Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[goldberry]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1540791

 

That is not the most recent consensus.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

 

Is this evidence that Australia’s laws reduced gun violence and homicides? In our 2009 story, we wrote that there was no consensus on that point.

For example, we wrote that a 2003 AIC study looked at rates of firearm-related deaths between 1991 and 2001 and found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides, as well) began before the 1996 law was enacted.

On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the gun law passed. “Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides,†the authors of that study wrote.

In 2011, David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, co-authored a paper that reviewed the available studies, as of 2011, on the effect of Australia’s buyback program on firearm deaths. He wrote that “many studies … found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.â€

Hemenway and his Harvard colleague and co-author, Mary Vriniotis, summarized the evidence in support of the theory that the buyback program saved lives:

• “While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.â€
• “In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).â€
• “In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).â€
• “[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.â€

Edited November 9, 2017 by goldberry

[Paige]

I'm late to this conversation but if we can't all agree on gun control, can we at least agree on mental health needs? IMO, anyone who mass shoots has mental health issues by definition because healthy people don't mass shoot. Maybe the mental health issue was undiagnosed, maybe it was a brief mental breakdown, but something was wrong in that individual's head. I also realize that most mentally ill people aren't violent (just like most gun owners). I know and love people with mental health problems and gun owners. 

 

BUT: If Trump says it's a mental health issue, maybe we can make progress on that end. It surely can't increase gun violence to improve access to mental health care, mandate insurance coverage, and increase family and community support services for those with mental health issues. I am in favor of gun control, personally, but I don't see it as a cure all and think maybe the country could unite around doing something different to help prevent mass shootings that doesn't touch the 2nd amendment totem. I wonder why there is no outrage after every mass shooting about the terrible treatment we have of the mentally ill; the shortage of therapists and doctors, and the lack of community support- especially for adults. 

 

I don't know...it would be a start and better than throwing our hands up and saying nothing is possible, and would definitely help many people have more productive lives whether or not they would ever have a violent thought. 

[Ausmumof3]

Semi-automatic just refers to the gun having a self-loading mechanism instead of a manual one; one squeeze of the trigger still fires one shot. Yes, they are regularly used in hunting.

But they are limited availability here and we still have a freezer full of venison. They may be used in hunting but definitely not necessary for it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But they are limited availability here and we still have a freezer full of venison. They may be used in hunting but definitely not necessary for it.

 

I grew up in an area with a large number of deer hunters and visit there every year during season.  I have never known anyone who hunted with an assault rifle.  I do know some who use rifles that are semi-automatic but have small magazines (5 rounds or less).

[Ausmumof3]

How is mandatory registration of guns advertising that a person or home has a gun?

 

I don't have a problem with guns being registered, but I do wonder if unusable antiques would need to be registered. My parents have some antiques (none of which have been used in 50+ years). Two may be illegal (my grandfather's sawed off something or other from the 1930s and my other grandfather's gun he took off a dead Nazi and brought home after WWII).

I think it's possible to have the action removed or modified so it's not functional.

[Ausmumof3]

This is a complete non sequitur and shifts the goalposts. Whether I am less safe in the presence of C4 and whether or not I should be able to own it are completely separate issues. There are a ton of things that are dangerous if a human is using them and not dangerous if you are simply in their presence. Guns are one of those things. See also: knives, matches, lawn mowers, cars, forks, knitting needles, stoves, bleach, etc. That has nothing to do with whether or not we can or should be able to own them, or, more to the point, if we are less safe being in the presence of various inanimate objects.

 

The statement I replied to, that we are less safe in the presence of a gun, was ridiculous fear mongering.

 

A person who has a stove is probably much more likely to die in a house fire. Telling people that the mere presence of a stove in their house makes them unsafe will cause eyerolls from people who know how to use stoves, and fear from people who don't. It's not a logical assertion that helps further the conversation in any way.

 

 

No, see, that is a more logical use of statistics than saying that being in the presence of a gun makes one less safe. We could have a discussion about correlation, causation, etc, etc. It's still pretty broad and I'd have a lot of questions, but it's much less silly than telling people that being in a room with a gun is inherently dangerous.

But safe or unsafe aren't absolute states. There is less or more safe. Degrees of safety.

 

In some ways this argument is always a risk versus reward argument. Do the benefits significantly outweigh the risks. We make laws and decisions on this basis all the time.

[Ausmumof3]

I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I’m sure that someone with more knowledg of the ins and outs of ammo could come up with a system that would work. Gun ranges could not allow people to bring their own ammo, that way people wouldn’t be buying large amounts for that purpose. You’d have to regulate price gouging on the part of the range owners, I guess. We never have more than a box or two of ammo on hand unless we are heading to the range.

 

Maybe some kind of ration system that has different tiers you apply for based on your use of ammo. Hunters, sports, etc. Still, I could see a black market for the ration cards. Household limits, not per person limits.

 

 

The trouble with this is you really need to use the specific ammo you are using in the field to sight everything in accurately at the range. Especially for reloaders etc.

[Word Nerd]

But they are limited availability here and we still have a freezer full of venison. They may be used in hunting but definitely not necessary for it.

I didn’t claim otherwise.

[Ausmumof3]

I didn’t claim otherwise.

Ok just clarifying in case anyone didn't know.

[Halftime Hope]

I've kept my participation in this thread very carefully compartmentalized, focusing only on the aspect of gun rights, since it is something I feel strongly about and there is so much ignorance and misunderstanding among people who don't understand guns, don't know how they work, don't know the full implication of what their "gun control" thoughts might mean for lawful gun enthusiasts, and worst of all, have no clue whether something would help or have unintended consequences.

 

I've not allowed myself to open a door to saying anything about the "people" side of this, as I'm pretty torn up about the Sutherland murders. I have a connection to Sutherland, and its people are frequently on my mind and in my prayers. I will not apologize for saying so, as there is no more powerful recourse for changing lives and healing hearts.

 

That said, you all have been talking about taxes, limits on magazine sizes, waiting periods, and so on, none of which will matter a whit in deterring someone who is bound and determined, someone who is in a cold-blooded, bitter rage.  (Not that I wouldn't support some of them, but these things are inconsequential to the mass shooter.)  We can exhaust ourselves on trivial things that won't make much of a difference; that's not where I have time to live.

 

So I've been asking myself, aside from the power of God to change hearts, since I recognize that God can't do much for those who refuse, what steps could we take as a society to change the way people think about violence, about rage, despair and disappointment, about the value of human life?  These are the crux of the matter.

 

Taking possible direction from two different places: 

 

 - I'm of the opinion that cigarette smoking declined for several reasons 1) because of the way people think about it now, 2) because grandkids and their adult parents saw the effect on the older generation who had smoked their entire lives, and 3) because of the societal pressure to pursue health and wellbeing.  We've seen a similar change of perception in society regarding sexuality: unfettered sleeping around is thought of much more negatively than it was 50 years ago.  I'm not very eloquent in saying this at this time of night, but we need to do the opposite of glorifying gun violence. It needs to become unprofitable for TV, movies, newscasts, and video games to glorify shoot-em-ups.  (Don't tell me it can't happen; I remember when the franchise retooled James Bond from a notorious womanizer to monogamy.  For once, I wonder if the film industry could lead instead of appealing to the worst in humanity?)

 

 - I came across a really encouraging bit from Kenya at www.upworthy.com/kenyas-unique-approach-to-rape-prevention-should-have-the-rest-of-the-world-taking-note.  This program is making a big difference because role models.  I wonder if something similar could be rolled out across the U.S. or even in local or regional programs, along with a concerted effort in media.  It would not be appropriate for it to be an anti-gun message, because it would lose credibility and you'd get parental pushback, and it would be wrong to do so.  It absolutely could have messages regarding appropriate gun use; coping tools for when frustration, anger and despair hit; teaching on managing disappointment, living to see another day and picking oneself up to have another try.   I'm thinking it would be bit like anti-bullying teaching. 

 

I need the billionaire without political aspirations that someone mentioned upthread.  : - )

 

Again, my thought is that it is worth trying to reach the hearts and minds of kids.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[Liz CA]

 

 

 

 - I came across a really encouraging bit from Kenya at www.upworthy.com/kenyas-unique-approach-to-rape-prevention-should-have-the-rest-of-the-world-taking-note.  This program is making a big difference because role models.  I wonder if something similar could be rolled out across the U.S. or even in local or regional programs, along with a concerted effort in media.  It would not be appropriate for it to be an anti-gun message, because it would lose credibility and you'd get parental pushback, and it would be wrong to do so.  It absolutely could have messages regarding appropriate gun use; coping tools for when frustration, anger and despair hit; teaching on managing disappointment, living to see another day and picking oneself up to have another try.   I'm thinking it would be bit like anti-bullying teaching. 

 

I need the billionaire without political aspirations that someone mentioned upthread.  : - )

 

Again, my thought is that it is worth trying to reach the hearts and minds of kids.  

 

I agree that good role models are absolutely vital. I briefly touched on the mental health issues here in an earlier post and some people have responded that evil has always existed and so it has but how we deal with anger, frustration or loss can make a huge difference in an individual's life as we can see with some of these shooters.

This issue needs a multi-pronged approach IMHO and teaching how to deal with emotions we all experience is perhaps something we (collectively) have neglected to model.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix
Knock off personal attack, please.

[eternalsummer]

I don't think promiscuity rates have dropped since the 60s and 70s.

[ktgrok]

The 2nd amendment explicitly calls for regulations around guns. A well regulated militia. There is nothing well regulated about what we have right now. 

 

Edited to remove caps, because that was the lack of caffeine talking, not me. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by ktgrok

[Bluegoat]

But they are limited availability here and we still have a freezer full of venison. They may be used in hunting but definitely not necessary for it.

 

Are you sure about this?  A lot of hunting rifles have semi-automatic action.  Here they are legal as long as the barrel meets certain length requirements.

 

One that is not semi-automatic means the user has to manually pull back the bolt and reload a round after every shot.  It's not a huge issue, but it does mean that if your first shot misses, or doesn't kill the animal, you aren't likely to get a second chance.  And people with limited mobility in their hands find it more difficult to use as well.

[Halftime Hope]

The 2nd amendment explicitly calls for regulations around guns. A well regulated militia. There is nothing well regulated about what we have right now. 

 

Edited to remove caps, because that was the lack of caffeine talking, not me. 

 

In the language of the time, "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulations/laws/executive orders.  (That last one was tongue-in-cheek.  ;-) )

 

Well-regulated meant well-trained and competent, since the militia they were referring to was/is individuals.

 

ETA:   I think one could probably make a case for interpreting the Founding Fathers' stipulation as requiring training prior to gun ownership. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[TechWife]

In the language of the time, "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulations/laws/executive orders. (That last one was tongue-in-cheek. ;-) )

 

Well-regulated meant well-trained and competent, since the militia they were referring to was/is individuals.

 

ETA: I think one could probably make a case for interpreting the Founding Fathers' stipulation as requiring training prior to gun ownership.

I’ve never heard this take on that phrase before. Do you have any source material that I can read so I can learn more about this interpretation? Edited November 9, 2017 by TechWife

[Halftime Hope]

I’ve never heard this take on that phrase before. Do you have any source material that I can read so I can learn more about this interpretation?

 

I was working on it when you posted.  : - )

 

I can't copy and paste links, so it takes a bit longer for me to link than for other posters.  It just hadn't occurred to me that anyone would confuse our modern word that conjures "regulations" (since we are so heavily regulated--again in a modern usage--in our country) with the usage at the time of the founding fathers: regulated, as in a "well-regulated clock," or I'd have linked something to that effect in my first post.

 

Showing my age:  I may be the only one who has a memory of a grandfather clock with a "regulator" swinging back and forth. 

 

Definition:  orderly, disciplined, self-controlled, efficient, does it's job well, and so on.  ETA:  You can probably find a dictionary definition, but I'm out of time.

 

Here are two links: 

 

www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

I'm sure there is more, but those are the first two that came up.  I particularly like the second one because it shows examples of usage of the phrase in that time period.

 

 

ETA:  fun rabbit trail:  look up "regulator clocks"  Apparently it was not only the name of a clock "mechanism", some of them even had the word "Regulator" emblazoned on the glass which enclosed the weights or pendulum.   

 

Also edited for clarity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[poppy]

I've kept my participation in this thread very carefully compartmentalized, focusing only on the aspect of gun rights, since it is something I feel strongly about and there is so much ignorance and misunderstanding among people who don't understand guns, don't know how they work, don't know the full implication of what their "gun control" thoughts might mean for lawful gun enthusiasts, and worst of all, have no clue whether something would help or have unintended consequences.

 

I've not allowed myself to open a door to saying anything about the "people" side of this, as I'm pretty torn up about the Sutherland murders. I have a connection to Sutherland, and its people are frequently on my mind and in my prayers. I will not apologize for saying so, as there is no more powerful recourse for changing lives and healing hearts.

 

That said, you all have been talking about taxes, limits on magazine sizes, waiting periods, and so on, none of which will matter a whit in deterring someone who is bound and determined, someone who is in a cold-blooded, bitter rage.  (Not that I wouldn't support some of them, but these things are inconsequential to the mass shooter.)  We can exhaust ourselves on trivial things that won't make much of a difference; that's not where I have time to live.

 

So I've been asking myself, aside from the power of God to change hearts, since I recognize that God can't do much for those who refuse, what steps could we take as a society to change the way people think about violence, about rage, despair and disappointment, about the value of human life?  These are the crux of the matter.

 

Taking possible direction from two different places: 

 

 - I'm of the opinion that cigarette smoking declined for several reasons 1) because of the way people think about it now, 2) because grandkids and their adult parents saw the effect on the older generation who had smoked their entire lives, and 3) because of the societal pressure to pursue health and wellbeing.  We've seen a similar change of perception in society regarding sexuality: unfettered sleeping around is thought of much more negatively than it was 50 years ago.  I'm not very eloquent in saying this at this time of night, but we need to do the opposite of glorifying gun violence. It needs to become unprofitable for TV, movies, newscasts, and video games to glorify shoot-em-ups.  (Don't tell me it can't happen; I remember when the franchise retooled James Bond from a notorious womanizer to monogamy.  For once, I wonder if the film industry could lead instead of appealing to the worst in humanity?)

 

 - I came across a really encouraging bit from Kenya at www.upworthy.com/kenyas-unique-approach-to-rape-prevention-should-have-the-rest-of-the-world-taking-note.  This program is making a big difference because role models.  I wonder if something similar could be rolled out across the U.S. or even in local or regional programs, along with a concerted effort in media.  It would not be appropriate for it to be an anti-gun message, because it would lose credibility and you'd get parental pushback, and it would be wrong to do so.  It absolutely could have messages regarding appropriate gun use; coping tools for when frustration, anger and despair hit; teaching on managing disappointment, living to see another day and picking oneself up to have another try.   I'm thinking it would be bit like anti-bullying teaching. 

 

I need the billionaire without political aspirations that someone mentioned upthread.  : - )

 

Again, my thought is that it is worth trying to reach the hearts and minds of kids.  

 

So about how gun regulations won't make any difference to a mass murderer: why do you think this is true?

The VAST majority of mass shooting happen with legally obtained guns.  80%+.  Including the two most recent horrific examples.

To say, well all 80% of those would just go to the black market and purchase high powered high capacity firearms is a huge logical leap.

 

I just don't buy it, at all.

[Bootsie]

So about how gun regulations won't make any difference to a mass murderer: why do you think this is true?

The VAST majority of mass shooting happen with legally obtained guns.  80%+.  Including the two most recent horrific examples.

To say, well all 80% of those would just go to the black market and purchase high powered high capacity firearms is a huge logical leap.

 

I just don't buy it, at all.

I don't think it is such a huge logical leap.  Although the weapons may have been obtained legally, they were used in an illegal way; thus, deeming something illegal did not stop the shooters in these instances.  

 

One thing that MIGHT have made a difference in this case was if the Air Force had reported the domestic violence, mental hospitalization, illegally bringing weapons on a military base, and threats toward his military superiors.  I have concerns about increasing gun laws and regulations to be enforced by the federal government when the federal government trains a young man in the ways of war, deems that his behavior is inconsistent with that profession, and then does not take obvious steps to decrease the chance of his being a harm in society.

[Ausmumof3]

Are you sure about this? A lot of hunting rifles have semi-automatic action. Here they are legal as long as the barrel meets certain length requirements.

 

One that is not semi-automatic means the user has to manually pull back the bolt and reload a round after every shot. It's not a huge issue, but it does mean that if your first shot misses, or doesn't kill the animal, you aren't likely to get a second chance. And people with limited mobility in their hands find it more difficult to use as well.

Yeah that's just how it is. Semi auto is a separate class here which you can apply for but most people don't bother as you have to justify why you need it.

 

http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch12s05s06s04.php

Edited November 9, 2017 by Ausmumof3

[TechWife]

I was working on it when you posted.  : - )

 

I can't copy and paste links, so it takes a bit longer for me to link than for other posters.  It just hadn't occurred to me that anyone would confuse our modern word that conjures "regulations" (since we are so heavily regulated--again in a modern usage--in our country) with the usage at the time of the founding fathers: regulated, as in a "well-regulated clock," or I'd have linked something to that effect in my first post.

 

Showing my age:  I may be the only one who has a memory of a grandfather clock with a "regulator" swinging back and forth. 

 

Definition:  orderly, disciplined, self-controlled, efficient, does it's job well, and so on.  ETA:  You can probably find a dictionary definition, but I'm out of time.

 

Here are two links: 

 

www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

I'm sure there is more, but those are the first two that came up.  I particularly like the second one because it shows examples of usage of the phrase in that time period.

 

 

ETA:  fun rabbit trail:  look up "regulator clocks"  Apparently it was not only the name of a clock "mechanism", some of them even had the word "Regulator" emblazoned on the glass which enclosed the weights or pendulum.   

 

Also edited for clarity.

 

Honestly, I don't think that saying that a militia should be trained (if that is indeed what was intended, there is a difference of opinion), precludes the federal or state government from enacting laws to ensure that the training takes place and that people are accountable for the training and, by extension, what they do with their firearms.  To follow your example of the clock - a regulator clock is a clock that utilizes a pendulum, which is subject to the laws of physics. 

 

In regards to the difference of opinion on the meaning of well regulated, I found this information, which posits that the meaning of the term isn't either "trained" or "governed by laws" but both "trained" and "governed by laws." I think that this goes to show that there can be resources provided on both ends of the argument for and against additional regulation. Everyone has their bias. 

 

I think what is important is to recognize that there is a serious problem in the US now, and instead of trying to claim what we knew what some long-dead people meant, that we must decide how it applies now, in our current time, with current technology and current culture.  As new technologies and different ways of thinking have emerged, the legislature has forms laws around them and the judiciary has upheld or nullified those laws based upon their interpretation of the constitution and their understanding of how that constitution applies to the current situation being presented to them. In other words, while the constitution is a fixed document in that it says what it says, it is applied in the context of our current culture. It was not meant to and does not address every situation. That is up to the people who are represented by the legislature and the executive branch, which appoints the judicial branch. Right to bear arms - check. But what does that mean and entail? It cannot be said that the authors of the constitution intended it to include semi-automatic weapons, because such a thing did not exist. It cannot be said that the author's of the constitution intended to allow people to amass large numbers of firearms in their private homes because guns were tools with a stated purpose - to kill animal or man. There was no such thing as a "gun-hobbyist."  Additionally, no part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights exists in isolation. The second amendment is accompanied by the fourth amendment, which is accompanied by the fifth amendment and so on and so forth. 

 

It is the role of the legislature to apply the constitution to our current situation and the role of the judiciary to adjudicate it when necessary. That is what needs to happen - what do we do now to improve the situation? Well thought out regulations do  not lead to the surrender of rights unless our entire system breaks down. We must assume the system will not break down and work within the system. Only when the system fails should we look outside of the system for solutions (doomsday scenarios). 

 

This is a bit of aside, but bear with me. Conservative Christianity teaches that Scripture is infallible in it's original languages and that it should be interpreted literally. I often wonder if people are applying that same standard to the Constitution of the US. If so, it is certainly a result of the conflating of religion and civil governance. 

[poppy]

I don't think it is such a huge logical leap.  Although the weapons may have been obtained legally, they were used in an illegal way; thus, deeming something illegal did not stop the shooters in these instances.  

 

One thing that MIGHT have made a difference in this case was if the Air Force had reported the domestic violence, mental hospitalization, illegally bringing weapons on a military base, and threats toward his military superiors.  I have concerns about increasing gun laws and regulations to be enforced by the federal government when the federal government trains a young man in the ways of war, deems that his behavior is inconsistent with that profession, and then does not take obvious steps to decrease the chance of his being a harm in society.

 

Willing to do illegal thing does not = that Vegas guy would have gone to the black market to get his  47 high power, high capacity weapons and it all would have played out the same way. 

 

4 out of 5 mass murders use legally obtained weapons, the legality of guns is a factor.    I can't how anyone is blind to that without willful ignorance.

 

Now if you're saying a killer would kill with other means- sure.   Remember when there were reports of a knife attack in a kindergarten in China? Imagine a world where the Texas murderer used a knife instead of a powerful firearm.  This lady would likely still be alive to see her grandkids grow up.  That is what I see in my mind's eye when I hear "gun laws won't stop shooters".

Edited November 9, 2017 by poppy

[Bootsie]

Willing to do illegal thing does not = that Vegas guy would have gone to the black market to get his  47 high power, high capacity weapons and it all would have played out the same way. 

 

4 out of 5 mass murders use legally obtained weapons, the legality of guns is a factor.    I can't how anyone is blind to that without willful ignorance.

 

Now if you're saying a killer would kill with other means- sure.   Remember when there were reports of a knife attack in a kindergarten in China? Imagine a world where the Texas murderer used a knife instead of a powerful firearm.  This lady would likely still be alive to see her grandkids grow up.  That is what I see in my mind's eye when I hear "gun laws won't stop shooters".

I am not suggesting that willing to do illegal things equals the Vegas guy...and it all would have played out the same way.

 

I think the existence of guns is a factor more than the legality of guns.  

 

I don't now how things would have played out if the Texas shooter had used another weapon--if he had used a knife, probably fewer people would have died; if he had used a homemade bomb, maybe more people would have died.  I am saying this as I think of my friend who had family members who did die in Sutherland Springs and who has family members still in the hospital--there is really no way of knowing whether he would be attending more or less funerals had another weapon been used.

[poppy]

I am not suggesting that willing to do illegal things equals the Vegas guy...and it all would have played out the same way.

 

I think the existence of guns is a factor more than the legality of guns.

 

I don't now how things would have played out if the Texas shooter had used another weapon--if he had used a knife, probably fewer people would have died; if he had used a homemade bomb, maybe more people would have died. I am saying this as I think of my friend who had family members who did die in Sutherland Springs and who has family members still in the hospital--there is really no way of knowing whether he would be attending more or less funerals had another weapon been used.

Sure. We can’t know. But you can’t common sense gun control would make no difference.

 

We do know with common sense gun control experience far fewer of these incidents. That to me is a crucial datapoint .

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Honestly, my fear is that instead of choosing knives, they choose MORE destructive methods.  Pressure cooker bombs, pipe bombs full of shrapnel, etc.  Paddock had explosives in his vehicle.  I had read that he fired at, and pierced a fuel truck at the airport, but it failed to ignite (this could be incorrect.)  He was a pilot.

 

If this was the case, one would think we would see mass bombings in other western nations with strict gun control.  Yet we don't.

 

Bombs and the like simply aren't easy to make, and the level of planning needed is a lot more than what you need to kill 26 people with guns.

[Bootsie]

Sure. We can’t know. But you can’t common sense gun control would make no difference.

 

We do know with common sense gun control experience far fewer of these incidents. That to me is a crucial datapoint .

I don't think comparing countries with stricter gun laws with the US is comparing apples to apples (and thus the outcomes may be very different).  In some of those other countries, the existence of guns and weapon is much lower across the board--you do not have the same number of armed officers or a military with its weapons.   It does concern me when we start talking in the US about increasing gun safety classes and who has access to guns and what types of guns they have access to as a way of reducing mass shootings when, at least in some of the cases, the shooter had the US government training him to use weapons and putting them in his hands. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They are easier to make in the US than they are in other countries.   People here have posted how hard it is to get curriculum shipped overseas.  I can't imagine shipping chemicals is EASIER than shipping explosive components

 

And, I am not so sure that we HAVEN'T seen an increase in mass bombings in other countries.  I am thinking the attacks in Paris, Belgum, etc.  So many times when I see news of attacks in Europe, it's a bomb in a backpack on a train, bomb's in restaurants, etc. 

 

Pipe bombs aren't THAT much more difficult to make than figuring out how to get a gun if you have a felony conviction.  I mean it's not like Google is all that inclined to prosecute people. 

 

ETA:The Bath School disaster occured before the era of the internet.  Do we want to argue about the potential outcome had Kehoe had access to the internet?

 

Why would people need to ship chemicals to Europe to make bombs?  They have chemicals there.

 

Count the bombings and the time between them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe#Lists_of_incidents

 

Here are our mass shootings just in 2017:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2017_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

[poppy]

Honestly, my fear is that instead of choosing knives, they choose MORE destructive methods.  Pressure cooker bombs, pipe bombs full of shrapnel, etc.  Paddock had explosives in his vehicle.  I had read that he fired at, and pierced a fuel truck at the airport, but it failed to ignite (this could be incorrect.)  He was a pilot. 

 

The most deadly terrorist attack in US history required nothing more than box cutters to turn commercial jets into death machines that killed close to 3000 people.  And the most recent reports on the failures of the TSA don't inspire confidence.  Someone posted a link about the bath school disaster.  The fact of the matter is that THAT is the most deadly attack on a school in US history, not Sandy Hook.  And when Amazon posts "customers who bought this also bought that" in regards to bomb making ingredients, yes, I think it's a big scary. 

 

Had the Tsarnaev brothers used a gun instead of a bomb, it would have been considered a mass shooting because more than 4 people were injured.

 

I am afraid that by enacting "knee jerk" laws, instead of well researched laws aimed at the HEART of the problem.....which is a multi pronged problem and requires a multi pronged approach....will create MORE problems than it solves. 

 

80% of mass shooters use legally obtained guns.  80% of mass shooters use legally obtained guns.  80% of mass shooters use legally obtained guns.

Of course it's multipronged.....  guns are a pretty serious prong. Let's talk about that instead of finding reasons to say it's not an issue or maybe makes things BETTER??

 

There will never be a knee jerk law. Guns are easier to get now than they were when a classroom of 1st graders were slaughtered with a gun a lady bought for fun recreational shooting.  The President recently signed legislation to make it easier for people with mental health problems to  obtain guns.  So, I would say the fear of "knee jerk" responses should not be a serious consideration in the discussion.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2017 by poppy

[ktgrok]

In the language of the time, "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulations/laws/executive orders.  (That last one was tongue-in-cheek.  ;-) )

 

Well-regulated meant well-trained and competent, since the militia they were referring to was/is individuals.

 

ETA:   I think one could probably make a case for interpreting the Founding Fathers' stipulation as requiring training prior to gun ownership. 

 

Right, but well regulated doesn't fit our current situation no matter how you read it. To me, well regulated meant well trained, organized, structured militia of some sort. 

[poppy]

90 yrs ago, so many many yrs prior to the internet, 38 elementary school kids were slaughtered by dynamite. Prove to me that it is LESS likely to happen today with more restrictive gun laws and greater access to knowledge on how to create IEDS here in the us. And prove that will happen without the gun seizures that happened during Irma and Katrina.

Prove to you that we’re better off with frequent mass shootings than we would be without them? That’s what you are asking, do you realize that?

 

And this is the at least the third time the ridiculous specter of gun seizures has been brought up. Something no one is asking for . It’s a distraction.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

90 yrs ago, so many many yrs prior to the internet, 38 elementary school kids were slaughtered by dynamite. Prove to me that it is LESS likely to happen today with more restrictive gun laws and greater access to knowledge on how to create IEDS here in the us. And prove that will happen without the gun seizures that happened during Irma and Katrina.

 

A one off event that happened 90 years ago is a reason to not stop events that are happening routinely now?

 

Okay.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

so now we are calling actual incidents “rediculous specter?†Seizures in regards to hurricanes Irma and Katrina actually happened. They are documentented. They aren’t fear mongering. They are actual past incidents in recent history on US soil. How does that equal “ rediculous specter?â€

 

And yes I am actually asking that you prove that making gun laws dramatically more strict will result in fewer deaths. That more destructive and deadly methods won’t become the norm.

 

I am not sure 100 guns "seized" 12 years ago makes the point you think it does.  (You should also go back and read the USVI order - it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.)

 

I just showed you a list of the mass bombings in Europe.  I notice you didn't reply.

Edited November 10, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Bootsie]

80% of mass shooters use legally obtained guns.  80% of mass shooters use legally obtained guns.  80% of mass shooters use legally obtained guns.

Of course it's multipronged.....  guns are a pretty serious prong. Let's talk about that instead of finding reasons to say it's not an issue or maybe makes things BETTER??

 

There will never be a knee jerk law. Guns are easier to get now than they were when a classroom of 1st graders were slaughtered with a gun a lady bought for fun recreational shooting.  The President recently signed legislation to make it easier for people with mental health problems to  obtain guns.  So, I would say the fear of "knee jerk" responses should not be a serious consideration in the discussion.

According to the Washington Post  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/)274 guns have been used in mass shootings in the US since 1966.  Of those, 164 were obtained legally and 42 were obtained illegally;  it is unclear wheterh the remaining 68 were obtained legally or not.  In some of those instances the guns were obtained legally only because events that would have made the purchase illegal had not been reported.  

 

If there are over 300 million guns in the US--the percent of guns that are obtained legally and used for a mass shooting is extremely small.  Given the If 232 legally obtained guns have been used in mass shootings over the past 50 years--that is less than 5 per year.  IMO, focussing on whether we could pass enough legislation to turn those 5 gun purchases a year into illegal purchases is not going to significantly make a difference.  Often it is not useful to try broad, sweeping regulations and solutions to deal with a statistically insignificant exceptions.    

[ktgrok]

so now we are calling actual incidents “rediculous specter?†Seizures in regards to hurricanes Irma and Katrina actually happened. They are documentented. They aren’t fear mongering. They are actual past incidents in recent history on US soil. How does that equal “ rediculous specter?â€

 

And yes I am actually asking that you prove that making gun laws dramatically more strict will result in fewer deaths. That more destructive and deadly methods won’t become the norm.

 

The eye of Irma passed over me. No one came around confiscating guns. No one I know had a gun confiscated. No one was ever talking about it. If you mean the executive order signed by the Governor in the BVI, no actual confiscation too place, although there was authorization to seize weapons IF needed in order for the National Guard to preserve the peace. The Governor claims that is the wording used to allow the National Guard to procure weapons from sellers without going through normal government procurement channels, not seize private property, but either way, it didn't actually happen from what I understand. 

[poppy]

According to the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/)274 guns have been used in mass shootings in the US since 1966. Of those, 164 were obtained legally and 42 were obtained illegally; it is unclear wheterh the remaining 68 were obtained legally or not. In some of those instances the guns were obtained legally only because events that would have made the purchase illegal had not been reported.

 

If there are over 300 million guns in the US--the percent of guns that are obtained legally and used for a mass shooting is extremely small. Given the If 232 legally obtained guns have been used in mass shootings over the past 50 years--that is less than 5 per year. IMO, focussing on whether we could pass enough legislation to turn those 5 gun purchases a year into illegal purchases is not going to significantly make a difference. Often it is not useful to try broad, sweeping regulations and solutions to deal with a statistically insignificant exceptions.

I was gonna try to look into the math on this but nah. Vegas guy had 47 guns all by himself. This is nonsense .

[poppy]

so now we are calling actual incidents “rediculous specter?†Seizures in regards to hurricanes Irma and Katrina actually happened. They are documentented. They aren’t fear mongering. They are actual past incidents in recent history on US soil. How does that equal “ rediculous specter?â€

 

And yes I am actually asking that you prove that making gun laws dramatically more strict will result in fewer deaths. That more destructive and deadly methods won’t become the norm.

I can’t prove the future- but I can say for sure that counties that changed things have fewer deaths, and the path we are on will lead to as many or more. This is very simple.

 

You really think the current level of gun control is the best best case scenario , huh?

[Halftime Hope]

Writing like CR does:

 

If this was the case, one would think we would see mass bombings in other western nations with strict gun control.  Yet we don't.

 

Bombs and the like simply aren't easy to make, and the level of planning needed is a lot more than what you need to kill 26 people with guns.

 

Incorrect. 

 

Per close military sources and family lore*, b o m b s are not hard to make at all, even before the internet. 

 

* * * * *

 

Reverting back to the way I usually communicate:

 

I'm going to disagree with you. 

 

*A generation before the internet, a kid in my in-laws' neighborhood left an unwanted souvenir in my in-laws' roof after an explosive experiment.  Aside from leaving a gift they didn't find until years later when the roof was being replaced, the  p i p e b o m b the kid built was a smashing success in that it didn't kill him.  (He had detonated it remotely at the bottom of the neighborhood ravine.)

 

Not that hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Halftime Hope]

I can't multi-quote.

 

I was gonna try to look into the math on this but nah. Vegas guy had 47 guns all by himself. This is nonsense .

 

Poppy, you and jdahlquist have been going back and forth on legal vs illegal. 

 

It seems to me that you're kind of missing a point.  A lot of the guns people have gotten legally they should not have been able to get, based on common sense restrictions on gun ownership which are already law.  We discussed this early in the thread.

 

So for someone to say, 80+ % were gotten legally, a certain percent were legal, but only because of failure of implementation of existing law.  A lot of those should have been disallowed and are therefore illegal purchases, just like the crimes eventually committed were illegal. 

 

The huge notable exception to that was the LV perp.  To the best of my knowledge, I have seen anything that has been reported as an early warning signal or disqualifier for him, although I may have missed something. On a side note:  I wonder if a future generation will find out why so much about him was clandestine.   

 

 

 

 

[Bootsie]

I was gonna try to look into the math on this but nah. Vegas guy had 47 guns all by himself. This is nonsense .

He did not have 47 guns at the attack--half of those were found in his homes; therefore, they were not used in a mass shooting.

[Halftime Hope]

Right, but well regulated doesn't fit our current situation no matter how you read it. To me, well regulated meant well trained, organized, structured militia of some sort. 

 

Agreeing. 

 

For additional information:

 

The right to bear arms is not a novel or new idea first granted in the Bill of Rights, nor was it reserved only to those in a militia.  Rather, it was an individual right which was a means of guaranteeing one's right to self-defense.  Collectively, individuals also had an obligation to, when needed, be called to arms in defense of their country, city-state, or whatever they collectively belonged to.

 

The Wikipedia article on the 2nd Amendment is actually pretty readable and thorough for a subject that can get really arcane.  It does a good job tracing the concept as a natural right "from time immemorial" down through English and European law, finally into the individual colonies' governing documents and into the debate leading up to ratification of the Constitution and adoption of the Bill of Rights. 

 

It's a fascinating read.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Writing like CR does:

 

 

Incorrect. 

 

Per close military sources and family lore*, b o m b s are not hard to make at all, even before the internet. 

 

* * * * *

 

Reverting back to the way I usually communicate:

 

I'm going to disagree with you. 

 

*A generation before the internet, a kid in my in-laws' neighborhood left an unwanted souvenir in my in-laws' roof after an explosive experiment.  Aside from leaving a gift they didn't find until years later when the roof was being replaced, the  p i p e b o m b the kid built was a smashing success in that it didn't kill him.  (He had detonated it remotely at the bottom of the neighborhood ravine.)

 

Not that hard.

 

They are supposedly so easy to make...yet people don't.

 

Go figure.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

i think you misread the post. The PDF of the order in the USVI was signed September 4th 2017. Not 12 yrs ago.

 

Katrina happened 12 yrs ago and it wasn’t 100 guns, it was at least 1000 guns that the city DENIED they seized and the NRA had to get a court order to return.

 

Now, if you want to argue that 1000 incidents of violations of constitutional rights is ok, be my guest.

 

I didn't misread anything.  How many guns were "seized" during Irma?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I just want to double check and see if I am clear re: the new talking point ITT.

 

One side is arguing that acquiring the materials and then safely assembling, transporting, and planting a bomb is super easy relative to purchasing multiple semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines and using it in a mass shooting.  This side also contends that stricter gun control will lead to a large number of mass bombings even though there is no evidence of a similar rash of bombings in western nations with strict gun control.

 

Do I have this right?

 

If so, how about if we actually try to get rid of the weapons that are most efficient for mass shootings and see if this actually does happen.  Would we be any worse off?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not BVI.  USVI.  Do you live on St Croix, St Thomas, or St John?  No?

 

An order was issued, by a governor, of a US territory, to seize firearms of private citizens in 2017.  Last time I checked, people living in US territories were considered US citizens, correct? 

 

I NEVER EVER want my government to be able to leagally seize the firearm that I have NEVER fired in the event of a natural disaster.  And the fact that Congress passed the Disaster Recover Personal Protection Act after Katriana says to me at least that man other US citizens feel the same way. 

 

I suggest you read that section of the order in context. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

During Irma?  I dunno?  Do You?

 

You are claiming there was gun seizures during Irma.  Can you show me that actually happened?

 

[ktgrok]

Not BVI.  USVI.  Do you live on St Croix, St Thomas, or St John?  No?

 

An order was issued, by a governor, of a US territory, to seize firearms of private citizens in 2017.  Last time I checked, people living in US territories were considered US citizens, correct? 

 

I NEVER EVER want my government to be able to leagally seize the firearm that I have NEVER fired in the event of a natural disaster.  And the fact that Congress passed the Disaster Recover Personal Protection Act after Katriana says to me at least that man other US citizens feel the same way. 

 

Typo on my part. Yes, USVI. (was previously discussion BVI with someone else and fingers got sloppy). 

 

NO weapons were seized. Troops were authorized to basically procure weapons if they needed to if things got crazy. 

 

My understanding of Katrina is it was a lawless time, people had evacuated and left weapons behind that were likely to fall into the hands of looters, etc. They were returned, times were set up where you could go to the police station and claim your weapon. 

[TechWife]

i think you misread the post. The PDF of the order in the USVI was signed September 4th 2017. Not 12 yrs ago.

 

Katrina happened 12 yrs ago and it wasn’t 100 guns, it was at least 1000 guns that the city DENIED they seized and the NRA had to get a court order to return.

 

Now, if you want to argue that 1000 incidents of violations of constitutional rights is ok, be my guest.

So, what you’re saying is that local authorities acted wrongly and the judiciary corrected them, right? Sounds like the system worked to me. Their 2nd amendment rights were denied, yet due to the fourth amendment, their rights and property were restored. The system worked. Why wouldn’t it work in the future?

[Bootsie]

 

If so, how about if we actually try to get rid of the weapons that are most efficient for mass shootings and see if this actually does happen.  Would we be any worse off?

Are you suggesting that we get rid of certain types of weapons--that they no longer exist and that no one has them?  Would this include police?  The secret service?  The military?  Private security companies?  

 

Or are you suggesting that SOME individuals who now legally own these should no longer be allowed to legally own them.  If so, what should those parameters be?

 

To me those are two different proposals with different issues regarding implementation and possible consequences.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Are you suggesting that we get rid of certain types of weapons--that they no longer exist and that no one has them?  Would this include police?  The secret service?  The military?  Private security companies?  

 

Or are you suggesting that SOME individuals who now legally own these should no longer be allowed to legally own them.  If so, what should those parameters be?

 

To me those are two different proposals with different issues regarding implementation and possible consequences.

 

 

The first question is nonsensical within the framework of this conversation so I will ignore it.

 

Yes, I do believe we need to look at banning the sale of weapons with high capacity magazines for private use.  Even though it is just a dream, I believe we should also look at a mandatory buyback of those same weapons.

Edited November 10, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix