict gun control do not have fewer suicides.  Gun control is not an effective means of curtailing suicides.

Countries with strict gun control have infinitely fewer mass shootings, including school shootings.  That is something we take action about. 

We are choosing to do nothing at the moment, and more children die every month.

 

Perhaps fewer mass shootings, but per the previously linked World Atlas site, the top 5  gun deaths countries all have stricter gun control laws than the US (and possibly the top 10, but I could not locate the gun laws on numbers 6 through 10). 

 

Again, not saying we do nothing, just saying that whatever we do needs to be more than knee-jerk reaction based on emotion. 

 

Ok so what is there to prevent every other person who has a dangerous family member from not doing the exact same thing? S there any enforceable law to make people use gun safes or similar precautions ?

I find the risk of the next Sandy Hook massacre to be unacceptable and would like to see measures in place to prevent it. What I hear is ‘she was irresponsible so it’s not something we can do anything about ‘. Or ‘criminal break laws so there is no point in any other laws’. Which leaves us exactly as vulnerable to tragedy as we were five years ago when those kids were killed. That is unacceptable to me. Is it unacceptable to you ?

As for problems with mental health treatment in this country , I am intimately and painfully aware. I have a brother I’ve been scared for, and of, for years . I don’t really want to talk about it.

 

On this I wholeheartedly agree; I would love love love to see laws put in place, or enforced if already in place, that make criminally negligent those who grant access to a weapon that is later used in a crime, assuming they had some knowledge that would indicate a possibility. Or if the perpetrator of the later crime was a minor at time the gun was acquired. I don't know exactly the way this should be worded.....but I think legislation along these lines actually has a chance of being effective, because it targets the folks who are likely to want to be responsible. The guy likely to commit the mass shooting is unlikely to care what laws exist. His mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, friend, etc. who owns the gun he uses is more likely to be more careful if he or she can also be held responsible should something happen. At least, I hope they would. Maybe I'm being idealistic, I don't know, but I think this is an avenue that could work to actually make a difference. 


  • chiguirre, Carol in Cal. and transientChris like this

#116 unsinkable

unsinkable

    AD QUEM IBIMUS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17531 posts

Posted 10 December 2017 - 06:31 PM

http://www.syracuse....m_spengler.html

There are federal charges (and state charges in NY) for providing known felons with firearms.

But that is shutting the barn door after the horses are out. If you know someone bludgeoned his grandmother to death, and you STILL buy him guns...and he kills more people...i guess you won't do it a second time? Bc you've learned your lesson?
  • Catwoman likes this

#117 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24211 posts

Posted 10 December 2017 - 07:10 PM

Interestingly a lot of the countries on the list with higher rates of gun deaths than us also have stricter gun laws than us. Not all, but some. It would only let me read those top 5, and 3 of the 5 require a license to even own a gun, let alone carry it. One doesn't allow gun ownership at all (#2), and one limits how many guns & how they can be kept, and where they can be carried/how (#1), including not allowing guns in public spaces at all. I don't know about all of #s 6 through 10, but Brazil has similarly restrictive laws as well. Yet.....all higher than us. 

 

I think we could pass all the laws we wanted to here and it wouldn't change the already entrenched culture - at least - not for a long time.

 

It's why I think there's no fix for this country.  I've been elsewhere - even areas where folks own guns on a regular basis (as well as areas where they don't).  They don't have the same mindset too many people here have.  Those we talk with are amazed at the mindset - the quick willingness to use guns, even mentally (in theory), against another person.

 

I don't know if that mindset will be exported from our country (and others with a similar mindset) or not.  I hope not.  Time will tell.



#118 TheReader

TheReader

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 10 December 2017 - 07:49 PM

http://www.syracuse....m_spengler.html

There are federal charges (and state charges in NY) for providing known felons with firearms.

But that is shutting the barn door after the horses are out. If you know someone bludgeoned his grandmother to death, and you STILL buy him guns...and he kills more people...i guess you won't do it a second time? Bc you've learned your lesson?

 

I'm not talking about just known felons, those already on the "can't buy a gun" list. I'm talking about the mentally ill, the domestic abuser who isn't on the list, basically anyone that falls through the cracks as far as can or can't get a gun. Parents who allow access to a minor, and the minor shoots people. Hold the parents liable as well. 

 

I realize it's not a perfect idea, and maybe not implementable at all. I don't know. But I feel like at least the gun owners would want to obey the law, where the mentally disturbed who are plotting the mass shootings probably don't, so maybe that's an angle we could explore and further develop. 

 

ETA: Plus, I'd be curious to see, if such a thing exists (a report on this, I mean, not questioning that the law exists) if NY has fewer shootings than other parts of the country, if that number went down with that law, etc. If we had that law in all states, would it have an impact? Because someone can be a felon for a LOT of reasons, not just gun violence, so it could still prevent things, maybe. 


Edited by TheReader, 10 December 2017 - 07:55 PM.


#119 TheReader

TheReader

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 10 December 2017 - 07:52 PM

I think we could pass all the laws we wanted to here and it wouldn't change the already entrenched culture - at least - not for a long time.

 

It's why I think there's no fix for this country.  I've been elsewhere - even areas where folks own guns on a regular basis (as well as areas where they don't).  They don't have the same mindset too many people here have.  Those we talk with are amazed at the mindset - the quick willingness to use guns, even mentally (in theory), against another person.

 

I don't know if that mindset will be exported from our country (and others with a similar mindset) or not.  I hope not.  Time will tell.

 

That is also very true, and I have no idea how we fix that, at all, but I do agree with you, I'm just grasping at straws here on what sorts of laws might be followed by those who do care. The guy planning the murder? Not gonna change. His mom, who takes him shooting (as someone brought up about Sandy Hook).....if she knows *she* can be charged if he goes off the rails, maybe she doesn't become the one that teaches him how to shoot. Maybe. 

 

I know it's a tiny, miniscule "maybe' at that......but it seems like a slightly more likely maybe than flat out outlawing guns. 

 

I don't know; the whole thing feels hopeless, honestly, and I wish it didn't. 



#120 transientChris

transientChris

    Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10669 posts

Posted 10 December 2017 - 09:04 PM

Death becomes humdrum.  Note that the Chicago Tribune reports every Monday how many were shot and how many were shot dead the last weekend in Cook County, IL (Chicago).   These weekend totals are always numerous and if you take the totals over two months, you probably equal LV shooter.  And that is just in Chicago.  Many other cities and towns have attrocious killing rates-  but these are usually due to gang warfare.  Most people don;t care about gangbangers killing each other but there are so often innocent victims who are shot.  And a lot more innocent victims who live in total fear because of the breakdown of their neighborhood.  We actually do know some strategies to reduce urban warfare (not that we are doing much) but as to single mass shooters- that is one of the hardest crimes to prevent.  This school shooting had so little deaths because the LE personnel were on the scene in less than a minute.    As to some of the other recent shooters- we had Mom who didn't or couldn't do anything about her son- personally if I had a kid obsessed with death and mass shootings, I most definitely would not have any guns in the house.  I believe she did have them in a safe and he broke into it.  With the guy in LV, the hotel security was not adeuate at all.  Moving in huge boxes, having do not disturb for days are all huge red flags.  Not usually for mass shootings but often for things like hiding dead bodies.  The church shooter should not have been allowed to have a gun and that was government mishandling as was Dylan Root.  Orlando guy was twice cleared by FBI for terrorist issues when obviously the last thing he did was terrorism.

  I would be in favor of putting people who are on do not fly lists on the do not buy gun list.  But my understanding about that is that the list is more filled with false positives than with actual terrorists or suspected terrorists,  So if you have a Irish name or a Basque name or a Tamil Name or Arabic name and on and on, you are much more likely to get flagged even though you aren't a terrorist.  As there is currently no way for these people to have a card or something saying Joe Kennedy who is a 30 year old lawyer in Chicago is not the same Joe Kennedy who is a 60 something year old IRA member, those people are all caught up.  Apparently that includes several congressman. At the airport, they pull the person aside and do some more checking.  With the gun sale check, they don't have a photo or anything so they would just reject.  There is probably some way to go around that but legislators would have to figure it out.  I am also in favor of banning the gun stock things the LV user used.  I don't think anyone needs it but I also know that it is a simple thing that anyone could make at home too so I am not sure how much it would help.


  • TheReader likes this

#121 Carol in Cal.

Carol in Cal.

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17093 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:05 AM


I find the risk of the next Sandy Hook massacre to be unacceptable and would like to see measures in place to prevent it. What I hear is ‘she was irresponsible so it’s not something we can do anything about ‘. Or ‘criminal break laws so there is no point in any other laws’. Which leaves us exactly as vulnerable to tragedy as we were five years ago when those kids were killed. That is unacceptable to me. Is it unacceptable to you ?

 

Of course it is.  I said that she was criminally irresponsible, and what I meant by that is that what she did should be a crime.



#122 poppy

poppy

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:26 AM

Of course it is. I said that she was criminally irresponsible, and what I meant by that is that what she did should be a crime.



So after people die, there are more criminal charges. That does nothing at all to prevent tragedy. Nothing.

And it doesn’t happen anyway. There is ample evidence that in most cases when a child accidentally shoots a sibling , the parents are not charged with a crime. They’ve lost a child , what good can it do? And honestly , I have to agree. The only good that can come is prevention.

The goal should bt to prevent the next tragedy.
  • 8circles and heatherwith3 like this

#123 poppy

poppy

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6841 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 02:00 AM

I'm not talking about just known felons, those already on the "can't buy a gun" list. I'm talking about the mentally ill, the domestic abuser who isn't on the list, basically anyone that falls through the cracks as far as can or can't get a gun. Parents who allow access to a minor, and the minor shoots people. Hold the parents liable as well.

I realize it's not a perfect idea, and maybe not implementable at all. I don't know. But I feel like at least the gun owners would want to obey the law, where the mentally disturbed who are plotting the mass shootings probably don't, so maybe that's an angle we could explore and further develop.

ETA: Plus, I'd be curious to see, if such a thing exists (a report on this, I mean, not questioning that the law exists) if NY has fewer shootings than other parts of the country, if that number went down with that law, etc. If we had that law in all states, would it have an impact? Because someone can be a felon for a LOT of reasons, not just gun violence, so it could still prevent things, maybe.


Some ideas that might help (but there is a multi billion dollar industry fighting against them ):


Smart guns that only work for registered users . Fund research to make it a reality . And while we’re at it , fund the technology that links bullets to the gun that shot the bullet. This would help police investigations.

Universal background checks.

Create a registry with a list of who has firearms similar to the current automobile registry, to fight trafficking.

Fund research for reduction in firearm violence.

Ban firearm sales to high risk individuals . Criteria might include-severely mentally ill patients- people convicted of stalking or felony domestic violence. Limit sales to people with a dangerous household member. That is the ideal situation for a smart gun - to allow some but not all people in the home to be able to shoot.

Close the gun show loophole that allows firearms to be sold without a background check or record of sale.

Require that lost or stolen guns be reported.

Require basic safety training .

I’m not saying these are all great ideas , but they should be on the table as considerations .

I saw a report today about how school lockdown drills are now a reality for most US school kids. I think there is a lot we could look at if we want to make our culture safer, if we have the willl.
  • 8circles, creekland and TheReader like this

#124 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7838 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 08:10 AM

So after people die, there are more criminal charges. That does nothing at all to prevent tragedy. Nothing.

And it doesn’t happen anyway. There is ample evidence that in most cases when a child accidentally shoots a sibling , the parents are not charged with a crime. They’ve lost a child , what good can it do? And honestly , I have to agree. The only good that can come is prevention.

The goal should bt to prevent the next tragedy.


I see it like tougher enforcement of drunk driving laws. They don't prevent all tragedies but the stricter enforcement makes most people think twice about drinking and driving. They prevent many tragedies.

It takes a while for a culture to change. When we do blame the parents whose toddler shot their 7 yo and hold them criminally liable, we'll slowly change people's perception from "what a tragedy!" to "what criminally irresponsible parents, punish them!" That will make more people be more careful with their firearms. It will slowly change our attitudes about gun ownership.

I particularly want to see parents charged if their child uses their firearm to either kill someone else or kill themselves. The penalties should be harsher than serving underage people alcohol. It's incredibly irresponsible to give a teen access to a weapon without supervision. We should treat it that way.
  • Laura Corin, 8circles and TheReader like this

#125 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24211 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 08:19 AM

I see it like tougher enforcement of drunk driving laws. They don't prevent all tragedies but the stricter enforcement makes most people think twice about drinking and driving. They prevent many tragedies.

It takes a while for a culture to change. When we do blame the parents whose toddler shot their 7 yo and hold them criminally liable, we'll slowly change people's perception from "what a tragedy!" to "what criminally irresponsible parents, punish them!" That will make more people be more careful with their firearms. It will slowly change our attitudes about gun ownership.

I particularly want to see parents charged if their child uses their firearm to either kill someone else or kill themselves. The penalties should be harsher than serving underage people alcohol. It's incredibly irresponsible to give a teen access to a weapon without supervision. We should treat it that way.

 

I don't think that will ever happen.  We live in an area where kids have killed other kids - even within the circle I know IRL.  The belief among those who also own guns is that their kids are smarter or they are smarter and it would never happen to them.  It's very similar to why texting and driving is still a thing even though there's ample evidence it's just as deadly as driving drunk.  "Everyone" is such a good driver that they can handle it.  It's the other dumb drivers who cause the accidents.


  • 8circles and poppy like this

#126 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7838 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 08:24 AM

Interestingly a lot of the countries on the list with higher rates of gun deaths than us also have stricter gun laws than us. Not all, but some. It would only let me read those top 5, and 3 of the 5 require a license to even own a gun, let alone carry it. One doesn't allow gun ownership at all (#2), and one limits how many guns & how they can be kept, and where they can be carried/how (#1), including not allowing guns in public spaces at all. I don't know about all of #s 6 through 10, but Brazil has similarly restrictive laws as well. Yet.....all higher than us.


Four of the top ten are Central America countries that have a breakdown in civic order stemming from the civil wars they experienced in the 1980s. Colombia and Venezuela also have political issues that go far deeper than regular crime that influence their gun violence. Licenses and even outright bans won't do anything at all in the face of the ingrained violence they've suffered.

That's not the situation in the US at all. It's more productive to compare us with Canada or Australia than with Honduras or Guatemala. We need to study the reasons that the US has regular school shootings but Canada doesn't. For that matter, Honduras and Venezuela don't have school shootings or mass homicides like Las Vegas either. Their death tolls are due to rampant crime and turf wars in marginalized areas due to a complete breakdown of civic order not the mental health issues that we face.
  • Laura Corin, 8circles, TheReader and 1 other like this

#127 TheReader

TheReader

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2800 posts

Posted 11 December 2017 - 09:24 AM

Some ideas that might help (but there is a multi billion dollar industry fighting against them ):


Smart guns that only work for registered users . Fund research to make it a reality . And while we’re at it , fund the technology that links bullets to the gun that shot the bullet. This would help police investigations.

Universal background checks.

Create a registry with a list of who has firearms similar to the current automobile registry, to fight trafficking.

Fund research for reduction in firearm violence.

Ban firearm sales to high risk individuals . Criteria might include-severely mentally ill patients- people convicted of stalking or felony domestic violence. Limit sales to people with a dangerous household member. That is the ideal situation for a smart gun - to allow some but not all people in the home to be able to shoot.

Close the gun show loophole that allows firearms to be sold without a background check or record of sale.

Require that lost or stolen guns be reported.

Require basic safety training .

I’m not saying these are all great ideas , but they should be on the table as considerations .

I saw a report today about how school lockdown drills are now a reality for most US school kids. I think there is a lot we could look at if we want to make our culture safer, if we have the willl.

These are all really good ideas; some states do require safety training for their carry permits but I would love to see all states require it (especially now that Congress is trying to pass reciprocal carry laws/lessen the restrictions on reciprocal carry) and I'd love to see the carry permit required at time of purchase or before purchase or something like that, so that *all* gun owners have to take the class. That would solve the registry issue, too, though how you'd ever get folks to agree to retroactive registration (current gun owners needing to register) is beyond me. 

 

Smart guns.....like having fingerprint recognition, similar to on an iPhone? That would be interesting.....not sure how you could accomplish that. 

 

The rest though seem like good ideas to me; it's one reason we haven't joined the NRA. Yes, we own guns.....no, we aren't militant about it or of the "Come and Take It" mindset. (yes, even though we live in Texas....) I'd love to see some or most of these pass. 

 

Four of the top ten are Central America countries that have a breakdown in civic order stemming from the civil wars they experienced in the 1980s. Colombia and Venezuela also have political issues that go far deeper than regular crime that influence their gun violence. Licenses and even outright bans won't do anything at all in the face of the ingrained violence they've suffered.

That's not the situation in the US at all. It's more productive to compare us with Canada or Australia than with Honduras or Guatemala. We need to study the reasons that the US has regular school shootings but Canada doesn't. For that matter, Honduras and Venezuela don't have school shootings or mass homicides like Las Vegas either. Their death tolls are due to rampant crime and turf wars in marginalized areas due to a complete breakdown of civic order not the mental health issues that we face.

 

Fair point; thanks for pointing it out kindly. I appreciate it. 


  • chiguirre and 8circles like this