Gun control in the USA

nagirrac · 16-12-2012 08:54PM

MUSEIST wrote: »

I'm really not sure what this has to do with mental health. People do horrible things, just look through human history. Things as horrific as this happen over and over again. I don't like the suggestion that only a mentally ill person could do something like this because I think thats a misunderstanding about mental health and this type of thinking is part of what creates a stigma around mental health.

It is a mental health issue and I would even go further and say it is the existing stigma around mental health that is a significant part of the problem. While physical ailments are generally quickly diagnosed and treated there is a reluctance among parents and society in general to help those that are having psychological issues. Everyone wants their child to be "normal" and resist accepting their child has a "mental health" issue. When kids are seen to be "different" they are ostracised.

The second problem is when (often too late) help is finally provided it taks the form of adult level doses of anti-depressants.Nobody knows what the long term effect is of adult level doses of anti-depressants on teenagers, it is an experiment.

You don't need to look at the US to see the problem, the sharp rise in suidice among the young in Ireland is part of the same issue. Remember that these horror rampages are first and foremost suicides, they just happen to take lots of people with them. Modern western consumerist and materialist society, led by the US, is completely failing when it comes to rasing their children in a loving and nurturing environment. People are too busy chasing the $ to notice that their kids are suffering. I see it all around me and frankly anyone who does not see it has their head in the sand.

The answer is not just controlling guns, the answer is getting back to a community based society where people actually give a fcuk about their own and other people's children.

The Black Oil · 16-12-2012 09:10PM

You are generalising a lot (and simplifying things to some degree) there, in fairness.

Nodin · 17-12-2012 12:35AM

Bloodwing wrote: »

I can't say I've seen that type of competition before. Do they use fully automatic firearms in it?......

In the three gun variant they do afaik.

Nodin · 17-12-2012 12:40AM

nagirrac wrote: »

It is a mental (..........) children.

Theres nothing new about people going off the rails and killing others, disaffected youth or drug use.

You should read this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wisconsin-Death-Trip-Michael-Lesy/dp/0826321933

pwurple · 17-12-2012 10:32AM

Cork24 wrote: »

When it comes to Shooting up some School in your local area, i would say their has being very little in Europe as to what we see in America. it is getting very common to the amount we see. here in Ireland we have seen Zero! thankful to the lengths it takes to get a gun in Ireland

Wow, short memory. No-one remembers the provos attacking school buses then? What about the children killed in enniskillen, or omagh? The rpg attacks on the falls road? We are hardly the ones with the squeaky clean image here. Especially considering our tiny population. I'd say there has been far more than our share of killing on this island...

I'm no expert, but the reduction in violence here during my lifetime seems to have been by addressing the motives, rather than the weaponry involved.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 10:57AM

There have been a few cases, in the past couple of years, where people drive down pedestrian streets to kill as many people as possible. Should we ban cars?

legspin · 17-12-2012 12:03PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

There have been a few cases, in the past couple of years, where people drive down pedestrian streets to kill as many people as possible. Should we ban cars?

Strawman arguement. Killing is not the primary function of a car. Whereas for a gun, that is it's only function. If your logic holds then we should ban everything that can, in the wrong situation, be used to kill someone, like insulin or water.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 12:15PM

legspin wrote: »

Strawman argument. Killing is not the primary function of a car. Whereas for a gun, that is it's only function. If your logic holds, then we should ban everything that can in the wrong situation kill someone, like insulin or water.

A weapon is anything that you can use to harm someone. The primary function of an item is determined by the weilder/user.
Killing is not the primary function of my shotgun (unless you count shattering clays, as killing)

If I decided to accelerate towards Grafton street and plow through the pedestrian packed street, then I have made the primary function (of my car) killing people.
I know how to mix gunpowder or fertiliser explosive; like many people with a science degree or internet access would. Crazy people could use very very easy means to cause huge destruction. (e.g. Oklahoama Bombing)

FFS rent a cessna plane and crashing it into a packed sports stadium would be easy enough.

The fact is that guns are just one avenue that crazy people can take. Limiting guns will mearly inconvenience them.

kippy · 17-12-2012 12:19PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

A weapon is anything that you can use to harm someone. The primary function of an item is determined by the weilder/user.
Killing is not the primary function of my shotgun (unless you count shattering clays, as killing)

If I decided to accelerate towards Grafton street and plow through the pedestrian packed street, then I have made the primary function (of my car) killing people.

I know how to mix gunpowder or fertiliser explosive; like many people with a science degree, or internet access would. Crazy people could use very very easy means to cause huge destruction.

FFS rent a cessna plane and crashing it into a packed sports stadium would be easy enough.

The fact is that guns are just one avenue that crazy people can take. Limiting guns will mearly inconvenience them.

It is rather strange to hear seemingly intelligent people make an argument that easy access to guns is not a bad thing.

I don't think, at this point, the banning of guns in the US is a feasible option, as others have said it will take a long time to get to a point where no one has guns and ultimately criminals will hold onto theirs providing an excuse for everyone else to as well.
However something has to change, be it in the treatment of mental health issues or the strengthening up of gun control.

magicbastarder · 17-12-2012 12:20PM

may have been posted already - george from seinfeld gives his opinion; worth a read.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/14/jason_alexanders_amazing_gun_rant_2/

magicbastarder · 17-12-2012 12:23PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

Limiting guns will mearly inconvenience them.

and inconveniencing potential mass murderers is a good thing, no?

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 12:32PM

kippy wrote: »

It is rather strange to hear seemingly intelligent people make an argument that easy access to guns is not a bad thing.

I don't think, at this point, the banning of guns in the US is a feasible option, as others have said it will take a long time to get to a point where no one has guns and ultimately criminals will hold onto theirs providing an excuse for everyone else to as well.
However something has to change, be it in the treatment of mental health issues or the strengthening up of gun control.

This....
If America had a medical system that treated everyone. As it stands most people in America would not have access to treatment (either counselling or medical) on a life long basis.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 12:35PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

and inconveniencing potential mass murderers is a good thing, no?

Why is it?
Why would an inconvenience be of benefit to anyone? The person is still going to perform a mass murder. They could poison people, stab people, hijack a bus and crash it, use explosives or just get their guns on the black market.

These types of attacks are planned weeks in advance. Something like having to build in an extra day to circumvent gun control would not delay an attack at all.

kippy · 17-12-2012 12:35PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

This....
If America had a medical system that treated everyone. As it stands most people in America would not have access to treatment (either counselling or medical) on a life long basis.

Indeed, however it is only part of the solution to the problem of people with mental health issues SHOOTING groups of innocent people......

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 12:43PM

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, however it is only part of the solution to the problem of people with mental health issues SHOOTING groups of innocent people......

But, as I said, they would just move to being people with mental health issues BLOWING people up

kippy · 17-12-2012 12:46PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

But, as I said, they would just move to being people with mental health issues BLOWING people up

Like in other countries with tougher access to weapons?

magicbastarder · 17-12-2012 12:46PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

Why is it?
Why would an inconvenience be of benefit to anyone? The person is still going to perform a mass murder. They could poison people, stab people, hijack a bus and crash it, use explosives or just get their guns on the black market.

for the sake of argument, let's assume that guns were controlled in america to the same extent as they are in the UK, say.
it's not easy for someone who is not a member of some criminal underworld (and it's probably fair to say that most mass shooters in recent history were not) to go out and buy an AR15 - whose sole purpose is to kill lots of people efficiently (and which was used in the aurora shootings); in a legalised framework, the seller can raise his hands and say 'hey, i did nothing wrong'. but a seller of an illegal gun has to worry about the actions of some unhinged whackjob coming back on him, and becoming implicated in a multiple murder. so it's not simply a case of 'sure, you can get a combat assault rifle on the black market for the price of a box of fags'. there's actually a level of self-protection for gun dealers in the restricted market.

the argument about cars doesn't stand up really based on the fact that it's a very rare method for people carrying out mass murder - whatever the psychology or mechanics of the job involved, it's not seen in restricted gun markets or unrestricted gun markets.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 12:54PM

I am not saying that the type of gun is not an issue but that stopping the purchase of that gun will not make a difference.

If they can not purchase a gun, that will cause enough damage, they will just fill a rucksack with home made explosives.

kippy · 17-12-2012 12:57PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am not saying that the type of gun is not an issue but that stopping the purchase of that gun will not make a difference.

If they can not purchase a gun, that will cause enough damage, they will just fill a rucksack with home made explosives.

Of course it will make a difference - over time.
Less shootings will happen. Simple as that. Even outside of these events.....
Less innocent people getting shot is generally a good thing, is it not?

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 01:05PM

kippy wrote: »

Of course it will make a difference - over time.
Less shootings will happen. Simple as that. Even outside of these events.....
Less innocent people getting shot is generally a good thing, is it not?

But they will get killed some other way!
This is what I can not comprehed people getting.

I, personally, do not see the point of allowing fully automatic assault rifles be sold (saying that, I would love to be able to go somewhere controlled and unleash hell on some targets).

what I am saying is that if someone really wants to kill a mass of people then they will do just that.

Someone bringing some explosives to a sports event would be my idea of a nightmare scenario. Between the actual explosion and the mass panic afterwards, I shudder to think of the carnage.

The message that I am trying to get across is that removing guns will not remove the mass killings. Yes guns are used because they are efficient and relatively easy to get but America (and China BTW it seems) has a much deeper problem of people feeling the need to perform these acts.
Asking why America has mass gun killings is not the question that should be asked.

Why has America got these mass killings (of any sort) is the question that American politicians are avoiding. A major shake-up of the American health system would do much more to prevent these events than anything else

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 01:08PM

kippy wrote: »

Like in other countries with tougher access to weapons?

You are not seeing the bigger picture again.
Why have other countries (with large levels of gun ownership) not got these events?

Or

Why have countries that have very strict gun control not got mass killings of other means??

The weapons used are just instruments, why have other countries not got the people to commit these acts?

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 01:17PM

What I find telling in these conversations is that the anti-gun control lobby are continuously and facetiously conflating gun control with gun bans.

Gun control is not the same as gun bans. Should we ban cars? No, but they are dangerous and we regulate how they are used. We also don't allow certain particularly dangerous cars on public roads. I appreciate the argument was intended as a strawman, because lots of people use it as a strawman, but it's a terrible strawman because cars are pretty well regulated, and being licensed to ride a motorbike does not automatically confer the right to drive an articulated lorry.

Why is the same concept not applicable to actual weapons?

Of course, I'm actually pro-gun. I like shooting. I've shot and killed animals. It's very different to target shooting (Which I've also done). I don't feel any need for a handgun (good thing too considering the country I live in) but would certainly like to get my own rifle. (I usually use my fathers.)

But I am in favour of gun control. There is no practical reason a civilian needs an assault rifle. That is not a hunting tool, nor is it a defensive weapon. A militia-man/reservist, they might have good reason to have access to assault rifles. But they also tend to have a less casual approach to their weaponry.

I often get the feeling the sort of people who conflate gun control with gun bans are the sort of people who've never had to break an animals neck with their hands to put it out of it's misery. The sort of people who want to use big guns with big bullets because they're too scared to witness what it is a gun actually does to something it won't kill outright.

Cowards, basically.

And cowards probably shouldn't have guns.

magicbastarder · 17-12-2012 01:19PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

what I am saying is that if someone really wants to kill a mass of people then they will do just that.

it's more than just the simple mechanics of access to guns; it's the culture that access promotes, which normalises gun violence; which for example, fosters the notion that the best way to protect yourself is by carrying a gun.
people commit mass murders using guns partly because it's become established as the way to do it in the states.

in some states, there are more restrictive laws on buying unpasteurised cheese than there are on buying assault weapons. that way madness lies.

magicbastarder · 17-12-2012 01:26PM

Sycopat wrote: »

A militia-man/reservist, they might have good reason to have access to assault rifles. But they also tend to have a less casual approach to their weaponry.

this point was picked up in the link i posted earlier, about the carping back to the militia aspect which is used to justify free access to guns, and the lack of such militias.

anyway, the person i'd trust least with a gun is a self-selected militia member. as would most americans.

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 01:28PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

this point was picked up in the link i posted earlier, about the carping back to the militia aspect which is used to justify free access to guns, and the lack of such militias.

anyway, the person i'd trust least with a gun is a self-selected militia member. as would most americans.

That's because a militia in america is just a bunch of nuts with guns in a compound raving to each other (according to the movies anyway). I mean an actual militia, like the swiss military.

edit: I realise I should probably let you know why I brought the swiss up: my last post in this thread was about switzerlands gun laws, so they are in my head and I included it for completeness. From an american point of view you could probably just read reservist.

The Mad Hatter · 17-12-2012 01:34PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

You are not seeing the bigger picture again.
Why have other countries (with large levels of gun ownership) not got these events?

Or

Why have countries that have very strict gun control not got mass killings of other means??

The weapons used are just instruments, why have other countries not got the people to commit these acts?

But some of them do.

A few years ago I was visiting Tokyo, and as it happened I landed on the same day as the Akihabara Massacre. Luckily, I was in a different district at the time, and was totally oblivious to what was going on. Seven people were killed at this, four by stabbing, and three by the truck the killer used to hit a crowd of people. More were injured.

Restricting access to guns won't stop this type of crime from happening, nor will it stop people from developing the sorts of mental issues that give rise to these crimes. But it can limit the scale.

Japanese gun laws are very tight. But I don't think it's a huge stretch to think that the scale of this crime (the like of which happens not infrequently in Japan, usually with knives) would be multiplied, horribly, if the killer had had access to the kind of weaponry with which it's often committed in the US.

magicbastarder · 17-12-2012 01:34PM

i may have this arseways, but isn't the swiss militia concept about protecting switzerland from invaders, but the american militia concept about protecting america from its own government?

Bannasidhe · 17-12-2012 01:41PM

Sycopat wrote: »

What I find telling in these conversations is that the anti-gun control lobby are continuously and facetiously conflating gun control with gun bans.

Gun control is not the same as gun bans. Should we ban cars? No, but they are dangerous and we regulate how they are used. We also don't allow certain particularly dangerous cars on public roads. I appreciate the argument was intended as a strawman, because lots of people use it as a strawman, but it's a terrible strawman because cars are pretty well regulated, and being licensed to ride a motorbike does not automatically confer the right to drive an articulated lorry.

Why is the same concept not applicable to actual weapons?

Of course, I'm actually pro-gun. I like shooting. I've shot and killed animals. It's very different to target shooting (Which I've also done). I don't feel any need for a handgun (good thing too considering the country I live in) but would certainly like to get my own rifle. (I usually use my fathers.)

But I am in favour of gun control. There is no practical reason a civilian needs an assault rifle. That is not a hunting tool, nor is it a defensive weapon. A militia-man/reservist, they might have good reason to have access to assault rifles. But they also tend to have a less casual approach to their weaponry.

I often get the feeling the sort of people who conflate gun control with gun bans are the sort of people who've never had to break an animals neck with their hands to put it out of it's misery. The sort of people who want to use big guns with big bullets because they're too scared to witness what it is a gun actually does to something it won't kill outright.

Cowards, basically.

And cowards probably shouldn't have guns.

Agree.

I too have no issue with guns. I like guns. I was taught to shoot when I was 12 - but I was also taught respect for what a gun can do.
My family in Ireland owns guns. They are under lock and key, unloaded with the ammo stored seperately.
Some of my family in the US own guns - they keep them in lockers, desk drawers, glove compartments -usually loaded.

I own what is technically a 'gun' - but it is a flintlock pistol and has no flint. This is similar to the type of weapon available when the 2nd Amendment was written and the only way I could kill more then 1 person with it is if they were sedated giving me the time needed to reload the thing - even then it would be easier and quicker to just beat them to death with the brass butt.

I have seen no one put forward a solid reason for why guns should not be controlled.

In the US cars are regulated - people have to be tested for suitability to drive one, there are speed limits, restrictions on engine sizes of cars that can be used on public highways. No-one would be allowed to drive a Formula One car through a town. No-one would be allowed to just hop into an Artic and just drive off.

The car strawman is like the knife one - people who try and conflate the two with the 'should we ban knives then' argument have obviously never tried to butcher an animal and have no idea of just how difficult it is to drive a knife into flesh or the amount of gore involved and ignore the up close and personal aspect.
To kill something with a knife means one is standing right next to them. Their blood is literally on your hands.
Plus - we do have knife controls here. There are legal limits set on the type of knives people can buy. They cannot be banned as we need them - like to see someone try and chop an onion with a gun.

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 01:51PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i may have this arseways, but isn't the swiss militia concept about protecting switzerland from invaders, but the american militia concept about protecting america from its own government?

Going entirely from the Jason Alexander rant you posted, the american founding fathers idea of a militia is for the security of the state.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

In practise that isn't the case, but the idea of what a militia actually is supposed to be is similar.

Bannasidhe · 17-12-2012 01:52PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i may have this arseways, but isn't the swiss militia concept about protecting switzerland from invaders, but the american militia concept about protecting america from its own government?

Switzerland's defense forces are based around the idea of a compulsory citizen's militia - non-citizens who are residents pay an annual charge to cover their contribution.
All Swiss men undertake compulsory National Service (unless there are compelling reasons why they should be excluded) and undergo militry training. Once that is completed they become reservists and can be called up to serve - used to be once a year but that may have changed.

They are responsible for their weapons and bring them home - not ammo since 2007. Each weapon has embossed wax seals which will show if it was fired. If the seal is broken there are huge fines, investigations and it is generally something every Swiss man I have ever met pales at the thought of.
They are not casual about these weapons.

Yes, I have met a lot of Swiss men - I lived there, my brother has lived there since 1979 - my nieces are Swiss.

Gun control in the USA

Comments