Because the process is extremely hard, and you'd get an EXTREME amount of backlash from even saying it, let alone voting for it. And good luck collecting all of those guns from people too. It's a fool's errand to just straight up ban all guns.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Two Virginia television journalists fatally shot in on-air attack[READ OP]
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
Because the process is extremely hard, and you'd get an EXTREME amount of backlash from even saying it, let alone voting for it. And good luck collecting all of those guns from people too. It's a fool's errand to just straight up ban all guns.
backflip10019
Member
Yeah, that's true. The most effective way to start a real gun legislation push would be by a socially good corporation (relatively speaking) like Google or whatever pushing for an anti-gun lobby. I doubt this would ever happen, though, because there's no money in it.
It's a question of degrees, I suppose. I hate to keep using this word in my posts, but 'intuitively', murder in general (specifically mass murder) is less likely to be successful if the assailant is armed with a weapon that has no range and requires more physical strength to wield successfully.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
But the sheer frequency and quantity of these tragedies is numbing.
This isn't signal, it's noise.
brochiller
Member
I don't think he's looking to change the amendment, only the current interpretation of it. There are those who say that the way the amendment is written was not meant to allow individuals to bear arms, but instead to allow the states the right to defend themselves with guns. If the Supreme Court were to hear a case regarding the interpretation of the second amendment it is possible that they could see it differently than the way it has been interpreted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
For everyone claiming more background checks are needed I honestly do not think that will solve the problem with stopping acts like this.
I disagree with the NRA and their ridiculous notion of more people having guns being a good thing, but at the same time I have a hard time believing that a criminal would not be able to get a gun if they really wanted to.
For example, Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation but yet has a ridiculously high amount of shootings and gun violence/murder. I highly doubt all the gang members walking around shooting at each other went through the proper avenues to get their guns.
Unless guns are completely outlawed then I do not believe any significant changes will happen as a result of tragedies such as this.
I disagree with the NRA and their ridiculous notion of more people having guns being a good thing, but at the same time I have a hard time believing that a criminal would not be able to get a gun if they really wanted to.
For example, Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation but yet has a ridiculously high amount of shootings and gun violence/murder. I highly doubt all the gang members walking around shooting at each other went through the proper avenues to get their guns.
Unless guns are completely outlawed then I do not believe any significant changes will happen as a result of tragedies such as this.
dehydratedbabies
Member
Thanks for the link, I was wondering how many it's been this year. I feel like I've read a "mass shooting" headline at least once every other week, and apparently that's about right. Fucking shameful.
Resident_UA
Member
ScatheZombie
Member
The data suggests otherwise. Both Australia and the UK implemented strict gun bans/regulations in 1996 and 1997 following mass shootings. Mass shootings since then? Zero in Australia. Two in UK.
We were having nearly one a day for most of 2015.
Two in 18 years across two countries.
One a day. ONE A DAY.
It's clearly a pretty big factor.
Baron_Calamity
Member
The sitting Supreme court has given the second amendment a way too loose of an interpretation.
Dedication Through Light
Member
The point is is that banning guns wont stop violence at the workplace. People seem under the impression that banning one killing device = no more workplace killing, when weve seen time and time again numerous ways that people kill each other at the workplace without the use of a gun. Saying a knife is easier to get away from is avoiding the issue of addressing why someone would even kill at a workplace.
I'm currently in the Newhouse Graduate Program at Syracuse U for Broadcast Journalism and digital media. Shit like this is insane. I'll have to be on the lookout for wackos and be sure not to piss them off...being nice to everyone has worked out for me.
RIP to the cameraman and reporter. Jesus.
RIP to the cameraman and reporter. Jesus.
brochiller
Member
It's because while GAF has a global audience, almost all of the mass murders that happen are shooting that occur in America.
I'm just glad we finally have data, because there is always the "lol, things are just the same as they've always been!" arguments that are all silenced with a simple link.
This is a fantastic example of why we will never be able to proactively address the root cause of these shootings or curb violent outbursts brought on by mental illness or distress.
There was a pretty good read on a few outlets a ways back about Pedophilia in the UK and how people with desires can't get external support to prevent acting on them.
In both situations choosing to ostracize those we traits or behaviors we don't approve of rather to accept our responsibility as a society to help those that are in need we open the door to those people falling to their darkest impulses.
Genuine question, how did Australia pull it off?
benicillin
Banned
You're right, it won't solve the problem 100% so we shouldn't do anything at all.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yes the core of the problem is the ample supply of guns an the complete lack of regulation across the country to keep dangerous people away from them.
Or did you have a different idea that completely circumnavigates guns?
so deep bro
Fenderputty
Banned
So not reality. Gotcha.
This case specifically sure he might (probably does?) have a mental illness but I think saying only people who are crazy have the capacity for murder or violence is wrong. Humans have been killing since their beginning for revenge, fun or even financial gain and 'normal' people are totally capable of rash and murderous decisions.
plasmawave
Banned
This is all kinds of messed up.
It will probably help some but as you said it always comes back to people shooting other people it's the mind that we have to deal with the anger and hate in the end regardless if guns are legal or not.
Basketball
Member
from Killer's Twitter
"Alison made racist remarks"
"EEOC report filed"
"They hired her after that ???"
"Adam (cameraman went to hr after working with me one time"
"I filmed the shooting see facebook'
crazy mofo
"Alison made racist remarks"
"EEOC report filed"
"They hired her after that ???"
"Adam (cameraman went to hr after working with me one time"
"I filmed the shooting see facebook'
crazy mofo
Nothing in the second amendment specifies the type of guns allowed.
we could just grandfather all existing gunowners in, and then restrict it down to shotguns only for civilians, and force full registration and historical ownership records going forward for any gun made afterwards. then once the existing gun nuts age out we just finish off the ban.
If you want to shoot then you should have to sign up for the military.
RumblingRosco
Member
I know the number will still be too high, but you should at least account for the population differences between the combined Australia/UK and the USA.
doctorblurg
Banned
Every mass shooting just makes me more and more scared, especially being on a college campus. I'm so tired of seeing this shit almost every other week
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
ding ding ding
Kiever Sher
Member
Do you guys think that tweet is supporting guns or something. He's saying that the talking point of ''they could have saved themselves if they had guns!'' is strange since the one mass shooting that was prevented he can recall was prevented without guns.
Never said you should care either, just posting something.
Where are these "well regulated militias"? And the purpose was to keep states free from being enslaved... How is that still a threat to a state?
We are in dire need of the SCOTUS to clarify that "right to bear arms" is a conditional amendment pertaining to other factors... not just "right to bear arms... period".
So many people are just immune to these tragedies to the point that people go "well, it doesn't affect me personally, thus I don't care"... and they only say that until it does.
Even with population differences, it's INSANELY high in comparison to USA numbers.
Mad Season
Banned
folks... let's take a moment here to mourn those lost. Now is not the time ONCE AGAIN to spit out how you fix the problem. Everyone thinks they have the answer.
Mourn these people.
Mourn these people.
TumblingHippo
Member
Right now, there's a debate on whether or not 9-year olds are allowed to fire uzis. There are many who oppose banning children from handling automatic weapons.
It feels like nothing in this country will change with this sort of mentality.
It feels like nothing in this country will change with this sort of mentality.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If ridding guns would reduce the amount of murders (and of course it would, you take away the "easy kill button") then it's a project worth attempting.
And I'm thinking the drop in murder rate would be significant without guns. Like >90%.
So few people have the fortitude to attempt stabbings. Guns make murders into a mere "decision", rather than a visceral, dangerous-to-one's-self struggle.
Tell that to Australia, about successfully buying back guns that is. The black market price has risen from 2000 for a semi-auto handgun to 15,000 after their successful buyback program. Stricter controls, drastically reduced supply and effective enforcement of new gun control laws would be tough but doable.
But as you say it's the political hurdle.
Truth, I had a few moments in my classes today that I thought about what I would if an active shooter incident had happened right at that instant.
I even considered a change of seating in the future to maximize my survival chances.
brochiller
Member
So the US has about five times as many people as the UK. 2x5= 10. There you go ten mass shootings since the mid-nineties. That's not even two weeks worth for us.
Nicely put.
Which is why we have the amendment process to take care of that.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Violence will always occur, the idea is to remove unnecessary vectors of attack.
The statistics and science don't lie, if you remove guns there will be an overall reduction of deaths from violence and conflict and a virtual end of mass killings.
That's not to say the task, in a country with as many guns in the United States will be easy. It will be considerably more difficult and expensive to do the same thing as Australia did. But, the bottom line is, It can be done.
I'd love to see some studies on black market prices, I love bringing economics into the discussion because it's not often considered.
I'll gladly continue to ostracize traits such as murder, thanks.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Christ i just saw the video. i feel sick
RIP.
RIP.
You can't ban guns outright in America. Not even because of the 2nd Amendment. I'm talking about logistics. There are way too many guns in way too many rural and hard-to-reach areas to systematically remove and dispose of them. How would you even start a process like that? Gun buybacks are good, but you never see crazy-huge turnouts.
The only way to actually do this would be to literally go door-to-door to every registered gun owner (thereby incentivizing illegal and untraceable ownership) to confiscate the gun and reimburse the owner. This is completely unfeasible from a logistics and a financing perspective, and that's before you consider the fact that many of these nutjobs (not all gun owners, but the ones who won't give them up quietly) would likely start an uprising against the government in the process. So now you've got the fucking National Guard storming some backwoods patch of land in Georgia because so-and-so wants to be a big man and stand up to the government.
And all of that ignores the already-sizable amount of guns owned illegally or untraceably. How do you find those? Raids? It's a PR nightmare.
So you can't ban guns in America. We've unfortunately gone too far down the rabbit hole and stuck in it for this generation. Maybe over time, we can roll the tide back, but it's not going to happen any time soon. But, fortunately, there are things we CAN do, and soon. Things like:
- Tighter regulation on gun purchasing in relation to customer background and a semi-frequent license renewal process (every 3-5 years would be my preference) that entails a test for mental health, safety and competence.
- Reinvestment in our public mental health facilities. This guy may not have been mentally ill, but many of these shooters are, and the more people we can help before a homicidal episode, the more lives we'll ultimately save.
- Addressing the severe imbalance in our wealth distribution that creates an environment for poor people to turn to drugs and violence as a means of survival, necessitating their (almost-always illegal) gun ownership.
Ultimately, most gun owners are sensible, normal people. My brother-in-law is a gun owner. He takes one of my nieces to the range all the time. It's a great way for them to bond, and he always emphasizes safety and respect for what they're doing. I've seen his gun safe - it looks like it could take a fucking nuclear blast. I've never once seen one of his guns outside of the context of him taking it out of the safe to go to the range or him putting it back into the safe after coming back. I imagine most gun owners have the same attitude.
I asked him once if he'd be fine doing an extensive background check and doing various tests every several years to keep his gun license, and he had no problem with that. Again, I'd imagine most people who own guns wouldn't care, because these things sound like common sense.
The problem is that every time you want to even slightly tighten the grip on gun control, you're going up against the NRA, the manufacturer lobby, Fox News and every other public conservative figure in America. They won't budge a fucking inch, and have managed to fool thousands of people that the answer is, in fact, MORE GUNS. The NRA's ideal America is one where we send our children to school in bulletproof vests, teach them how to assemble AK-47s and essentially train them to be good soldiers.
And so, as a result of all of this, three people died today for no reason at all, two of them innocents. A fiance had to watch in a control room while the man she wanted to spend the rest of her life with was shot and killed simply because he was there. There will be no justice for her, or for the reporter's family. We'll mourn their loss for a few days, it'll stir up conversation, and then we'll get on with our lives. Because gun death is the status quo. People talk about a dystopian future where America loses all of its guns, but we're already living in a dystopian future where we can't stop killing ourselves with them. Personally, I'd like to focus on the problem that's actually happening.
The only way to actually do this would be to literally go door-to-door to every registered gun owner (thereby incentivizing illegal and untraceable ownership) to confiscate the gun and reimburse the owner. This is completely unfeasible from a logistics and a financing perspective, and that's before you consider the fact that many of these nutjobs (not all gun owners, but the ones who won't give them up quietly) would likely start an uprising against the government in the process. So now you've got the fucking National Guard storming some backwoods patch of land in Georgia because so-and-so wants to be a big man and stand up to the government.
And all of that ignores the already-sizable amount of guns owned illegally or untraceably. How do you find those? Raids? It's a PR nightmare.
So you can't ban guns in America. We've unfortunately gone too far down the rabbit hole and stuck in it for this generation. Maybe over time, we can roll the tide back, but it's not going to happen any time soon. But, fortunately, there are things we CAN do, and soon. Things like:
- Tighter regulation on gun purchasing in relation to customer background and a semi-frequent license renewal process (every 3-5 years would be my preference) that entails a test for mental health, safety and competence.
- Reinvestment in our public mental health facilities. This guy may not have been mentally ill, but many of these shooters are, and the more people we can help before a homicidal episode, the more lives we'll ultimately save.
- Addressing the severe imbalance in our wealth distribution that creates an environment for poor people to turn to drugs and violence as a means of survival, necessitating their (almost-always illegal) gun ownership.
Ultimately, most gun owners are sensible, normal people. My brother-in-law is a gun owner. He takes one of my nieces to the range all the time. It's a great way for them to bond, and he always emphasizes safety and respect for what they're doing. I've seen his gun safe - it looks like it could take a fucking nuclear blast. I've never once seen one of his guns outside of the context of him taking it out of the safe to go to the range or him putting it back into the safe after coming back. I imagine most gun owners have the same attitude.
I asked him once if he'd be fine doing an extensive background check and doing various tests every several years to keep his gun license, and he had no problem with that. Again, I'd imagine most people who own guns wouldn't care, because these things sound like common sense.
The problem is that every time you want to even slightly tighten the grip on gun control, you're going up against the NRA, the manufacturer lobby, Fox News and every other public conservative figure in America. They won't budge a fucking inch, and have managed to fool thousands of people that the answer is, in fact, MORE GUNS. The NRA's ideal America is one where we send our children to school in bulletproof vests, teach them how to assemble AK-47s and essentially train them to be good soldiers.
And so, as a result of all of this, three people died today for no reason at all, two of them innocents. A fiance had to watch in a control room while the man she wanted to spend the rest of her life with was shot and killed simply because he was there. There will be no justice for her, or for the reporter's family. We'll mourn their loss for a few days, it'll stir up conversation, and then we'll get on with our lives. Because gun death is the status quo. People talk about a dystopian future where America loses all of its guns, but we're already living in a dystopian future where we can't stop killing ourselves with them. Personally, I'd like to focus on the problem that's actually happening.
ScatheZombie
Member
Fair enough.
The population difference is about 4:1. So we should have had 4x the mass shootings right? That gives a leeway for 8 in 18 years.
Looking at the 2015 average, we surpassed that allotment in 8 days.
Veritigo_X
Member
We have a shooting nearly every day. When is a good time? What's the acceptable amount of time that needs to pass before we can talk about it?
Both of his videos are on there. Not so sure it should even be posted.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
This thread has taught me that people don't know what the word 'graphic' means. It doesn't require there to be exploding guts and blood to be graphic, people. That's gore. The video is most definitely graphic.
- Status