Mass Shooting in the USA

[msj]

That's pretty weak.

[Bonam]

That's pretty weak.

What? Not bothering with cites? Sure, it's weak. Do I care? No. The vast majority of the time here whenever someone demands a cite and is actually provided with one, they immediately dismiss it for one dumb reason or another.

[msj]

Ah yes so effective....

[eyeball]

...everyone is firmly entrenched in their ideology. For example, most gun control proponents are against any system that would prevent the mentally ill from having access to guns.

This is uncivil discourse, it is so stupid it's offensive.

Edited December 3, 2015 by eyeball

[ReeferMadness]

I don't bother with cites on this site. The level of dialog here is too low to bother putting in the effort.

So, based on nothing more than your own observations, you fabricated a generalization to smear "most" people who think that intelligent gun laws might play a part in reducing gun needless and pointless gun deaths.

And then you say the level of dialog here is low.

#smh

[kimmy]

What I will say is that whether discussing it on this forum or watching discussions in the media, whenever anyone (typically from the gun rights side) brings up the idea of screening people for mental illness, someone else (typically from the gun control side) usually shoots it down by saying that the issue of mental illness is tangential, that even bringing it up is stigmatizing the mentally ill and inherently bigoted, etc.

I don't recall anybody claiming that preventing mentally ill people from getting firearms is unfair. What I DO recall is attempts to blame "Big Pharma!" for mass shootings (ie, referring to antidepressants as "MASS MURDER SUICIDE PILLS!" and so on). Or as in this recent thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25117-mentally-ill-patients-not-guns-are-shooting-culprit/

...in which some members, apparently following the lead of US right-wing media figures like Ann Coulter, attempted to disconnect gun ownership from the issue entirely and ask instead: "why aren't we locking up more mentally ill people?"

I certainly support probing the applicant's mental health history as part of the firearms licensing process. When I got my Restricted license, the Firearms Officer required information about my mental health from my doctor. I support that level of scrutiny.

But the idea that maybe the real answer is to start institutionalizing more people?

-k

[kimmy]

Of course, the idea of background checks and screening for mental health kind of falls on its face when most states have very low standards for private sales of firearms.

Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, or private sale exemption is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market". The term refers to a perceived gap in the law regarding the sale or transfer of firearms between private citizens. As of September 2015, 18 states and Washington, D.C. require background checks for some or all private firearm sales.
Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification. Federal law prohibits private individuals from selling a firearm to a resident of another state, or anyone they have reason to believe is prohibited from owning a firearm. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of the venue of sale.
A late 20th century report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) commissioned by then-president Bill Clinton stated that transactions and sales of firearms by private U.S. citizens contribute to illegal activities. Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks and recordkeeping for all gun sales. Contrarily, gun rights advocates have stated the laws function as intended, and no loophole exists. They have contended that required background checks and recordkeeping for private sales of firearms endanger Second Amendment rights, and exceed the government’s authority, regardless of the venue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

I assure you, Bonam, it's not mental health advocates that are lobbying against tighter standards for private sales of firearms.


-k

Edited December 3, 2015 by kimmy

[Michael Hardner]

[socialist]

After they outlaw guns, the only ones with guns will be the outlaws.

[Michael Hardner]

After they outlaw guns, the only ones with guns will be the outlaws.

A handful of them... until the cops come and kill them.

[socialist]

A handful of them... until the cops come and kill them.

A handful? Of which utopia do you speak?

And you will support cops killing people for simply owning guns?

Edited December 3, 2015 by socialist

[socialist]

Maybe, but this is going to make legendary San Bernardino traffic jams even worse.

Praise the Lord and please pass the ammunition.

Where is the outpour for the support from the World for this attack. Hundreds of thousands of Americans showed there support for France when they were attacked. Where is the world for America. I Stand with America on this massacre of human life. RIP to the fallen and I praise all the LEO's in California that did an AMAZING JOB yesterday.

[Smeelious]

While I appreciate the thinking behind this (well maybe I don't) condemning people for asking for prayers for victims isn't an overly good tact to take.

Frankly the Democratic candidate response struck me as being basically the same. They all said the same(ish) thing, and essentially what they said were also meaningless platitudes.

Even Obama's "We can't let this become routine!" has become routine. He's the only one in a position to *do* anything, and he claims that a bi-partisan solution has to be obtained...Thanks Obama.

[Michael Hardner]

And you will support cops killing people for simply owning guns?

No - you were speaking of criminals.

[Guest]

Political prayers and their NRA funding. http://imgur.com/YLxbDHE

[-TSS-]

If any US-government tries to take away guns from people there would be a rebellion if not an outright civil-war. That's why no government over there is foolish enough to attempt to do that.

[Moonlight Graham]

I certainly support probing the applicant's mental health history as part of the firearms licensing process. When I got my Restricted license, the Firearms Officer required information about my mental health from my doctor. I support that level of scrutiny.

I support screening for mental health, but the problem with that is that most people with mental illness are undiagnosed. The other problem is that how do authorities even know somebody has mental health issues even if diagnosed? It's not like there's some big database of people who have ever been prescribed antidepressants. And if this becomes reality, will this prevent gun owners from getting needed treatment for mental health issues for fear of losing their access to guns?

Mental illness doesn't vary much between developed countries. The major problem in the US is the easy access to guns of many sorts and the culture of guns where people actually want to own them.

[Moonlight Graham]

After they outlaw guns, the only ones with guns will be the outlaws.

And police. Like in every other developed country.

[ReeferMadness]

If any US-government tries to take away guns from people there would be a rebellion if not an outright civil-war. That's why no government over there is foolish enough to attempt to do that.

It's a false argument - nobody has ever discussed "taking away guns" except the gun nutters.

[ReeferMadness]

I support screening for mental health, but the problem with that is that most people with mental illness are undiagnosed. The other problem is that how do authorities even know somebody has mental health issues even if diagnosed? It's not like there's some big database of people who have ever been prescribed antidepressants. And if this becomes reality, will this prevent gun owners from getting needed treatment for mental health issues for fear of losing their access to guns?

Mental illness doesn't vary much between developed countries. The major problem in the US is the easy access to guns of many sorts and the culture of guns where people actually want to own them.

I think it's more than access to guns - I understand that other countries will lots of guns don't have the same problem. I think there is something else going on down there. Too many guns isn't helping, though (regardless of what the NRA might claim).

Apparently, there were close to 200,000 guns on Black Friday alone. Statistically, I wonder how many of them wind up killing spouses or kids.

[-TSS-]

In Switzerland a lot of adult males have an assault rifle at home. It's got something to do with mobilizing the army as soon as possible if a need arises. One would imagine that news of massacres would therefore be very common in that country. However, that never happens.

[Smeelious]

In Switzerland a lot of adult males have an assault rifle at home. It's got something to do with mobilizing the army as soon as possible if a need arises. One would imagine that news of massacres would therefore be very common in that country. However, that never happens.

There are some differences, especially wrt ammo control. Also, military service is more widespread, leading to better understanding/safety/whatever.

[Wilber]

In Switzerland a lot of adult males have an assault rifle at home. It's got something to do with mobilizing the army as soon as possible if a need arises. One would imagine that news of massacres would therefore be very common in that country. However, that never happens.

Countries like Switzerland, Norway etc have quite restrictive firearms laws but exempt some citizens with prior military service in the context of a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" stipulated in the US Second Amendment but completely ignored in the US.

The US is past the tipping point when it comes to the abuse of firearms. They have screwed themselves and can find no way back.

[Boges]

The US is past the tipping point when it comes to the abuse of firearms. They have screwed themselves and can find no way back.

Nor do most want a way back. These shootings are just the cost of doing business. Murder is illegal after all.

[Derek 2.0]

If any US-government tries to take away guns from people there would be a rebellion if not an outright civil-war. That's why no government over there is foolish enough to attempt to do that.

Without a doubt........their revolution was fought and won with 3% of the population....3% of American gun owners would equate to somewhere between 3-5 million people, larger than the World's largest army (China), comprised of not only hillbillies living in trailerhoods, but serving and retired members of the United States military (see Oathkeepers) and law enforcement (there are already countless county Sheriffs that refuse to enforce gun control) and likely receiving open support from not only small local Governments, but various States.......

It won't happen.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Derek 2.0