Support NeoGAF

[Dude Abides]

there was one in the early 90's, but passing an amendment banning guns? That's some crazy lala land shit right there

Correct. And enforcing it would be virtually impossible.

The only thing to do is the type of thing people have been suggesting, like stricter background checks and mental health evaluations and such.

But those things will be both (i) expensive and (ii) opposed tooth and nail by the gun lobby, so my suspicion is nothing will happen.

 

[soul creator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

It's the go-to for people with an indefensible position.

Damn, I see this phenomenon everywhere, didn't realize there was a name for it.

And yeah, it bugs the shit out of me.

Spoiler

before I clicked the link, I thought it would have something to do with Kurt Cobain shooting himself, heh

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

This is a horrible, horrible tragedy and my thoughts and prayers to all affected by this unspeakable act of evil.

There are no amounts of gun control that will prevent acts such as this from ever happening again.

Criminals and mentally unstable people will ALWAYS find a way to get firearms. Making it harder for responsible, law abiding citizens to obtain guns will not prevent further tragedy.

Making it harder for crazy people to not get guns is a bad thing?

 

[flyover]

I didn't say let's not try to create a better system. The premise of the thread was WOULD increased gun regulation have prevented it. With a vibrant black market around the answer is no. Unfortunately.

You're leaping to the assumption that the shooter would have availed himself of that black market. It's one thing to say he could've. Another to say he would've. Just as easy for me to say the shooting was spur-of-the-moment and wouldn't have happened if he didn't already have (or have access to) a legal firearm. I can't know that, and you can't know your claim is true.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Maybe a psych test, so you know you will get nailed to the wall with shards of your own fractured bones if you commit gun crime, because you're completely fit. And you can only sell to people who have taken the same test and have a gun buyer's license...

Lots of gun selling takes place second hand.

Test should be administered on a regular basis as well.

 

[Devolution]

i feel like anything would help at this point. even if we dont do ANYTHING changing the laws of which guns can be owned (handguns, assault rifles etc) couldn't we start with something basic like making everybody do a psychological evaluation before buying a gun?

Nah it's better not to do shit and accept this is how it's going to be.

 

[Hawkian]

True, and I'm not really taking a stance to defend those stats per say. Its just interesting to look at on a large scale is all.

Please see my post and reply with your thoughts.

 

[akira28]

Test should be administered on a regular basis as well.

Not necessarily, but if you have to take meds or if your status changes, you have to report it. It doesn't change your rights, but it does go on record, and you go on a yellow list.

 

[Nostalgic Nightmare]

There is no way to know if increased regulation would have stopped this from happening.
This guy decided to kill a bunch of people including his mother, I suspect if guns were not easy for him to get at, he might have worn explosives, who knows.

Like it's been said there are a myriad of social, mental and economic issues that need addressing here in the USA. Glorification of violence is a part of the fabric from movies, to games, to music, I mean it's more acceptable to show someone getting murdered than a naked human body.

 

[ciridesu]

LOLOLOLOL



HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Not like I expected a more reasonable response.

Going by the UN statistics, the ratios are around 2.8 per 100k for Finland and 5 per 100k for the US. Considering that one is a welfare country and the other known for it's inequality and crime, I doubt much of the difference is in due to gun laws. Then you also have Estonia and others with rates above the US with relatively strict rules through license requirements and such.

Gun possession? The rules for who can obtain a gun are very strict in e.g. Finland. Yet, there have been several school shootings in the past years in addition to traditional public ones. Crime is undoubtly a severe issue in the US, but I would argue that this is more of a culture/welfare problem than an issue to do with gun laws. See: Crime in New York ghettos versus rural areas in central America.

But please, do continue lolling in your bubble and keep up the strong anti-gun propaganda.

 

[lawlohwhat]

If there was money to be made selling guns in the US, I'm quite sure the cartels would be happy to make that happen. If you want to reduce the amount of guns from 88 for every 100 people, you either have to turn the US into an anti gun police state or completely change the gun culture in the country. Both seem nearly impossible as goals to me. I agree that guns are super deadly weapons but I don't think we're at a point where you can realistically do anything about it.

An anti-gun POLICE STATE? What does that even mean?

You lack vision if you don't believe that there can be effective regulations on firearm ownership. We are all paying a price for the large swath of people in this country who either lack that vision or cling to the 2nd amendment as if it is even relevant in modern society.

In the short term, very strict regulations may not have a huge statistical effect on the number of homicides from gun violence. And simply doing so will not fix the sick celebration of violence, lack of mental health services, and media sensationalism that drive people toward mass murder. But resigning ourselves to doing nothing is cowardly and profoundly idiotic.

 

[DietRob]

there was one in the early 90's, but passing an amendment banning guns? That's some crazy lala land shit right there

Well, that's not what I'm proposing. Like I said earlier make it a revision to the amendment that requires that those that do choose to bear arms are required to have a mental evaluation on some sort of scheduled basis.

We can't just keep going on like we are going on. Can we?

 

[leroidys]

There would have to be an amendment to the constitution first. Unlike owning a firarm, driving is a privledge. Not a right.

Gun ownership is only a right for well regulated militias.

 

[Ty4on]

for people who think it's mainly gun laws that need to be changed... how do you explain Norway? Don't they have some of the strictest laws yet one of the worst gun massacres ever?

if it were up to me, I'd snap my fingers and all guns would be gone forever. I hate them. But I don't see gun laws curbing these tragic events. Maybe I'm wrong though.

That was a planned terrorist attack against a political camp. This thread is about mentally unstable people who can easily buy a weapon and start killing people.

 

[Hawkian]

The chart says fire-arm homicides. The other deaths would be in the "unintentional injuries" category.

I'm actually pretty sure that figure does not include any accidental deaths whatsoever.

Firearm—In 2009, 31,347 persons died from firearm injuries in
the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.7% of all injury
deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury
deaths in 2009 were suicide (59.8%) and homicide (36.7%).

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Well, that's not what I'm proposing. Like I said earlier make it a revision to the amendment that requires that those that do choose to bear arms are required to have a mental evaluation on some sort of scheduled basis.

We can't just keep going on like we are going on. Can we?

You wouldn't even need to change the constitution to enact a psych eval test. They have the right to bear arms. They don't have the right to purchase or acquire arms illegally, and if you make the only legal way to acquire arms include a psych eval your problem is solved.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You can't change culture by legislating at it. It didn't work for prohibition, it didn't work for drugs, and it won't work for guns.

Actually, I thought of one, Cigarettes.

These statistics are from New York and their cigarette laws banning and limiting their use.

Look at that 2002 decrease when taxes were increased! Then a constant trend as workplace smoking became illegal and then another huge dip when the state ran anti-smoking ads.


But go on, I guess you can't change anything with laws and government action.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You're leaping to the assumption that the shooter would have availed himself of that black market. It's one thing to say he could've. Another to say he would've. Just as easy for me to say the shooting was spur-of-the-moment and wouldn't have happened if he didn't already have (or have access to) a legal firearm. I can't know that, and you can't know your claim is true.

And you're leaping to the assumption that someone willing to shoot and kill dozens wouldn't availed himself of that black market. A guy who has no problem of killing kids is going to say "Whoa, black market...I just can't"?

I'm saying that a person willing to kill kids wouldn't be willing to hit up the black market to get a gun. Or would have already hit up the black market and owned a gun.

And I completely agree with the last sentence of your post. I'm not saying I know for a fact. I'm just suggesting someone willing to commit such a horrible crime would be willing to go to the black market for the item to do so.

 

[flyover]

Gun ownership is only a right for well regulated militias.

Time for the gun control opponents to start changing their names to Mr./Ms. Well Regulated Militia.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

I'm actually pretty sure that figure does not include any accidental deaths whatsoever.

So in terms of firearm deaths it looks like suicide is the biggest, then homicide, then probably accidents. Either way the chart dealt with fire-arm homicides, not suicides.

 

[Raxus]

Not necessarily, but if you have to take meds or if your status changes, you have to report it. It doesn't change your rights, but it does go on record, and you go on a yellow list.

People will complain the government is monitoring everything they do and even then you are going to flood a small agency with an abundance of information they have no clue what to do with rendering it ineffective. I think stronger enforcements on earning a license, ban on using certain firearms that are not used for hunting except in permitted areas and mandatory psych tests should be required.

 

[Angry Grimace]

What we really need is a better way to identify dangerous sociopaths. While the 2nd Amendment stands, any other attempts at "gun control" are mostly just hoops to jump through.

 

[Brinbe]

An anti-gun POLICE STATE? What does that even mean?

You lack vision if you don't believe that there can be effective regulations on firearm ownership. We are all paying a price for the large swath of people in this country who either lack that vision or cling to the 2nd amendment as if it is even relevant in modern society.

In the short term, very strict regulations may not have a huge statistical effect on the number of homicides from gun violence. And simply doing so will not fix the sick celebration of violence, lack of mental health services, and media sensationalism that drive people toward mass murder. But resigning ourselves to doing nothing is cowardly and profoundly idiotic.

Well-said. And yes, it's not just about regulation, it's about working to change the perceptions of guns

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You wouldn't even need to change the constitution to enact a psych eval test. They have the right to bear arms. They don't have the right to purchase or acquire arms illegally, and if you make the only legal way to acquire arms include a psych eval your problem is solved.

They would argue that requiring a psych eval to exert a constitutional right isn't constitutional at all.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

An anti-gun POLICE STATE? What does that even mean?

A state in which guns are highly illegal and measures are taken to keep guns from getting through the black market. Basically the drug war if the state was actually interested in stopping drugs and not just putting brown people in jail.

You lack vision if you don't believe that there can be effective regulations on firearm ownership. We are all paying a price for the large swath of people in this country who either lack that vision or cling to the 2nd amendment as if it is even relevant in modern society.

In the short term, very strict regulations may not have a huge statistical effect on the number of homicides from gun violence. And simply doing so will not fix the sick celebration of violence, lack of mental health services, and media sensationalism that drive people toward mass murder. But resigning ourselves to doing nothing is cowardly and profoundly idiotic.

Call me what you like but never call me unrealistic. Gun control is very unpopular in the US even with the recent rash of massacres. You aren't going to get effective legislation through and even if you did it's not going to do anything to change gun culture, the only thing you'd do is inspire people to buy more guns before the laws go into effect.

 

[leroidys]

Actually, I thought of one, Cigarettes.

These statistics are from New York and their cigarette laws banning and limiting their use.

But go on, I guess you can't change anything with laws.

I am pro sensible gun control, but the thing is, we're already fucked.

There are WAY too many guns out there already.

 

[miksar]

Assault rifles and handguns are banned here in Russia, but it doesn't prevent shooting accidents.

 

[flyover]

And you're leaping to the assumption that someone willing to shoot and kill dozens wouldn't availed himself of that black market. A guy who has no problem of killing kids is going to say "Whoa, black market...I just can't"?

No, I gave an example and specifically said I can't make the assumption it's true, just like you can't make yours.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Maybe it's due to the fact that in 2009 (the latest figures were available) there is apparently 31,347 deaths due to firearms. Either your chart is bollocks or there's a definite increase in firearm-related deaths, either way more gun control is the answer.

I don't know man. I know this isn't an immediate answer to the threat of rising gun related homicides but don't you think gun control is just a band-aid? Why is it that we have so many people who are willing to commit these horrible acts?

We can try to take the "able" out of it, and we may be somewhat successful, but that's not going to take away the willing. What is society doing to it's citizens to make them think something like this should be done?

I'm more scared of the fact that someone wanted to do this rather than whether or not they could if that makes sense.

But I realize that fixing the problem is almost an impossible feat for our society, so tighter gun control seems to be the only way to go.

 

[akira28]

There is no way to know if increased regulation would have stopped this from happening.
This guy decided to kill a bunch of people including his mother, I suspect if guns were not easy for him to get at, he might have worn explosives, who knows.

Yeah because explosives are even easier to get...

Bottom line is no matter how hard it is to prevent, the responsibility is to do everything you can withing reason. And better regulation, not necessarily even an increase, just more than slips of paper entered into a goddamn spreadsheet about ownership transactions. This isn't animal skins at the trading post, these are deadly weapons.

You can say this was the inevitable result of American decline, guns and mentally ill people, etc. But you don't have to accept it.

People will complain the government is monitoring everything they do and even then you are going to flood a small agency with an abundance of information they have no clue what to do with rendering it ineffective. I think stronger enforcements on earning a license, ban on using certain firearms that are not used for hunting except in permitted areas and mandatory psych tests should be required.

they could do it in a year or less. If they were resolute and not bound by external politics, they could do it in a few months. Have requirements, and documents set, ready and available, and required. Anyone who wanted a legal sale would have to download or request the fax. They could revamp the databases to hold useful user information, and expand it to support the new responsible and fit owner's evaluation check. The hardest part would be deciding how deep a level of psychological evaluation is needed. Do they really need a medical eval, or just an administered test, like the one you take at the NRA, 40 minutes of questions and re-questions asked from different angles about ethics and violence and gun responsibility, etc. Maybe have a psychologist review and redmark them, etc. People can complain all they want, but this doesn't even have to be a federal thing. They license with the state already, the state could run the database. (And no, don't leave it up to the states to design it, they'll shit it up and use it as an excuse to spend more money.)

 

[Vilix]

Gun ownership is only a right for well regulated militias.

State and federal law don't interpret the 2nd amendment that way.

 

[outunderthestars]

Actually, I thought of one, Cigarettes.

These statistics are from New York and their cigarette laws banning and limiting their use.

Look at that 2002 decrease when taxes were increased! Then a constant trend as workplace smoking became illegal and then another huge dip when the state ran anti-smoking ads.


But go on, I guess you can't change anything with laws and government action.

4%? I wonder what the margin of error on said survey was?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Gun ownership is only a right for well regulated militias.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

 

[Freshmaker]

I didn't say let's not try to create a better system. The premise of the thread was WOULD increased gun regulation have prevented it. With a vibrant black market around the answer is no. Unfortunately.

Assuming there is a thriving black market and that the people in question would all go out of their way to obtain a gun in the same situation where they couldn't legally obtain the weapons simply by going to a gun show etc.

Pretty massive set of assumptions there.

It's certainly not demonstrated in countries with gun bans, but no, there's no avoiding this.

Somehow.

 

[coldvein]

There is no way to know if increased regulation would have stopped this from happening.
This guy decided to kill a bunch of people including his mother, I suspect if guns were not easy for him to get at, he might have worn explosives, who knows.

but isn't a cautionary approach better than "fuck it, let's just not do anything" ?

we'll never have 100% proof that any regulation could have stopped this shooting, or that shooting, but if the general feeling is that some more regulation would help the gun violence situation shouldn't we do it? even if there's only a 30% chance that more regulation would save lives, isn't that worth doing?

 

[Timedog]

You're leaping to the assumption that the shooter would have availed himself of that black market. It's one thing to say he could've. Another to say he would've. Just as easy for me to say the shooting was spur-of-the-moment and wouldn't have happened if he didn't already have (or have access to) a legal firearm. I can't know that, and you can't know your claim is true.

There are tons of things that can be found on the black market that I have no idea how to find. But hey, since the possibility of him finding guns on the black market would still exist, that makes the worst case scenario a foregone conclusion!

It's the same fucktarded reasoning used by people who think they're going to be in a fucking hollywood shootout home invasion, fucking ignoring everything but short-sighted, paranoid, self-selving fantasy.

 

[Hawkian]

So in terms of firearm deaths it looks like suicide is the biggest, then homicide, then probably accidents. Either way the chart dealt with fire-arm homicides, not suicides.

That's right of course; about ~1200 deaths of those ~31,000 were unintentional, undetermined, or "war/legal intervention" (self-defense, police officers killing in accordance with the use of lethal force, etc.). Thanks for noting the discrepancy, I didn't add the suicide+homicide percentages up.

 

[Devolution]

What we really need is a better way to identify dangerous sociopaths. While the 2nd Amendment stands, any other attempts at "gun control" are mostly just hoops to jump through.

Still better than no hoops at all if it discourages people.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

They would argue that requiring a psych eval to exert a constitutional right isn't constitutional at all.

I think you'd only run into that when you got to the point where you were trying to take guns away from people who failed the psych eval who already owned the guns, but you're right, it could be a hurdle. But there have been all sorts of reasonable constraints on constitutional rights before. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for example.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I am pro sensible gun control, but the thing is, we're already fucked.

There are WAY too many guns out there already.

Over time laws and policies making them harder to get will decrease their numbers and make them less "untouchable" in the long term until we can sanely make policies like systems where you can turn your gun into the police and get a tax break, etc.

These things take time, but doing nothing will not do anything.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

No, a culture that glorifies violence combined with people not being properly treated for mental illness means that events like this is inevitable.

Taking a gun away still leaves us with a culture that promotes violence in movies, TV shows, video games, etc and people that is being enraptured by this culture who are unable to cope with personal mental issues,

The shooter is 24 years old for goodness sakes, someone should have noticed something off about them.

 

[leroidys]

Assault rifles and handguns are banned here in Russia, but it doesn't prevent shooting accidents.

That's a very bold statement. You can't say that it doesn't prevent shooting accidents unless you know that 0 more would happen if there were no such laws.







Also, laws are not followed very closely in Russia.

 

[Sent]

Are we going to ask this after every shooting now? This isn't new.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

As a Brit, I know us not having guns legally in this country stops people getting shot (mostly)

Our police don't have guns either, and guess what? No accidental/wrong killings

I think it would help the US to ban guns, not this generation, but many more to come.

 

[flyover]

There are tons of things that can be found on the black market that I have no idea how to find. But hey, since the possibility of him finding guns on the black market would still exist, that makes the worst case scenario a foregone conclusion!

It's the same fucktarded reasoning used by people who think they're going to be in a fucking hollywood shootout home invasion, fucking ignoring everything but short-sighted, paranoid, self-selving fantasy.

Thank you. Exactly what I was trying to say -- though I like how you said it better.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

4%? I wonder what the margin of error on said survey was?

You should read the article that came with the chart.

 

[coldvein]

Are we going to ask this after every shooting now? This isn't new.

hopefully. you're not against asking this question, are you? do you not think its important?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Assuming there is a thriving black market and that the people in question would all go out of their way to obtain a gun in the same situation where they couldn't legally obtain the weapons simply by going to a gun show etc.

Pretty massive set of assumptions there.

It's certainly not demonstrated in countries with gun bans, but no, there's no avoiding this.

Somehow.

Dude, there's nothing to assume. There are PLENTY of Black Markets throughout America in which it's really easy to purchase a gun. Maybe you don't wanna see that... Or you don't have experience in that element but it exists. Even if you don't see a "Black Market Gun Shop" when driving.

With that said, it's easier as long as you know where to go to get one. And most people can figure it out if they want to.

I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the reality in America. Today.

 

[Devolution]

There are tons of things that can be found on the black market that I have no idea how to find. But hey, since the possibility of him finding guns on the black market would still exist, that makes the worst case scenario a foregone conclusion!

It's the same fucktarded reasoning used by people who think they're going to be in a fucking hollywood shootout home invasion, fucking ignoring everything but short-sighted, paranoid, self-selving fantasy.

Look dude if the decent people in the Postman had some AKs they wouldn't have been fucked over by General Bethlehem so hard.

 

[Yoritomo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y

It's specifically the media that is helping to perpetuate the violence. Changing how the media reacts to these stories will do more to prevent future massacres than increased gun control.