Another Mass Shooting in the US

[Bananas]

1 hour ago, athinaios said:

By the way, guns for all isn't the solution. We tried this in early America. Oh, I like westerns....  By the way, I'm looking forward to season 2 of WestWorld

Great show!  Ed Harris is a great actor.  The scene at the end of season when he gets shot and then smiles is gold.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Bananas

[Tzatziki]

 

[BostonThanatos]

Comparing Australia and USA as far as gun laws/bans go is like comparing apples to orangutans.  Plus, as with most things that have to do with statistics...you can usually find studies to support either side of an argument...most people are programmed to just believe what they want to believe.

I'll just leave a couple of my favorite phrases here in closing:

"ΜΟΛΟΝ ΛΑΒΕ" and "...Shall NOT be infringed."

I'm not here for a debate, but this uber liberal circle jerk in basically every thread is hysterical.  

As a person who is alive today because of his legal gun ownership, you guys can kick rocks with your "who needs a gun" argument.  I did, I had it, and my 3 kids still have a father. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by BostonThanatos

[Tzatziki]

5 minutes ago, BostonThanatos said:

I'm not here for a debate, but this uber liberal circle jerk in basically every thread is hysterical.  

I cannot begin to express all of our gratitude for your post, your contribution to the conversation with said post is immeasurable. 

[BostonThanatos]

You're Welcome. 

 

Let's be honest.... Nothing either side says will change the other sides mind...so why even waste our breath. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by BostonThanatos

[Tzatziki]

I don't see this issue as being political personally red vs blue, there have been over 300 similar acts of gun violence in the USA this year, I think banning assault riffles and aftermarket products like "bumper stocks" which are a way of circumventing existing laws to make weapons fully automatic is something that even gun lovers could see is pretty reasonable. All the homerism is qute childish and a detriment to all. Some ideas on both sides could be beneficial to all, if from the start you have the mentality that its us vs them or im not going to change my mind or entertain an opinion different to my own well, that's just sad beyond sad, we could and need to do better than that.

[BostonThanatos]

Bump firing has existed for YEARS before "Bump Stocks" existed...it's actually EXTREMELY simple to accomplish.  My main issue is the misinformation and fear mongering that is spread my the left and the media.  At the same time, pretty much any "common sense gun restrictions" wouldn't have prevented any of the mass shootings. Period.  Also, the fact the no one want's to talk about the mental health issues at the root of 90% of these shootings and the over-medicated population in the USA,  ESPECIALLY on anti-depressants and anxiety medications, is also pretty frustrating.   

I actually regret Trump referencing Mental Health in reference to the mass shooting in response to that bulgy eyed broad in S. Korea...because it somehow takes away any validation the point has because everything he says is immediately discounted.

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by BostonThanatos

[Tzatziki]

So youre ok with people finding ways around existing laws that ban automatic weapons, your post is not clear on that...Also, banning bump stocks would not prevent these incidents, no one ever said they would, what is painfully obvious except to ppl who like to bury their heads in the sand, is that without bump stocks, in these mass shootings there would greater chances for less loss of life. How do you not see that??

[BostonThanatos]

What's painfully obvious is people's ignorance. Bump fire is a technique that's existed before the invention of bump stocks, that was my point.  You can actually do it with a regular rubber band...or nothing at all.  You can even do it with handguns.  This isn't some crazy secret...it's been common knowledge for decades.  Now that YOU heard about it, its the new buzzword for the sheep to regurgitate, meanwhile anyone who's known anything about guns in the last 20 years is laughing.  Kinda like USA Today showing the AR-15 chainsaw attachment...I wonder how many people think that's an actual thing.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by BostonThanatos

[Tzatziki]

I never claimed to be a gun expert. I guess your avoidance probably means youre ok with people finding ways around laws that are in place to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of the public, correct me if I'm wrong.

[BostonThanatos]

I'm not avoiding anything.  Instead of back and forth, and what I believe to be OK or not, I figure I'd help educate you a little bit on the topic you brought up (Bump Stocks) since it is the latest Buzz Word in the media.  

I just don't like the oversimplification of complex issues. 

[paokara777]

On 11/18/2017 at 5:46 PM, BostonThanatos said:

Comparing Australia and USA as far as gun laws/bans go is like comparing apples to orangutans. 

...........

I'm not here for a debate, but this uber liberal circle jerk in basically every thread is hysterical. 

Not just Australia. The (almost) rest of the world has more strict gun laws. And the rest of the world doesn't have a Mass Shooting epidemic. USA does. Bump stocks should be banned. Not because there is no other way to hack a gun to make it auto fire.. You can wear down a sear and make it shoot automatically. That's not the point. You don't only outlaw things that are impossible to get otherwise, there is a black market for everything in every country. 

 

Regarding liberal circle jerk. What makes this a left right issue?? I am politically right/conservative and I think gun laws need a major major overhaul.

 

I couldn't go fishing in Gatlinburg when i visited there this year because i didn't have a licence. Yet i could walk into Walmart and buy a gun. Even FISHING is regulated more heavily in the USA than guns.

[BostonThanatos]

Show me some regulations that could have prevented the mass shootings, and we can discuss it from there.  At this point nothing brought up would have affected any of them and are mostly reactionary.   Not ever in history was there a bump stock used in a shooting, but NOW they're a problem.  If they were outlawed before, would it have stopped what happened? No.  He would have tossed a rubberband on the rifle and accomplished the same exact thing.  

Comparing other countries is wreckless.  Comparing countries like Australia that have a pretty similar land mass, with less than 10% it's populationI, a whole different set of socio-economic issues, etc isn't comparing apples to apples.Is the population as over medicated as Americans?  Is it even legal to advertise prescription medication on TV in some other countries?  Is there such a huge financial incentive for doctors to get you on as many meds as possible, as it is in the US?  Was pretty much every offender of mass shooting either mentally unstable, on meds or recently off meds?  

How many of the example countries are bordered with countries like Mexico, where you can basically run as many illegal guns (or anything else for that matter) into the country as your heart desires? 

I'm not saying I'm not open to discussion, but let's have a broader discussion and take more variables into account. 

I understand guns aren't for everyone.  I was never really into guns until I got into my late 20's and thank God that I did.  

A lot of people like to scoff at the reference to the second amendment, the Constitution, and like to knit pick at certain imperfections in it, but the fact of the matter is there is a certain brilliance to it, and the foresight the creators of it had is amazing.  

I didn't mean to offend with the "circle jerk" comment, but more often than not liberals take this condescending tone in most matters, as if anyone who doesn't agree with all their view points are just ignorant/stupid/racist/sexist/inbred/etc and that rubs me the wrong way. I'm not super conservative...I'm also not a Trump guy.  Doesn't mean I believe EVERYTHING he backs is nonsense.  

Edited November 20, 2017 by BostonThanatos

[paokara777]

'Not ever in history was there a bump stock used in a shooting, but NOW they're a problem'

That is how the law works. Before 500 people were shot with a gun that had a bump stock, you're right, they weren't a problem. They shouldn't have been approved by the Obama administration though. OK so let's not compare USA to 'countries like Australia'.                         

Since you admit yourself that you are willing to discuss mass/spree shooting and solving the problem, what do you think the problem is and in your opinion how can we solve it? Also, why are gun regulations out of the question? Why can't we change gun laws to help solve this problem?

 

I think that most spree shooters are either prescribed and on medication or have been diagnosed with mental health problems etc. Which is why I will restate my original viewpoint. In New Zealand (omg i didnt say Australia) you can legally purchase FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. They do not regulate the weapon they regulate the person. Every person needs to have a mental health check and get a gun licence for the kind of gun they aspire to purchase. For instance, a single barrel beak-open shotgun would be a lower tier and easier to acquire licence than say a fully automatic rifle or even a semi auto rifle. This is what i think the USA needs. Yes, people will still get illegal guns and cause shootings. But at least the blood wont be on all your hands for not trying to do something. Right now, people sit back with a soda in one hand, pizza slice in the other, AK47 on their lap, watching churches and schools getting shot up by people with mental illnesses using high powered rifles and saying "damn that's horrible but they aint comin after my gun". In a way the blood is on your hands.

[BostonThanatos]

First we have to agree that not every problem has a black and white solution or any REAL solution at all. 

I don't disagree that there should be measures taken to make it harder for certain individuals to get a gun.  (Much to the displeasure of most of my more fanatical pro-gun friends).  My issue is WHO do you get to implement these measures?  The Federal govt?  Perhaps the most incompetent entity around?  Let's not forget, the shooter from the church shooting SHOULDN'T have been able to buy any weapons, but the Federal Gov dropped the ball on reporting his history.  The current regulations in place should have prevented that (in theory, because realistically he could have just bought guns illegally and still carried out the shooting). 

I don't pretend to have the answers, I don't but like I said before, let's talk about as many variables involved as possible.  As let's try to limit the amount of misinformation spread.

Edited November 20, 2017 by BostonThanatos

[paokara777]

I agree with everything you said. OK so the problem is not necessarily the law itself, it is the enforcing of the law. This is easier to fix since you don't have to pass a bill to fix this.

In the early 2000's the DNA databases of all the police districts were not centralized so if you wanted to check the DNA of a murderer against other databases you had to log into every one in the USA and submit it manually all with different parameters and settings/standards. It was tedious and many criminals were off the hook for a long time till they finally found the correct database, sometimes they just were never found at all. THEN they consolidated the databases into one and all these crimes were solved. One place to compare DNA. One result.

Do the same for registered gun owners. Show me your drivers licence and birth certificate and SSN. Type it into the computer database. OK you are not registered, you need a health certificate from a certified doctor. Once you get that you can get a gun licence, be added into the system and buy the gun. Problem fixed. Oh you say a gun shop didn't follow protocol? Fine them and/or close down the store.

 

[BostonThanatos]

I hear ya....but if you fall on an anti-gun doctor?  Who doesn't believe anyone should have a gun, and won't issue certificates?  Who appoints which doctors are "certified" to issue these certificates?  

Currently in Massachusetts it is at the discretion of each city or towns Chief of Police to issue a gun license.  Some towns won't issue to anyone for any reason, others will issue to whoever.  I know people who moved from their town to be sure they can renew their permit when a new Chief of police is appointed.  There is usually a meeting with an issuing officer.  All applications must be submitted with a certificate of taking a gun saftey class. 

Let's say they implemented a mental health check to this process, and 2 years later a guy who passed that requirement goes on a spree? Then what?

What about if you are currently a gun owner and are too scared to talk to your doctor about some recent depression or anxiety, because you know that they have the power to take your permit away?  You'll have guys going untreated for conditions that could have been addressed with therapy or medication.

Edited November 20, 2017 by BostonThanatos

[paokara777]

"anti-gun doctor?  Who doesn't believe anyone should have a gun"

If a doctor is anti gun he wouldn't have applied for the government licence to issue official mental health checks. Since he doesn't want to hand them out anyways. The free market solves this., Doctors willing to abide by the laws will apply for the license. So in this way it leans towards more people owning guns than less.

"Who appoints which doctors are "certified" to issue these certificates?"

The Gov't. Sort of like how the Gov't assigned DMV's to issue drivers licenses. We are in the weeds at this point. Things like this will change until the legislation is enforced correctly. Trial and error.

"Some towns won't issue to anyone for any reason, others will issue to whoever"

If the requirements are met, then the license is issued. If the requirements are not met and the license is issued by the state or county even though the registered doc says that he has a history of violence, mental health issues, or anything else, and, say, he shoots someone, the person who overturned the doctors recommendation of not allowing them to get a gun license needs to be prosecuted for not obeying the law. This will only happen once until Chief of Police start doing what is right.

they implemented a mental health check to this process, and 2 years later a guy who passed that requirement goes on a spree? Then what?

I have an alternate crystal ball outcome than yours. They implements health checks and 2 years later spree shootings in the USA are down by 50%. Sure some still happen, but 200 less people are killed in mass shootings, and other non mass shootings.

 

Don't focus on the exception. Focus on the progress. if we stop 2 out of 10 mass shootings, it is NOT a failure. It is a huge success. 

[paokara777]

44 minutes ago, BostonThanatos said:

What about if you are currently a gun owner and are too scared to talk to your doctor about some recent depression or anxiety, because you know that they have the power to take your permit away?  You'll have guys going untreated for conditions that could have been addressed with therapy or medication.

Sorry i forgot to address this point, in my opinion the most important one you made.

This question is more personal to me, as i have a brother-in-law who is a Marine Corp retired veteran, gun owner/enthusiast and also diagnosed with mental health issues (related to his tenure in the military)

he is on anti psychotic drugs, and i have personally on several occasions seen him become physically violent with family members.
 

I believe he is not mentally healthy enough to own guns. I don't want to get deeper into my thoughts about him and his capabilities but i think he is a danger to himself primarily and then to others potentially.

 

I don't know what to do about his case. He would never give up his guns (well, not by choice anyways)

[athinaios]

The majority of gun owners do agree that a gun is a dangerous thing to have so a license has to include training on how to use a weapon.

I don't see gun ownership from an ideological point of view. I want to figure out a way to reduce violence. *

Guns in the wrong hands kill. The abundance of guns is a dangerous thing in a modern, civilized society. Statistics show that more guns=more deadly violence, including unintended consequences of gun availability, like suicide, accidents, domestic disputes, etc. Crime also does not go down when there are more guns. [cities have strict gun laws but it's not the laws, it's the availability of guns that matters the most]

It's misleading to say that if you stop 2 out of 10 mass shootings proves the point that guns everywhere is the solution.This would mean 20% and simply hasn't happened to that extend. It's more like 3% when a good civilian with a gun has stopped a bad gun guy. 

You have to weigh the benefits versus the costs of gun ownership.

Let's stop pretending....  You want to have guns because you like them, and I can totally understand such an argument, but at least let's have an honest discussion.

 

*you can't administer a solution that is worse than the problem; artificial intelligence in the future will be able to eliminate violence... by killing all humans!

 

[BostonThanatos]

Here's a map of gun violence by region:

Here is a map of majority Democrat voters:

 

I think banning Democrats may do the trick!!!

[Epicurus]

@BostonThanatos this is the case of using data to mislead.

Yeah, cities have more people too. The concentration of big numbers have certain effects, like more car accidents, etc. Crime, too, will happen when there are more people congregating.

But, those who believe (with no good reason) that having tons of guns available for ..anyone isn't a factor in gun violence will never accept facts!  Also, the map above shows a correlation not causation. [too hard of a concept for some to comprehend; much like the difference between the median and average]

Cities indeed have Democratic administrations in the US [cities tend to be Democrat, urban areas Republican, and suburbs mixed]; they also have strict gun laws. But guns filter in from surrounding areas or states with loose gun laws.

Here's a study that attempts to examine the relationship between local crime and supply (origin) of guns. In NYC, for example, most of the guns used in crime come from Virginia and other states.

"firearms have a knack for flooding into states with tough gun laws from those without. (To cite just one example: Sixty percent of guns used to commit crimes in Chicago between 2009 and 2013 originated outside of Illinois.) A state's gun laws, it seems, can be undermined by those of its neighbors."  

When will the gun owners realize that they're being played by the NRA? The gun lobby is a front for the gun manufacturers to sell more weapons. The high price of gun violence is being paid by everyone, including lawful gun owners.

And, here's a thoughtful article about gun violence in the US.

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Epicurus

[BostonThanatos]

I thought it was a funny post...It wasn't meant to be taken as a serious data reference...lol...lighten up guys.

[Antaeus7]

Yikes, more mass shootings in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro than Houston alone! :o 

[Polikastano]

Just saw the topic , have not read any posts.  All i say is this... False Flag

look into it. 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Polikastano