Gun Control in the US

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me, but this seems to imply that there is only one viable course of action. That is not a position universally shared by the US population (or the population of this board). Personally, I have emailed my two congresscritters earlier this week and inquired as to if they have any interest at all in considering other points of focus such as prohibition on publicising such shooters or perhaps looking at the social or societal reasons these things seem to be happening in the US more than other firearms-holding countries. After all, the NRA can't object to those. Given that one is Kamala Harris, and the other Eric Swalwell, both (D-CA), I'm unconvinced that the response will do anything but focus on feelgood, superficial issue of the firearms. DiFi has wasted no time in copy/pasting a paragraph from her last attempt at a ban, submitting her new proposal which ignores the practical aspects of how the things work that she is trying to ban in the first place. But it's much easier to get superficial things passed when emotions are high, and when things settle down in the end, it's those of us on the receiving end that are trying to figure things out. As it is, I spent a half-hour today trying to figure out whether or not one of my rifles needs to be registered under the latest California regimen (And I still haven't come to a conclusion on the matter) because the folks passing the legislation have no clue what they're legislating about. And in the meantime, nothing is done as regards the most commonly used weapons in the US for murder or mass murder, precisely because they are (a) explicitly protected by the courts, and (b) also the most commonly legitimately held weapons. Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.

spacecoyote wrote: »

Good piece from John Oliver on the NRA:/QUOTE]

So in a country that wants to build a wall to keep out all Mexicans because some of them may be rapists, that wants to ban all Muslims until they work what what the "hell is going on" you think that the best response after the latest in a long line of mass shootings is to have a report on why other countries don't have the same problem?

Why not call for an immediate ban on gun sales? For every firearm to be registered and a halt on 2nd sales?

As was proposed above, an immediate register of all guns, limiting the number per person. It would actually make sense for the US to buy back the guns to get the additional guns out of circulation.

You claim that the NRA can't be against a report, but we already know that they are. In 1996 the Dickie act bared the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) for advocating or promote gun control. The CDC is already barred for advocating for anything, only to produce reports, but this amendment resulted in the research in gun violence dropping by 96%. It now spends just 100k a year out of a budget of over 5bn. On gun violence.

Gun violence has accounted for an average 33,000 deaths each year in the US. In 2016 there were more than 1 mass shooting everyday. Yet not only is nothing being done, research isn't even being carried out.

440k people have died as a result of guns since 2001, against less than 4k from foreign terrorism. Trump wants to keep the threat from getting in, guess what, the threat is already there and has access to military grade weapons.

Why is there not a call for all white men to be checked? Across all of the mass shootings, which have been carried out across many states, by different age groups, backgrounds, political and religious reasons. The common thread in all of them is the use of high grade weapons. Yet it seems US is oblivious to that simple fact.

You say it is not universally accepted. Do you know what the opinion polls show about Gun control. Depending on the poll, anywhere between 70% and 90% believe in stricter controls. Even a majority of NRA members agree. So yeah, you're right not universal, but in a democracy surely the majority gets some say. It is the skewed nature of US politics that the very states that are most for lax gun control happen to carry quite a weight within the system.

After the Orlando shooting, the Dems tried, even going as far as staging a sit in, to amend the laws. Not to take peoples gun away, to to restrict the types of weapons, or limit the ammunition. No. The wanted to legislate for background checks for sales in gun shows and to prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. Hardly an attack on gun ownership. Hardly a feel good action. A practical, if limited start.

How did that go I hear you ask? Of course the GOP ignored it.

So when you post your funny cartoon showing the simple way being popular but the complex being "right", they have tried to do nothing approach and how has that gone? Each year seemingly brings a new record. Each year brings more deaths and more injured. But your thinking is that there is no need to go after any thing to do with guns but rather to have a review.

It is very simple. Take away peoples ability to own these types of weapons and their ability to create the carnage that this man did is massively reduced. Will it stop all the killings? No. But how many would he have killed with a pistol? 10 maybe. And injured? lets go with 50. So even that simple change would save 49 lives and save 450 people being injured.

US spends €2.8bn on gun related healthcare. Jebus. All so that a few people can feel big and strong and play at being Rambo.

And whenever a mass shooting occurs, the NRA etc come out bemoaning the fact that if only the teachers/parents etc had guns then it wouldn't have happened. Well this massacre well and truly blows that theory out of the water. Despite the state having very lax gun laws, where people are free to own as many as they want and can obtain permits to carry them. When every policeman is armed. Nobody could do a thing to stop him. Nothing. Where are all these gun owners that vow that they need guns to stop the bad guys. They completely failed. If being armed was the only way to avoid being shot then how come fully trained soldiers die in battle. How come a US marine, with years of training still gets shot? Because your weapon is only useful if the other guy isn't a step ahead of you. No point having a house full of guns if the guys can simply sneak up on you.

Simplistic? The reason the points put forward seem simplistic is that they really are. This really needed be complicated. US needs to stop this love affair with the gun.

For all the people that were involved, killed, injured or just caught up in it including all the brave police etc I have the utmost sympathy. I have no sympathy for US society. They have accepted that this is, as Bill O'Reilly said, "the price of freedom". They accept that to have toys people must die.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me, but this seems to imply that there is only one viable course of action. That is not a position universally shared by the US population (or the population of this board). Personally, I have emailed my two congresscritters earlier this week and inquired as to if they have any interest at all in considering other points of focus such as prohibition on publicising such shooters or perhaps looking at the social or societal reasons these things seem to be happening in the US more than other firearms-holding countries. After all, the NRA can't object to those. Given that one is Kamala Harris, and the other Eric Swalwell, both (D-CA), I'm unconvinced that the response will do anything but focus on feelgood, superficial issue of the firearms. DiFi has wasted no time in copy/pasting a paragraph from her last attempt at a ban, submitting her new proposal which ignores the practical aspects of how the things work that she is trying to ban in the first place. But it's much easier to get superficial things passed when emotions are high, and when things settle down in the end, it's those of us on the receiving end that are trying to figure things out. As it is, I spent a half-hour today trying to figure out whether or not one of my rifles needs to be registered under the latest California regimen (And I still haven't come to a conclusion on the matter) because the folks passing the legislation have no clue what they're legislating about. And in the meantime, nothing is done as regards the most commonly used weapons in the US for murder or mass murder, precisely because they are (a) explicitly protected by the courts, and (b) also the most commonly legitimately held weapons. Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Like in the John Oliver report, some of the GOP heads saying that there is no proof that tighter gun control would have an impact. Yes there is. Australia is a perfect example.

Christy42 wrote: »

How many cases have we heard of toddlers finding a parents pistol and accidentally doing some damage?

Leroy42 wrote: »

While a well written post Manic, it all basically revolves around the central point of it would be really difficult so probably not worth it.

You mention loads of ways that it would be impracticle to enforce, but not really. Like the steering wheel example, you obviously can't stop a person determined to get one from the black market, but you make sure there is heavy penalties for those caught using them or selling them. Will that stop them all? Of course not, no more than having a speed limit stops everybody from speeding. But it makes the majority of people to think about it as getting caught could have the consequence of losing your right to own guns for example.

In terms of limits on the type of bullets. You are right that trying to define what is and isn't acceptable is very difficult, but again a start can be made. To simply say that it must be a free for all makes no sense. You make some regulations. It won't solve all the issues but will solve some of them.

But you're right. Tell those 59 dead and 500+ injured, not to mention all the hundreds that have been killed in other recent shooting that nothing can be done. That in the internet age, where FB have literally every piece of personal info that it is not possible to gather a register of guns and owners.

In terms of high grade, I am talking about anything other than that required for personal protection. What possible reason is there for a civilian to have anything other than a side arm? That is not meant as an accusation, I really don't understand the thinking so if you can provide some then I would welcome it.