Gun Laws

[Pretzel]

Once again, why are we the only modern country who has this issue?
And refuses to take any action?

---

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51444

Did you seriously just use an article from "The Onion" as an attempt to back up a claim? You do realize that "The Onion" is one of the leading satirical online news sources, right?

[saevel25]

First of all, many, many kids and teenagers are killed in auto accidents. It is the #1 cause of death for kids and teenagers, by far! No one thinks of driving to school as the biggest risk a child takes in a given day, but it is, by far! 

Actually during the school year teenagers are less likely to get into fatal crashes. The fatal crashes spike in the months of June, July & August. Also accidents are more likely to happen on a Saturday and Sunday versus a weekday. 

Also, they are nearly 2x as many fatal accidents during the hours of 3 PM till 3 AM, none school hours. No it's not an enhanced risk for teenagers to be driving to and from school. In most cases those drives are short. It's after school hours, and summer vacations that cause a spike in teenage fatalities in accidents. 

If parents want to stop this then don't let the kids drive during rush hour time after school. Also limit the amount they drive during the summer and on the weekends. 

Again my point was there is an inherent risk in driving. You get in a vehicle you are joining other people on a roadway traveling at high speeds. There is no inherent risk in being at a school. 

Wait... so because a very very small percentage of gun owners who may have had some trouble with depression have committed gun violence you punish every other person who has gone through the same thing and not done anything wrong? Sorry, I can't agree with that at all.

How about the people who have mentally ill family members that now have access to their guns. You are allowing society to have a deadly weapon. Don't you think it's a good idea to make sure those people you are allowing to have a deadly weapon are not f'd up in the head. I think there is a bit of common sense there. 

[imsys0042]

I asked the same, and very curious about the answer. USA is the only modern country things like that happen. And not sometimes, but on a regular basis. Also the amount of guns per inhabitant is enormous compared to those same countries, and the gun laws are much lighter. Yet, when something likes this happen, a lot of people as fast as the speed of light declare it gas nothing To do with guns, 'guns don't kill, people kill' etc. It would drive me completely crazy, since in my world 1+1=2. This kind of things are quite unique in the western world, but not in USA. Would those things happen less, or happen more when it's harder to obtain guns? Asking the question is pretty much answering it I would say...

Without using any talking points from either side of the issue, in the US this has become a polarizing issue.   What happens, and guns is not the only one, is that when there is disagreement and it becomes a political discussion or much of what is said is throwing gasoline on a fire, and each side becomes madder and madder at the other until it's blaring those talking points.   And once it distills to the talking points, then people stop trying to understand the argument and the other side.

A lot of it has to do with the media in the U.S.   basically it is terrible.   In the U.S. we have seen big changes in how media is owned and managed.   The news on TV used to be a requirement by the government to provide a certain number of minutes presenting the news, however companies look at the news as both a cost center (they cut costs) and try to squeeze profit from it.   The main way to squeeze profit from it is to either be aligned with corporate interests, or people with a lot of money (and opinions), or to sensationalize everything to get people to watch.   Print media is dying, although most newspapers have had a particular bias for decades.   In Pittsburgh there are 2 main newspapers and one is know as the "liberal" one and the other as the "conservative" one.   Many people feel that out of the three main cable news networks, one is liberal, one is conservative and the third is in the middle.   And even the middle one doesn't do a great job of reporting the news.   It ignores a lot of important things.

Online news is far worse.  With less oversight and sensationalized stories plus outrageous commentary, it serves to fan the flames.   What happens is that people feel outrage and anger about an issue, and frequently the news gets it plain wrong!    Talking points are repeated as fact, and many "facts" are skewed analysis and tailored to an audience.   Those liberal and conservative news networks, they both target their audience based on political ideas which makes them equally bad and not reporting the facts.   One of the biggest problems is that when discussing an issue, the people doing it generally are the most extreme sides of the view, so you get riled up by their claims.

So that is why the issue becomes so vehement and polarizing.   However once that happens, the system of government in the U.S. makes it very hard for change to happen when a topic like this is debated.   It takes a majority in Congress to work on a change at the federal level and frequently the majority is not enough to get something through.   That's not just to do with guns, but there is a lot of money spent by the gun lobby and probably a lot of money by anti-gun advocates that flows into Congress.   But the votes are not there to bring it up, so there won't be change.

That's really my opinion on why you hear some of the things you do, and why this happens in the U.S.   As for why it continues to happen I'd say that other countries have governments that are more geared for change.   Coalition governments like the U.K. are based on majority in Parliament (to my understanding) and that should mean more changes quicker once a new government comes in.   

Whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, you can apply that logic, I think, to many issues and it's still the same.   Our government is currently deadlocked on a number of things.   

 

[Jeremie Boop]

 

How about the people who have mentally ill family members that now have access to their guns. You are allowing society to have a deadly weapon. Don't you think it's a good idea to make sure those people you are allowing to have a deadly weapon are not f'd up in the head. I think there is a bit of common sense there. 

Gun safety is definitely a concern. People should have their firearms locked up when not in use. Gun safes, trigger locks, etc are all easily accessible and easy to use. Perhaps make it a requirement when selling a gun that a trigger lock or some other form of securing the weapon is included. Restricting people from being able to own firearms because someone in their family has mental illness is not the correct way to go. Now, adding culpability for people who do not take correct safety measures when storing their weapons, that I can get behind. If you know someone in your family has mental issues and you don't lock your guns up you should definitely be held accountable in some form or fashion.

[Elmer]

Did you seriously just use an article from "The Onion" as an attempt to back up a claim? You do realize that "The Onion" is one of the leading satirical online news sources, right?

Yes, Yes I did.
The Onion is a satire site, and as we know Satire is "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

In this case ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" is spot on in its satire and social commentary on America.

We should be ashamed that "this" regularly happen.
We should not be content that more people we killed so quickly and efficiently.
We should be ashamed that no other modern country faces such mass killings on such a regular basis! 

[imsys0042]

 

Off topic and not trying to stir the pot, but it does a better job than many other outlets as an opinion piece....   Jon Oliver does interesting deconstructions on things on his new show that have a lot of meaning in them, but they are funny as well.

I'll bet the Onion never claimed a plane was swallowed up by a black hole.   Don Lemon knows where that plane is...

Edited October 5, 2015 by imsys0042

[Lihu]

One of the most crime free towns in the USA is Tombstone AZ. They have gunfights every single day, but no gun related crimes. . .food for thought.

Along these lines, I kind of think that if all the other students had guns, the killer could have maybe taken out one person before being stopped. . .

[Patch]

I own a 45 pistol, and a 30 carbine that I keep handy.. Both are semi auto. I have all the appropriate permits, as does my wife.  I also own an antique, 60 year old  30/30 Winchester that is kept in a safe, along with a few other weapons, from my military days.

 I used the carbine to stop a home invasion some years ago.  I was taken into custody, investigated,  and released with in 4  hours.

I don't think tighter gun laws will solve anything. It's my opinion that the bad guys will continue to be able to get guns, no matter what controls are put in place. 

As for our current crop of DC politicians, most are (allegedly) owned by others and not those who voted for them. The NRA is one of those owner/handlers. Our Donkey, and Elephant politicians  also like to get into pissing matches with each other as a way of measuring their's and their handlers "johnsons". 

The only solution I see is for more intelligent, armed security in public places. More metal detectors should be in use. You get caught with an unregistered weapon, you spend the the next 10 years of your life  in a prison out in the middle of the hottest part of the desert southwest. 

 

What happened in Oregon was very unfortunate. However, innocent  people from all walks of life are being killed everyday with guns all over the world.   

[newtogolf]

How about the people who have mentally ill family members that now have access to their guns. You are allowing society to have a deadly weapon. Don't you think it's a good idea to make sure those people you are allowing to have a deadly weapon are not f'd up in the head. I think there is a bit of common sense there. 

I agree that I don't want mentally ill people to have access to guns, the problem is what is the definition of "mentally ill"?  We're not talking about common sense now, we're talking about a law that has to capture a definition of something that is a bit of a moving target.  Twenty years ago, transsexuals were considered mentally ill. 

The definition of "mentally ill" has to have finite boundaries that will withstand the test of time and not evolve to include larger and larger portions of the population to in effect eliminate guns from our society. 

I'd also want anyone that has ties to terrorist groups, radical islamist groups and ISIS/ISIL to also be denied legal access to a firearm. 

[inthehole]

In most simplest terms ... You can not affect behavior of those that by definition do not obey laws (gang bangers / criminals  in NYC, Chicago, LA  or Washington DC for example where handgun ownership is greatly restricted or prohibited and only available on the black market) by passing gun control laws.   The only people that are adversely affected by such legislation are citizens who actually obey laws.    

As a gun owner, i'm all about instant background checks - this system works exceptionally well in my state and SHOULD by all means be applied to gun shows.    

Edited October 5, 2015 by inthehole

[newtogolf]

In most simplest terms ... You can not affect behavior of those that by definition do not obey laws (gang bangers / criminals  in NYC, Chicago, LA  or Washington DC for example where handgun ownership is greatly restricted or prohibited and only available on the black market) by passing gun control laws.   The only people that are adversely affected by such legislation are citizens who actually obey laws.  

I agree, but a mentally ill person who's decided to go on a killing spree may not have access to guns from illegal sources.  My restricting gun sales to the mentally ill you're making it slightly harder for someone off their meds to go to a school or movie theater and shoot up the place.  

In terms of criminals, short of mandatory life sentence or death penalty for using a gun in the commission of a crime you're not going to stop them from using guns, which is why law-abiding citizens should have relatively easy access to purchase guns for self protection. 

[Golfingdad]

In most simplest terms ... You can not affect behavior of those that by definition do not obey laws (gang bangers / criminals  in NYC, Chicago, LA  or Washington DC for example where handgun ownership is greatly restricted or prohibited and only available on the black market) by passing gun control laws.   The only people that are adversely affected by such legislation are citizens who actually obey laws.    

As a gun owner, i'm all about instant background checks - this system works exceptionally well in my state and SHOULD by all means be applied to gun shows.    

I'm not really sure I understand.  You say that gun control isn't the answer and then you say that they have a background check system in your state that works really well and go on to imply that it isn't used elsewhere with the "and SHOULD by all means be applied to gun shows" sentence.

Wouldn't adding a background check where there [apparently] wasn't one previously be a form of "gun control?"

[JazzFatCat]

I live in Victoria a couple of hundred kilometers north of Oregon. The local Seattle TV news ran a story about about how an Oregon gun range was seeing a lot of extra action after the shooting and showed an older lady sitting in a pretend bus shooting out of the window. I laughed pretty hard. "I'm practicing protecting myself by shooting out of a bus window"

Americans must know that from the outside their guns laws and attitudes look ridiculous but few Americans can see it for themselves. Arguments like "... then only the criminals will have guns" just show that most Americans really don't consider what other countries do.

[jusanothajoe]

Gun safety is definitely a concern. People should have their firearms locked up when not in use. Gun safes, trigger locks, etc are all easily accessible and easy to use. Perhaps make it a requirement when selling a gun that a trigger lock or some other form of securing the weapon is included. Restricting people from being able to own firearms because someone in their family has mental illness is not the correct way to go. Now, adding culpability for people who do not take correct safety measures when storing their weapons, that I can get behind. If you know someone in your family has mental issues and you don't lock your guns up you should definitely be held accountable in some form or fashion.

Every gun I have purchased in the last 15 years came with some form of lock

[Braivo]

Do you trust your government enough to allow them to be the only ones bearing arms?

The second amendment was written to protect the states' sovereignty from an out of control federal government. 

The founders knew that ultimately power rests with those with the most force. They didn't want the federal government to be the lone force of the land. Low and behold here we are, the states have essentially lost their sovereignty, and the only thing left to completely remove any power is to remove the guns.

Then all power rests with Washington D.C. All of it. With unarmed citizens and states without their own militia we are left completely at the mercy of politicians and military brass in D.C. 

Men are committing these horrible acts because they are frustrated with modern society. As a young man, modern life has become very difficult. These guys all shared similar stories. They were awkward men in their early twenties. They all mentioned difficulty relating to women, and nearly all of them came form a fatherless home. 

In short, these young men were never taught how to be real men. No one showed them healthy outlets for their energy and anger. No one showed them how to talk to girls and be social. 

They were told that if they just were good students and went to college everything would work out for them. Guess what? They did that and it didn't. They watched jerks get all the girls while they were nice and quiet. They watched immigrants take away jobs while they worked dead-end retail jobs. 

Finally they spilled over with anger. Sure, they had access to guns. We could take away all of that access, but at what cost to our freedom?

 

[CR McDivot]

Molon labe!

Should you, or any of your authorized lackeys, try to disarm freemen in America... make your will and testament - and bring body bags! I wouldn't your sorry carcass polluting our free soil.

End of discussion.

[rkim291968]

I  am probably minority on this.  Other than hunting rifle, I'd like to see gun banned.  But that's not gonna happen in US as right to own gun is baked into constitution.   We never grew out of frontier days, and wild west mentality when it comes to that.  

[saevel25]

I love how people think owning handguns and rifles will save the if the military was turned on us. Sorry to say that's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. It's just a false sense of security that means nothing. this argument that it matters that we can arm ourselves is really outdated ignorance.