Dylann Roof, South Carolina Church Shooting

[zoogs]

A lot of great posts and points made in this thread. I'm glad for the heartwarming reaction to the Charleston shootings. The scary thing is, these mass killing events by deranged individuals that have captured our attention account for what has to be a tiny percentage of United States annual firearm killings.

 

It's hard for me to get on board with a disarmament of the American public. Not saying you support this, but, it's just the concept of it even being a possibility blows my mind.

I haven't really been there, as I try to adopt moderate positions, but I'm becoming quite amenable to the idea.

 

I think we'll never really get rid of people who are either really crazy, really horrible, or just snap and lose it one day -- though we should try to help stem the tide there, too. But when those people come along, what we can do is get rid of this insane environment where firearms are so easy access. I'm sure it won't stop violence completely. But there is nothing quite so good and efficient at killing people than firearms...and if there is, let's talk about that, too.

 

First, there's the idea that the populace must be armed to protect themselves from the government. But we aren't -- household ownership is on the decline and presently around 30%, I believe. And the abilities of police and military far supersede what any allowance of gun ownership provides, rendering what may have been relevant in the 18th century utterly moot by 2015. And then there's home defense, but to what extent are guns actually being used for this, and are there no substitutes? And what's left seems to me to be basically protecting a hobby. But surely we can allow people to have that outlet -- gun ranges, etc -- without permitting personal use? And if not, then I'm sorry, but it is a dangerous hobby that is enabling far too much death in this country. The responsible gun owners are asking far too much of the rest of us to tolerate this reality.

 

People get very particular about their rights, and that's fair. And I think people should get rights to their own properties and hobbies. I also contend that I have rights in this area, too: to a world where I can send my future kids to schools where some volatile, emotionally charged young person -- of which we will never be in short supply -- can easily obtain just one of the hundreds of millions of (mostly) legally owned firearms that exist in this country, and go shoot up the place. It's becoming totally unacceptable.

[Saunders]

I thought that was a good point: America being different from other countries provides context, but shouldn't throw comparisons out the window.

 

Anywho....want an answer? Ask the Swiss. (from 2012)

Switzerland is a very unique country too. There's similarity in that they also don't appear likely to give up their firearms, but their culture and history with it is different from that of the United States.

 

And so is their violent crime rate: their firearms killing rate is ten times less.

 

Their one major recent incident resulted in a change in policy very specific to the incident that happened, and kicked off a national debate that resulted in a wider referendum vote, which was defeated (but hardly unanimously -- 56% voted against). It seems logical that if the Swiss faced firearms killing issues with the same volume as the United States, there would be more and more calls for change. It seems insane that the very debate itself is dismissed by some in the U.S. as not one we should be having in the face of these events.

 

That said, would the sensibly moderate proposals about equipment and access restrictions have stopped some of these particular killings? Probably not. Do we just write off that 5 annual firearm deaths per 100,000 (this translates to 15,000 annual firearm deaths per 300 million; the most recent CDC figures were 32,251 people in 2011 for firearms and 33,561 for car crashes.) as an unavoidable fact of life in this country? If not, is there anything that can prevent all these people from dying other than a simple, wide-scale disarmament in number of *all* privately owned firearms?

 

* Worth mentioning, the U.S. is in the middle of the pack in car death fatalities. Maybe that makes the number more acceptable (as well as the largely accidental nature of the figure) but I'm sure there are serious, uncontroversial efforts at getting or keeping that figure down via regulation, policy changes, attitude changes, etc. It's still a figure close to 3 times as high as the United Kingdom, Israel, Switzerland, Japan, and others.

 

You raise some interesting points, but I do have one caveat to add. Of those numbers you listed, about 65% were suicides, not homicides, and it kinda inflates the numbers when you look at it without context. The violent crimes rate on the US is still on a decline (as it has been for 40 years) too. Obviously, suicides are a problem, but it's not the same as an involuntary firearm death.

[Saunders]

A lot of great posts and points made in this thread. I'm glad for the heartwarming reaction to the Charleston shootings. The scary thing is, these mass killing events by deranged individuals that have captured our attention account for what has to be a tiny percentage of United States annual firearm killings.

 

It's hard for me to get on board with a disarmament of the American public. Not saying you support this, but, it's just the concept of it even being a possibility blows my mind.

I haven't really been there, as I try to adopt moderate positions, but I'm becoming quite amenable to the idea.

 

I think we'll never really get rid of people who are either really crazy, really horrible, or just snap and lose it one day -- though we should try to help stem the tide there, too. But when those people come along, what we can do is get rid of this insane environment where firearms are so easy access. I'm sure it won't stop violence completely. But there is nothing quite so good and efficient at killing people than firearms...and if there is, let's talk about that, too.

 

First, there's the idea that the populace must be armed to protect themselves from the government. But we aren't -- household ownership is on the decline and presently around 30%, I believe. And the abilities of police and military far supersede what any allowance of gun ownership provides, rendering what may have been relevant in the 18th century utterly moot by 2015. And then there's home defense, but to what extent are guns actually being used for this, and are there no substitutes? And what's left seems to me to be basically protecting a hobby. But surely we can allow people to have that outlet -- gun ranges, etc -- without permitting personal use? And if not, then I'm sorry, but it is a dangerous hobby that is enabling far too much death in this country. The responsible gun owners are asking far too much of the rest of us to tolerate this reality.

 

People get very particular about their rights, and that's fair. And I think people should get rights to their own properties and hobbies. I also contend that I have rights in this area, too: to a world where I can send my future kids to schools where some volatile, emotionally charged young person -- of which we will never be in short supply -- can easily obtain just one of the hundreds of millions of (mostly) legally owned firearms that exist in this country, and go shoot up the place. It's becoming totally unacceptable.

 

These are some more interesting points, some of which I agree with. But I'll start with this, I believe every person should have the right to protect themselves. If we enacted the gun control/reform/whatever that some want, we'd see them only in the hands of the police, military, and the rich & powerful. Isn't that exactly what we as a democratic society don't want? The politicians and rich will always have access to firearms and protections, so what can't the commoner? Sure the "protect myself from the gubment" crazies are out there, but that's an extreme viewpoint of what the founders envisioned. Yes, the military and police generally outgun the populace (police militarization is a whole different topic), but even from a peacekeeping aspect, cops can't be everywhere all the time. And that's not even going into the troubling issue of cops just shooting people just because.

 

I will contend that I think there are some changes that could be made. I think a basic license with a minimum training regimen for first time buyers could be a good thing. I've seen people at the range who don't have a clue, and a simple 1 hour course that's required/included with a first purchase could save alot of accidents. But, if you're going to require a license of some sore for a constitutionally protected right, you're going to have to make concessions. I think if you did a national "license" like a drivers license, that it could reduce alot of headaches and stupid "crimes". As a CWP holder, I'd like something that allows me to go coast to coast without worrying. I'd also like to see it extend to things like silencers. They don't work like the movies, and it's more a convenience thing (and a hearing protection issue) that's stupidly taxed and made into a rich mans thing. There's a host of other little things that could be tweaked, but it's a start.

[lo country]

Some issues with the permits are as follows:

IIRC 30+ states do not require a background check for 3rd party sales. i.e. I buy a gun and then sell it to John Doe no check is required

For those being treated for some type of mental illness-This wouldn't be discovered on a check do to privacy laws. Might also make those who need help not seek it as they couldn't possess a firearm.

The check is often only as good as the info put down. If a person lies on the form about say drug abuse, unless there is a conviction, it won't get caught.

Lastly, many checks only show the conviction, not the pending charge.

 

Again, its an incredibly slippery slope. You increase surveillance on US citizens (phones) for "National Security", you make a move to ban guns for the the sake of "protecting" people from senseless violence, you outlaw the Bible as its promotes "hate speech". At what point do you stop? When do we begin to hold those who commit heinous acts responsible and realize it was "them". Not a flag, or a gun or a Bible etc...., but some evil person.

 

I would venture to guess that the the 179 homicides and 1028 wounded that occurred this year to date in Chicago were not all done with lawfully purchased firearms. Statistically speaking, active shooter scenarios are usually over by the time police respond. When they do get there, the subject usually commits suicide or surrenders. An armed person (trained) could end the situation much sooner. I am all for adding training to the purchase (just like drivers ed for a DL), making the person show proof they have a way to secure the firearm (i.e. a safe), make all 3rd party sales require a background check or the person possess a valid CCW permit, make the CCW database coordinate with NCIC. If a person is convicted of a felony and can no longer lawfully purchase a firearm, the system flags that the person "has/had firearms.

 

There are ways to allow lawful persons to possess, purchase and use firearms responsibly. There are also ways to make it harder for those who intend harm to possess them. Banning them out right all do nothing. After all the first murder recored was a rock, China had a knife attack that last year (5 attackers) that killed 33 and injured 130........

 

The knee jerk reaction in everything is to blame the symptom, i.e. guns but not really look at the root cause. Broken home, abuse, mental illness, drugs etc......It's easier to point to the gun and say bad gun, not bad human.

 

Again, I would like to remind folks how beautifully the city of Charleston has responded to this tragedy. Amazing people of faith. I am proud to call the low country home.

[zoogs]

Oh, that's a good point re: suicide rates being a big part of the statistics. Important context. Although suicides are equally worthy of reduction. In the Australia example, I think the strongest consensus remains that their gun control efforts significantly reduced firearm suicide without a corresponding rise in other methods.

 

It actually seems easier to me to say "bad human", and I think this is what we usually do. A crime happened, so it was just a really bad guy. A lot of crimes happen, so we have a problem with having a lot of really bad guys. To me, it's just the spectrum of volatility and brashness in young people, who are overwhelmingly responsible for homicides. That's an innate human trait, and when it sparks up in the extreme, it happens in an environment where there are 300 million firearms. Is there any way, truly, to reduce fatality without a simple reduction in that number? Even if you have effective licensing, you're not going to stop responsible owners from having an angry teen or young adult kid (which is a little more than theoretical; Adam Lanza's guns were considered illegally obtained because that they were 'stolen' from his mother).

 

And I do agree that any solution has to be incremental, not extreme. And it is a good thing that we are past that absurd peak of crack violence in 1980s/1990s.

 

Anyway, appreciate the good discussion guys, and thank you for not biting my head off

[Junior]

Some issues with the permits are as follows:

IIRC 30+ states do not require a background check for 3rd party sales. i.e. I buy a gun and then sell it to John Doe no check is required

For those being treated for some type of mental illness-This wouldn't be discovered on a check do to privacy laws. Might also make those who need help not seek it as they couldn't possess a firearm.

The check is often only as good as the info put down. If a person lies on the form about say drug abuse, unless there is a conviction, it won't get caught.

Lastly, many checks only show the conviction, not the pending charge.

 

Again, its an incredibly slippery slope. You increase surveillance on US citizens (phones) for "National Security", you make a move to ban guns for the the sake of "protecting" people from senseless violence, you outlaw the Bible as its promotes "hate speech". At what point do you stop? When do we begin to hold those who commit heinous acts responsible and realize it was "them". Not a flag, or a gun or a Bible etc...., but some evil person.

 

I would venture to guess that the the 179 homicides and 1028 wounded that occurred this year to date in Chicago were not all done with lawfully purchased firearms. Statistically speaking, active shooter scenarios are usually over by the time police respond. When they do get there, the subject usually commits suicide or surrenders. An armed person (trained) could end the situation much sooner. I am all for adding training to the purchase (just like drivers ed for a DL), making the person show proof they have a way to secure the firearm (i.e. a safe), make all 3rd party sales require a background check or the person possess a valid CCW permit, make the CCW database coordinate with NCIC. If a person is convicted of a felony and can no longer lawfully purchase a firearm, the system flags that the person "has/had firearms.

 

There are ways to allow lawful persons to possess, purchase and use firearms responsibly. There are also ways to make it harder for those who intend harm to possess them. Banning them out right all do nothing. After all the first murder recored was a rock, China had a knife attack that last year (5 attackers) that killed 33 and injured 130........

 

The knee jerk reaction in everything is to blame the symptom, i.e. guns but not really look at the root cause. Broken home, abuse, mental illness, drugs etc......It's easier to point to the gun and say bad gun, not bad human.

 

Again, I would like to remind folks how beautifully the city of Charleston has responded to this tragedy. Amazing people of faith. I am proud to call the low country home.

 

 

Good point. Outlawing the Bible would solve a lot of problems. Most people who claim to follow it don't read it anyway.

[Saunders]

[huKSer]

Emergency measure put in to keep Westboro Baptist away from the funerals

[Saunders]

Emergency measure put in to keep Westboro Baptist away from the funerals

Good.

[Scratchtown]

 

Some issues with the permits are as follows:

IIRC 30+ states do not require a background check for 3rd party sales. i.e. I buy a gun and then sell it to John Doe no check is required

For those being treated for some type of mental illness-This wouldn't be discovered on a check do to privacy laws. Might also make those who need help not seek it as they couldn't possess a firearm.

The check is often only as good as the info put down. If a person lies on the form about say drug abuse, unless there is a conviction, it won't get caught.

Lastly, many checks only show the conviction, not the pending charge.

 

Again, its an incredibly slippery slope. You increase surveillance on US citizens (phones) for "National Security", you make a move to ban guns for the the sake of "protecting" people from senseless violence, you outlaw the Bible as its promotes "hate speech". At what point do you stop? When do we begin to hold those who commit heinous acts responsible and realize it was "them". Not a flag, or a gun or a Bible etc...., but some evil person.

 

I would venture to guess that the the 179 homicides and 1028 wounded that occurred this year to date in Chicago were not all done with lawfully purchased firearms. Statistically speaking, active shooter scenarios are usually over by the time police respond. When they do get there, the subject usually commits suicide or surrenders. An armed person (trained) could end the situation much sooner. I am all for adding training to the purchase (just like drivers ed for a DL), making the person show proof they have a way to secure the firearm (i.e. a safe), make all 3rd party sales require a background check or the person possess a valid CCW permit, make the CCW database coordinate with NCIC. If a person is convicted of a felony and can no longer lawfully purchase a firearm, the system flags that the person "has/had firearms.

 

There are ways to allow lawful persons to possess, purchase and use firearms responsibly. There are also ways to make it harder for those who intend harm to possess them. Banning them out right all do nothing. After all the first murder recored was a rock, China had a knife attack that last year (5 attackers) that killed 33 and injured 130........

 

The knee jerk reaction in everything is to blame the symptom, i.e. guns but not really look at the root cause. Broken home, abuse, mental illness, drugs etc......It's easier to point to the gun and say bad gun, not bad human.

 

Again, I would like to remind folks how beautifully the city of Charleston has responded to this tragedy. Amazing people of faith. I am proud to call the low country home.

 

 

Good point. Outlawing the Bible would solve a lot of problems. Most people who claim to follow it don't read it anyway.

 

So let me get this straight. You want to outlaw the Bible, because the people who claim to follow it don't read it.

 

That's exactly what is wrong with "Christians". Myself included, we don't read as much as we should. Some do, some don't, I'd be willing to bet that if more people that claim to follow it actually read it, then we'd have much fewer issues from said "Christian" group.

 

Basically, I'm saying, more Bible = Less problems (When taken seriously)

 

and....give everyone a lesson to understand the difference from Old Testament law (Leviticus and Deuteronomy for example) having been essentially become irrelevant due to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

 

Edit: Sorry for the hijack

[Stumpy1]

Guns will never be abolished or really controlled. They have to big of a presence in today's society and the whole situation would turn into the alcohol prohibition period again.

 

I do agree with having required training before purchasing a firearm of any sort. Make the situation like getting a CDL, need to have a medical/mental screening before you are allowed to test or purchase.

[Junior]

 

 

Some issues with the permits are as follows:

IIRC 30+ states do not require a background check for 3rd party sales. i.e. I buy a gun and then sell it to John Doe no check is required

For those being treated for some type of mental illness-This wouldn't be discovered on a check do to privacy laws. Might also make those who need help not seek it as they couldn't possess a firearm.

The check is often only as good as the info put down. If a person lies on the form about say drug abuse, unless there is a conviction, it won't get caught.

Lastly, many checks only show the conviction, not the pending charge.

 

Again, its an incredibly slippery slope. You increase surveillance on US citizens (phones) for "National Security", you make a move to ban guns for the the sake of "protecting" people from senseless violence, you outlaw the Bible as its promotes "hate speech". At what point do you stop? When do we begin to hold those who commit heinous acts responsible and realize it was "them". Not a flag, or a gun or a Bible etc...., but some evil person.

 

I would venture to guess that the the 179 homicides and 1028 wounded that occurred this year to date in Chicago were not all done with lawfully purchased firearms. Statistically speaking, active shooter scenarios are usually over by the time police respond. When they do get there, the subject usually commits suicide or surrenders. An armed person (trained) could end the situation much sooner. I am all for adding training to the purchase (just like drivers ed for a DL), making the person show proof they have a way to secure the firearm (i.e. a safe), make all 3rd party sales require a background check or the person possess a valid CCW permit, make the CCW database coordinate with NCIC. If a person is convicted of a felony and can no longer lawfully purchase a firearm, the system flags that the person "has/had firearms.

 

There are ways to allow lawful persons to possess, purchase and use firearms responsibly. There are also ways to make it harder for those who intend harm to possess them. Banning them out right all do nothing. After all the first murder recored was a rock, China had a knife attack that last year (5 attackers) that killed 33 and injured 130........

 

The knee jerk reaction in everything is to blame the symptom, i.e. guns but not really look at the root cause. Broken home, abuse, mental illness, drugs etc......It's easier to point to the gun and say bad gun, not bad human.

 

Again, I would like to remind folks how beautifully the city of Charleston has responded to this tragedy. Amazing people of faith. I am proud to call the low country home.

 

 

Good point. Outlawing the Bible would solve a lot of problems. Most people who claim to follow it don't read it anyway.

So let me get this straight. You want to outlaw the Bible, because the people who claim to follow it don't read it.

That's exactly what is wrong with "Christians". Myself included, we don't read as much as we should. Some do, some don't, I'd be willing to bet that if more people that claim to follow it actually read it, then we'd have much fewer issues from said "Christian" group.

Basically, I'm saying, more Bible = Less problems (When taken seriously)

 

and....give everyone a lesson to understand the difference from Old Testament law (Leviticus and Deuteronomy for example) having been essentially become irrelevant due to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Edit: Sorry for the hijack

No I want to outlaw the Bible because it is a work of fiction treated as a historical fact.

[Saunders]

Yeah, because censorship is a good thing.

[zoogs]

I don't think Junior can be serious in advocating for outlawing the Bible or religion. In any case, a position like that barely merits response.

[Saunders]

I don't think Junior can be serious in advocating for outlawing the Bible or religion. In any case, a position like that barely merits response.

Yup, bigotry shouldn't be engaged.