Another Mass Shooting In The Us...

[nlaruccia]

Today you can't just walk into a gun dealership and purchase a firearm. You must pass a Federal background check. It is not the vendor's responsibility to assess a person's mental state. I don't think the "Gun-show loop-hole" is still available. I do think the background check is pretty thin. Mostly, if you don't have a criminal record, you can purchase a firearm.

Yet many of the people that have carried out mass shootings didn't have a criminal record.

 

[gpop]

People often cite Canada as being the safe side of North America where nothing happens and nobody carries guns. (it isn't -always-, and we do -sometimes-).

Where the US has the 2nd Ammendment, Canada hasn't anything of the sort. Nor does it have a powerful gun lobby like the NRA. What it does have is gun control.
Despite the lower population and density; there are still massacres. So, despite all the rhetoric to support the strengthening of gun law or prohibition to quell mass shootings, it is just hyperbole.
As I and GS had stated - anyone motivated to get ahold of a weapon, legally or otherwise, they will get it. I don't think for a moment that the symptoms for this kind of violence are rooted in the availability of weapons. There must be something else driving that kind of crazy.
The question remains, when the nut-job goes on the rampage, does he keep on shooting until he runs out of bullets, or does someone take him out before he does too much damage? I would rather have and not need, then need and not have.

 

[StevePalermo]

So, despite all the rhetoric to support the strengthening of gun law or prohibition to quell mass shootings, it is just hyperbole.

Not hyperbole at all. Look at Australia, and the UK. No massacres since they passed better public safety laws restricting guns. Compare the killings by guns with just about every other country and you'll find them to be safer. And much safer in all comparable countries (i.e. not in war zones or Venezuela) http://www.cbsnews.c...ther-countries/

 

[cwo4uscgret]

You see, discussing these topics doesn't lead to much as long as people believe in anecdotal evidence and highly biased magazines more than independent scientific studies. It's like saying human-induced climate-warming doesn't exist because it was pretty cold in B.A. the last weeks and there's a conspiracy site on the internet that states it's wrong, so why should I trust what scientists in institutions like NASA have to say...

And with a brush of the hand thorsten waves of just one source of information as anecdotal evidence. Sorry to burst your bubble of disillusion but the news media, not just one magazine, also publishes reports of "armed citizen uses firearm to stop criminal." You seem to be living in a land of make believe where only you gets to decide what's the new and what's not. The incidence of using a firearm to stop a bad guy is a lot greater then you think.

There is data, based on record keeping, to suggest that the climate, aka the weather, is cyclical, that over time there are periods of colder then hotter weather. Stationed in Southern California in the mid to late 1980s the name "el Nino" was coined to describe the warming of the ocean and offshore winds. Several years later, "la Nina" was used to explain the cooling of the water and offshore winds. Now I will say that man isn't doing a very good job of taking care of Earth; something we need to get much better at.

Back to this discussion however, what will you do if some breaks into you home in Argentina to rob and otherwise harm you? How do you protect yourself? My last visit I discouraged a thief who began stalking us as we walked back to our temporary apartment near the American Embassy. I made him realize that I was not going to be a victim; mainly by letting him know I was aware of him...

 

[thorsten]

And with a brush of the hand thorsten waves of just one source of information as anecdotal evidence. Sorry to burst your bubble of disillusion but the news media, not just one magazine, also publishes reports of "armed citizen uses firearm to stop criminal." You seem to be living in a land of make believe where only you gets to decide what's the new and what's not. The incidence of using a firearm to stop a bad guy is a lot greater then you think.

I just believe in facts based on unbiased scientific studies, while you believe in the American Rifle Man and Fox News stories. I don't decide what's news and what's not, I look at facts, not "news". But I also learned that it's not worth discussing topics with people who will stick to their opinion ignoring all evidence against them, so let's just agree to disagree...

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

The UK and Australia are very different cultures to the US. Sorry, but the US has a pro-gun culture. It is bred into us. We have an incredibly high homicide by gun rate. I know mass shootings are very public and very dramatic but in the big picture they are like plan crashes. When an airliner goes down everyone frets about not dying in a crash. They forget that the real danger is driving to and from the airport.

I don't think that our collective attitude toward guns will change like our attitudes to seat-belts and smoking. I could be wrong, however we have had some pretty heinous events involving mass shootings and still, overall, the public supports gun rights.

We could talk about mandatory federal background checks for everyone in the US but then we get into the individual states' rights issue, of which I happen to be a very strong proponent. If the people living in California decide to have mandatory backgrounds checks then they can pass a law. If the folks in Texas don't want one they have the right to live as they please, in Texas, like Texans. The same way that people in Colorado can legalize marijuana use and Pennsylvania can legalize same sex marriages, and other states don't.

 

[steveinbsas]

The same way that people in...Pennsylvania can legalize same sex marriages, and other states don't.

Thanks to the Supremes, that is no longer possible: http://www.nytimes.c...riage.html?_r=0

I think it is quite likely that if HRC is elected president there will be lawsuits to restrict gun ownership nationwide to members of state militias.

And if they prevail, as they probably will with new appointees to the Supreme Court (replacing one or two of the conservative judges), there will likely be some states that seriously restrict membership in their militias while others may include as many gun toting members as possible.

PS: I haven't heard or read this anywhere. It's my own opinion.

 

[scotttswan]

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Hmmm... I would not predict them changing the Constitution.

I think the most feasible option to get traction is to get individual states to start tough background checks. That doesn't threaten anyone's precious AR-15 (that they use for deer hunting).

 

[scotttswan]

Hmmm... I would not predict them changing the Constitution.

I think the most feasible option to get traction is to get individual states to start tough background checks. That doesn't threaten anyone's precious AR-15 (that they use for deer hunting).

Why not, its called an amendment, when shit is broken you fix it.
also I thought the ar-15 was shit for hunting?