with all the bullet parts out on the market.
Would increased gun regulation have prevented Connecticut?
- Thread starter Deified Data
- Start date
- Status
with all the bullet parts out on the market.
Mercury Fred
Banned
It's not such a lark to compare us to Canada or the UK. We have to start somewhere. Of course, I'd start with disbanding the NRA and jailing all of its key figures.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Man I have a friend who can build robots that shoot lasers, why are we talking about any of this?
I'm not sure I would equivocate a laser with a fully automatic AK-47...at least not until lasers can be effectively put into firearms. I assume you're talking about lasers that can melt and vaporize stuff, not blind people...because the latter especially is not anywhere near comparable.
I think what he's trying to say is that if home defense is the only moral legitimate reason to own a firearm then people with kids would naturally be the primary candidates. Not sure I agree with it myself.
The worst prominent argument in this thread is that, if shooters hadn't had easy legal access to guns, they would have obtained or built them by other means. Are you sure about that -- in every single case?
Because if inconveniencing and delaying these shooters stopped even one incident, that means people didn't die.
And if you don't believe gun control would help, what do you propose instead? Are you sure that your alternate solution (regarding mental health, the media, etc.) can't be enacted alongside gun control, and should be independent of it?
Because if inconveniencing and delaying these shooters stopped even one incident, that means people didn't die.
And if you don't believe gun control would help, what do you propose instead? Are you sure that your alternate solution (regarding mental health, the media, etc.) can't be enacted alongside gun control, and should be independent of it?
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
THat's exactly what the Brady Institute does man
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Well where did that erection come from?
I was flaccid before your post, but by the end of it standing at attention.
CyclopsRock
Member
That seems legally sound.
Yes! Finally, let's approach the topic of what we mean by increased gun regulation and what we can do.
The angle I approach for this is as follows: gun ownership should be legal. However, to become licensed to own a gun one should have to demonstrate that they deserve the responsibility, and prove it via substantially more stringent metrics than are needed to legally drive a car (which are not inherently violent devices).
I would personally like to impose the following things regardless of the state, venue or situation in which a gun is being purchased
-A licensing exam to prove knowledge of how to safely and responsibility wield a gun, similar to a driver's license exam. This would have to be reguarly renewed.
-A detailed, specific explanation as to what purpose the specific gun being bought is desired for. I'm talking much, much more than "hunting" or "home defense." Frankly I think the person should have to write a damn essay about it. In the case of an illiterate person, they could dictate the essay. This essay would be reviewed by a mental health professional specifically trained in noticing subtle indicators of violent tendency. If that sounds too onerous for you, I find myself going back to the same question over and over again: if we all agree that it should be possible and legal, why should it be easy?
These two aspects, it turns out, would not have had any impact on this shooting, it's true. The assailant stole his gun from a family member. However, mass shootings have been conducted with completely legally purchased weapons.
-A written explanation as to where and how the gun will be secured, to be reviewed by the same professional- with the potential to deny the ability to purchase if the described scenario did not match a threshold of safety standards. I think that these kinds of things while they might seem silly could actually have an impact in reducing accidental home killings as well as legally purchased guns getting into the hands of others. This aspect could actually have had some impact on this shooting.
That'd be for starters
This isn't accurate; please, let's get our statistics correct.
The number you are referring to is roughly 11,300. The 30,000 figure includes suicides (and a small number of other scenarios).
Mercury Fred
Banned
Conspiracy, accessories to tens of thousands of murder counts, etc.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
It's the stuff of angry liberal boners.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
But they didn't die.
Which they probably would have done if the crazy in the chinese stabbings used a gun instead of a knife.
If a crazy finds it hard to get a gun, it's far more likely he'll have to find an alternative weapon that both lowers the damage he can do and increases the chance of people being able to stop him.
Father_Brain
Banned
Title of a pro-gun-control editorial TIME published over thirteen years ago, shortly after Columbine: "An Outrage That Will Last."
Yeah.
Yeah.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
That sounds...almost exactly like the rules some states have already.
Dreams-Visions
Member
it's like people come up with ideas and don't consider the outcomes or consequences.
You know what a $1,000 tax on bullets would result in?
A multi-billion dollar bullet black market. It's not like bullets would have that tax in other countries, so criminals would stand to make a killing by smuggling them. And smuggle they would. Responsible gun owners would have no bullets, but those who plan on committing crime still would.
Again, it's just not a realistic solution.
No to #1, Yes to #2-4.
the whole point was that it's all a hypothetical and we have no way of testing whether x, y or z policy, if on the books, would have changed the outcome of those events. we can't simply wholesale say, "these events wouldn't have occured if they couldn't have purchased xyz weapons legally." feel free to contend the point if you like. you'll be contending with a hypothetical. hence the point. call it pretentious if you want; my feelings aren't hurt.
also, way to side-step the entire post. I tend to expect more, but I know some subjects people can't hold an objective conversation about. This one may not be one of yours.
Escape Goat
Member
Yes! Finally, let's approach the topic of what we mean by increased gun regulation and what we can do.
The angle I approach for this is as follows: gun ownership should be legal. However, to become licensed to own a gun one should have to demonstrate that they deserve the responsibility, and prove it via substantially more stringent metrics than are needed to legally drive a car (which are not inherently violent devices).
I would personally like to impose the following things regardless of the state, venue or situation in which a gun is being purchased
-A licensing exam to prove knowledge of how to safely and responsibility wield a gun, similar to a driver's license exam. This would have to be reguarly renewed.
-A detailed, specific explanation as to what purpose the specific gun being bought is desired for. I'm talking much, much more than "hunting" or "home defense." Frankly I think the person should have to write a damn essay about it. In the case of an illiterate person, they could dictate the essay. This essay would be reviewed by a mental health professional specifically trained in noticing subtle indicators of violent tendency. If that sounds too onerous for you, I find myself going back to the same question over and over again: if we all agree that it should be possible and legal, why should it be easy?
These two aspects, it turns out, would not have had any impact on this shooting, it's true. The assailant stole his gun from a family member. However, mass shootings have been conducted with completely legally purchased weapons.
-A written explanation as to where and how the gun will be secured, to be reviewed by the same professional- with the potential to deny the ability to purchase if the described scenario did not match a threshold of safety standards. I think that these kinds of things while they might seem silly could actually have an impact in reducing accidental home killings as well as legally purchased guns getting into the hands of others. This aspect could actually have had some impact on this shooting.
That'd be for starters
I don't want to be the guy that comes in and pokes holes in debate and I don't mean this in confrontational way, but how does that help stop any of the mass shootings that have happened this year? Being able to store and operate a gun only doesn't do much to stop the owner from shooting up a school.
CyclopsRock
Member
And I'm a tax avoider, because I only used to pay 17.5% sales tax on everything. I mean, the rate was 17.5% at the time, but it's 20% now, so I guess I was a retrospective thief.
Solving one issue in this equation would still mean that a mentally ill person is still stabbing people. I'm not arguing that better constructed gun control laws can't coexist with better mental health programs, but there's always a person behind the gun. Something got that person to load up and kill as many people as possible.
If gunsellers don't perform due diligence when selling a gun, they would be culpable for any crimes committed with it. Just like a bartender is at fault if one of his customer commits a crime while under the influence. If such a law were enacted, you better believe gunsellers would thoroughly screen every customer.
Mercury Fred
Banned
It's funny that we can get all sorts of emergency legislation going when it's a shoe bomber or a foreign terrorist, but the domestic ones supported by American terror organizations such as the NRA aren't worthy of the same reaction despite the exponentially higher level of danger and terror they inflict on the American people. But I mean fuck, it's only 30,000 people a year. No biggie.
Its not that important to get into the details again, really. I just think what might have resulted in a drunken brawl was escalated into a situation with somebody getting shot because a gun was on-hand. Perhaps the gun might have been there regardless, but I think there's a good chance it wouldn't have been if guns were harder to come by.
And I have nothing to prove that. Like with #2, thinking that more difficulty in acquiring guns means less gun violence seems like common sense, but I cant exactly prove it. If somebody points to another country, people will say, "Well thats another country, there's other variables to consider." Which is fair to a degree, but it feels more like a desperate way to continue the argument rather than accepting the common sense on hand.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Oh, I completely agree. But the issue definitely has to be tackled at both ends.
fluffydelusions
Member
I don't even know why the reporter asked if this was the most horrific scene the police there have ever seen. I mean cmon really
GravityMan
Member
Stopping these incidents completely is impossible. Norway and Dunblane come to mind. But we can reduce their likelihood.
- Gun regulation should not be a state-level issue. It should be a federal issue, and enforced at a federal level. If that requires an amendment to the 2nd amendment, so be it.
- The current background check process for gun ownership is not good enough. People wanting to purchase a gun should be subjected to even tougher immediate interrogations, psych evals and polygraphs. And even after obtaining a gun - those people should be required to retake psych evals, etc on a regular basis - say 1-2 times per year. And possibly extend these things to the entire household, excluding young children. Such tests should be conducted by law enforcement and properly screened and qualified psychologists. Failure or refusal to attend these tests should be a criminal offense.
- There should be regular (once a year), unannounced audits of gun owners' households/vehicles by law enforcement. LE should verify that all guns and ammo in the household are stored in a safe and responsible manner.
- Someone powerful needs to step up to the NRA, and reduce their influence on this country.
- All "regular" gun shops should be shut down. Guns should only be able to be obtained at police stations or other LE establishments.
- The qualifications (physical, mental, educational and emotional) to become a police officer should be tougher. Furthermore, cops should be subjected to regular psych evals.
- It should be a federal law that schools (including elementary) and malls should have metal detectors at every entrance. There should also be good-quality surveillance cameras, and a sufficient number of highly trained armed guards on-site 24/7. The guards should be trained to remain inconspicuous so that they don't scare children. Kind of like Air Marshals on commercial flights.
- There should be strict oversight and surveillance on every single phase of firearm manufacturing - from the initial manufacturing to transport to distribution. Blow the whistle on the slightest thing that seems off. There should be fewer firearm manufacturing facilities in general, and stricter laws on what types of firearms and ammunition can be manufactured.
- Mental health needs to be taken more seriously.
- Better surveillance of imports coming in from other countries.
If our taxes need to be raised a bit to make these things happen....so be it.
Unfortunately, these things will bring the U.S. closer to being a police state. And they don't address the following issues:
a) hundreds of millions of guns already out there in the wild
b) the ease of creating homemade firearms in your garage or basement. Plus, things like 3D printing won't help matters either.
There's also the risk that going overboard with this stuff will just embolden the black market.
Dreams-Visions put it best back near the start of this thread - this is going to be a HARD problem to address or even put a serious dent into. And it's our own fault, because we allowed this proliferation of guns to get to where it is in the first place. It would have been much better if we had good gun control laws in place 50 years ago.
- Gun regulation should not be a state-level issue. It should be a federal issue, and enforced at a federal level. If that requires an amendment to the 2nd amendment, so be it.
- The current background check process for gun ownership is not good enough. People wanting to purchase a gun should be subjected to even tougher immediate interrogations, psych evals and polygraphs. And even after obtaining a gun - those people should be required to retake psych evals, etc on a regular basis - say 1-2 times per year. And possibly extend these things to the entire household, excluding young children. Such tests should be conducted by law enforcement and properly screened and qualified psychologists. Failure or refusal to attend these tests should be a criminal offense.
- There should be regular (once a year), unannounced audits of gun owners' households/vehicles by law enforcement. LE should verify that all guns and ammo in the household are stored in a safe and responsible manner.
- Someone powerful needs to step up to the NRA, and reduce their influence on this country.
- All "regular" gun shops should be shut down. Guns should only be able to be obtained at police stations or other LE establishments.
- The qualifications (physical, mental, educational and emotional) to become a police officer should be tougher. Furthermore, cops should be subjected to regular psych evals.
- It should be a federal law that schools (including elementary) and malls should have metal detectors at every entrance. There should also be good-quality surveillance cameras, and a sufficient number of highly trained armed guards on-site 24/7. The guards should be trained to remain inconspicuous so that they don't scare children. Kind of like Air Marshals on commercial flights.
- There should be strict oversight and surveillance on every single phase of firearm manufacturing - from the initial manufacturing to transport to distribution. Blow the whistle on the slightest thing that seems off. There should be fewer firearm manufacturing facilities in general, and stricter laws on what types of firearms and ammunition can be manufactured.
- Mental health needs to be taken more seriously.
- Better surveillance of imports coming in from other countries.
If our taxes need to be raised a bit to make these things happen....so be it.
Unfortunately, these things will bring the U.S. closer to being a police state. And they don't address the following issues:
a) hundreds of millions of guns already out there in the wild
b) the ease of creating homemade firearms in your garage or basement. Plus, things like 3D printing won't help matters either.
There's also the risk that going overboard with this stuff will just embolden the black market.
Dreams-Visions put it best back near the start of this thread - this is going to be a HARD problem to address or even put a serious dent into. And it's our own fault, because we allowed this proliferation of guns to get to where it is in the first place. It would have been much better if we had good gun control laws in place 50 years ago.
Also, Canada has nationalized healthcare and treats it's poor better than the US.
It has nationalized healthcare, much lower income inequality, stricter gun laws, and better help for the mentally disabled. At least as far as I'm aware, correct me if I'm wrong on the latter 2.
This concoction works. It has been shown over and over to work in modern societies. Unfortunately Americans have been brainwashed to hate these things without fully or even partially understanding them.
Are you kidding me? They didn't die. The situations are equivalent to you?
No problem, you were perfectly respectful.
1. You may have missed it, but a significant aspect of my proposal is aimed at determining the sound mental health of the individual seeking the gun in the first place. To that end, it "would" have help stop a number of shootings of various years as the mentally ill perpetrators would not have been allowed to legally purchase guns. This is of course irrelevant to this particular shooting.
2. Storing the weapon securely might have prevented this shooting as the perpetrator would not have been able to steal it.
Yeah, I'm open to debate on concealed carry but I think that's my reaction as well.
I'm the opposite. Let people keep their rifles and shotguns for hunting and self-defense. I can see a guy with a rifle a long way away. I can't see the guy with a pistol in his pocket. There should be no legal concealed carry. If you're law abiding you don't need to hide your weapon.
KingofSarus
Banned
Are you kidding me, yo?
Dying or not, parents drop their kids off to school for them to learn, not have their lives taken away or be forever traumatized.
It doesn't matter. He still did the same number of damage... and you're ignoring the fact that just like a gun, you can aim a knife to hit a vital organ.
Just like drugs! You ban the hard-hitting ones? You'll just find something that'll not do as much as the banned drug, but "get the job done."
MaddenNFL64
Member
lol oh onion, don't belittle the molded metal contraptions that fling other pieces of metal. It's a god given right to use one!
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Are you joking? Those kids may be traumatised, but they're not dead, they'll go back to their parents.
The difference between life and death is a pretty frigging big one.
gutter_trash
Banned
people who say that you can buy guns on the black market...
hey, guns are manufactured in the US and leaked onto the black market locally.
Ban production of guns all together and you curve the flow of guns in the US (and Mexico)
hey, guns are manufactured in the US and leaked onto the black market locally.
Ban production of guns all together and you curve the flow of guns in the US (and Mexico)
Dude Abides
Banned
No shit we can't create a lab where every factor but one is controlled. Nobody claimed otherwise. But that does not mean comparisons cannot be made between situations in different jurisdictions.
The entire post was you trying to polish your knob and wank on about "nuanced discussion points" and "embryonic thought" when you actually had nothing but trite banalities to offer.
thezerofire
Banned
damn, the onion continuing to be on point
Escape Goat
Member
I guess I am left wondering how many of these people would have passed a mental health screening. I'm not even sure what a mental health screening would entail. "Do you ever want to shoot people? Circle Yes or No." and the ones who are stupid enough to say Yes dont get a gun?
You can't see the difference between a dead kid and a living kid? For real?
What the fuck? Are you implying I argued it's okay that they got stabbed or something?
The damage in that attack was substantially lesser than this one, and almost surely because the method of violence was a knife versus a gun. No one has died. It isn't yet even a murder, let alone a massacre.
That does nothing to detract from it being an equally senseless tragedy. It simply had far fewer casualties.
Are you trolling?
He didn't do even close to the same "number of damage." And no one is ignoring that fact (which is largely irrelevant anyway), you're making a strawman.
...seriously, what on earth are you talking about?
This thread doesn't even mention banning guns in the OP. It says "increased gun regulation."
Again, my proposal involves writing an essay prompt which is tailored to be subtle enough not to include silly premises of that nature, but potentially reveal violent or unstable tendencies. An essay-length description of what someone wants the specific gun for should suffice in the hands of a trained mental health professional.
And as to the question of "how many of them would pass a mental health screening"- if the answer is even one less than the number of shootings that would take place, it would be worth doing even at an enormous burden to the legitimate users of guns.
It's sorta odd how some people shook this story off as if being in elementary school and randomly getting stabbed is somehow infinitely less terrifying then someone shooting everyone.
"Hey, at least you wern't shot emotionally scarred boy!"
Your reaction to the Chinese story seemed very cold and apathetic, not saying you feel that way, but your initial response was sorta morbid.
Yeah. That's the thing. We can't get any of those things corrected here -- and by and large, we don't even want to. It sucks. (Affordable Care Act will help some, but it's small potatoes compared to what we need...)
What's especially sad is how the current states (and general opinions) of national healthcare, income inequality, and gun laws all have their roots in the racism of the mid-20th century -- the effects of which have persisted to this day. But that's another topic.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
I think it's more about the point that was being argued earlier (and in every gun control thread it seems) that a gun is actually much more deadly than a knife in cases like these.
Who the fuck is saying that? Am I losing my mind?
It simply isn't relevant to this thread :-/
You did not see my reaction to the news of the Chinese stabbing. That did not take place in this thread.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
I made this post some time ago explaining why gun crime is extremely low in Spain, with a population of 46 million people, despiting the fact that there are more than one million guns in civilian hands*.
I was pleased to see that pro-gun control gaffers were very supportive of similar measures in America as a tool to control gun crime, but I'd like to know the opinion and arguments of anti-gun control posters.
Edit: Make that 4.5 million guns, one million is the number of hunting licenses.
------
European gun owner here.
The thing that irks me about this whole thing is that you don't need to have them banned. Actually, from my experience only a tiny minority of Americans would like to end gun ownership in any shape or form.
Gun crime in my country is by all means a tiny issue, in no small part because arms are so incredibly controlled that it would be nigh impossible for gangs to obtain them through straw purchases and shady dealers, which are the main sources of illegal weapons in America.
Here's a quick step by step guide of everything you need to do in my neck of the woods in order to obtain a gun:
It sounds like a lengthy and complex process and damn well it is, but this way:
a) Anybody who really wants a gun gets to own one.
b) Irresponsible buyers are discouraged; they simply don't have the patience to deal with all the red tape, not to mention safety classes.
c) It is IMPOSSIBLE to sell your guns to criminals without the police noticing it.
Now, there are many idiotic things in our gun legislation that make absolutely no fucking sense, such as silly caliber regulations and the like, but I think that this is the best possible approach to gun control. Of course, I know many Americans would freak the fuck out at some of those points, but I know it's a fair compromise and not that different from the requirements of owning a car, which also comes with significant responsibilities.
------
I was pleased to see that pro-gun control gaffers were very supportive of similar measures in America as a tool to control gun crime, but I'd like to know the opinion and arguments of anti-gun control posters.
Edit: Make that 4.5 million guns, one million is the number of hunting licenses.
------
European gun owner here.
The thing that irks me about this whole thing is that you don't need to have them banned. Actually, from my experience only a tiny minority of Americans would like to end gun ownership in any shape or form.
Gun crime in my country is by all means a tiny issue, in no small part because arms are so incredibly controlled that it would be nigh impossible for gangs to obtain them through straw purchases and shady dealers, which are the main sources of illegal weapons in America.
Here's a quick step by step guide of everything you need to do in my neck of the woods in order to obtain a gun:
- First, you have to undergo some physical and mental tests, paid out of your pocket (around €40). They are extremely basic, but enough to deter the craziest elements (read: a total psycho) from getting a gun.
- Second, you need to fill an official form and obtain your police records in order to demonstrate that you are not a felon.
- After that you pay a small fee to your local shooting federation (I think mine was about €50). This is an important step. After that you'll have to attend to several theoretical and practical classes. During two days you will learn everything you need to know about gun safety and laws. After that you'll be taken to the local range and shoot for three days. Teachers (and maybe the police, as sometimes they drop by to check on everybody) will keep tabs on you; in order to obtain a license you'll need to pass a final practical test and demonstrate that you are a responsible shooter.
- Now you have your license. But you can't have your gun. National law stipulates that you need to keep your gun in an homologated safe at all times, so you have to purchase one.
- Now you can buy a gun. You can either visit a gun store or purchase it from another gun owner. It should be noted that there is no such thing as over the counter gun purchases. After you pay for it the shop or individual in possession of said gun will send it to the police, that will inspect it and check its serial numbers.
- Once it's been inspected police will contact you. You will have to produce a copy of your safe's documentation (showing that you own an actual, proper safe) and then the gun will be registered at your name.
- Congratulations: you are now a freshly registered gun owner... but things won't stop here. Every few years you will have to visit your local police station with your guns in order to get them checked. This way police will know that you still own every arm registered at your name, making sure that you are not a straw seller, getting guns by legit means only to sell them to criminals.
It sounds like a lengthy and complex process and damn well it is, but this way:
a) Anybody who really wants a gun gets to own one.
b) Irresponsible buyers are discouraged; they simply don't have the patience to deal with all the red tape, not to mention safety classes.
c) It is IMPOSSIBLE to sell your guns to criminals without the police noticing it.
Now, there are many idiotic things in our gun legislation that make absolutely no fucking sense, such as silly caliber regulations and the like, but I think that this is the best possible approach to gun control. Of course, I know many Americans would freak the fuck out at some of those points, but I know it's a fair compromise and not that different from the requirements of owning a car, which also comes with significant responsibilities.
------
Unnecessary public violence of this sort really feels as though it's reaching some kind of boiling point. It's sad because we really refuse to do anything about it. On a national level, it sometimes feels as though we love our guns more than we love our children. Even when they are killed we refuse to talk about, or tackle, the gun issue in this country.
I dropped my wife off for a hair appointment about a year ago downtown, and some guy opened fire on a crowd in the middle of the street. Shot several and killed one. My wife was in that crowd. It's sort of a strange realization that anyone, including your loved ones or your kids, are at danger of being shot at random literally anywhere. I don't know what is necessary to solve this problem, but at this point our situation feels pretty fucked.
I dropped my wife off for a hair appointment about a year ago downtown, and some guy opened fire on a crowd in the middle of the street. Shot several and killed one. My wife was in that crowd. It's sort of a strange realization that anyone, including your loved ones or your kids, are at danger of being shot at random literally anywhere. I don't know what is necessary to solve this problem, but at this point our situation feels pretty fucked.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Pretending that unfortunate events don't happen by excising them from media reporting.
Spat_triate
Member
Guns are a lethality mutiplier. 1 well armed person can kill scores of victims in a very short amount of time. You'd be hard pressed to find a case in which dozens of people are critically wounded/killed by a single knife wielding crazy in less than 10 mins. Even if the police respond instantaneously, there is literally no chance of stopping a gunman before he takes lives.
Incendiary
Banned
I'm curious: why do you think civilians need the right to carry concealed weapons? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm actually interested to know. I feel like there isn't a surefire purpose for it outside of the "well, if somebody opens fire with an assault rifle I can grab my concealed gun and fire back" mentality.
Yeah, this is my opinion. People should seriously start looking into better mental health care and being more observant about certain disorders and personality changes.
As for the banning of guns, there are still loads of dangerous ways for people to commit these things without guns. They can make bombs. Hell, they could grab a chainsaw from Home Depot if they wanted to. There's a lot more to consider than the obvious "less guns = less violence" equation that immediately pops into people's heads when tragedies like this occur.
cutmeamango
Banned
Animal arms.
- Status