I'm fine with gun control and it works to an extent, but it won't ever solve the problem because too many illegal guns already exist. If they stopped the legal sale of all guns today, I doubt it would cut gun murders by more than 25%
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...points-about-guns-and-the-charleston-massacre Spoiler Charleston Police Department Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Recommended Greece Buys Time From ECB as Tsipras Says Country Will Prevail There’s a Pile of Gold in Manhattan. Texas Wants It Back. What You Need to Know About the Company That Lost Nearly $19 Billion in 24 Minutes Capital Controls for Greece Explained Share on FacebookShare on Twitter The massacre of nine innocent worshipers at an historic African-American church in Charleston, S.C., raises troubling questions about race relations and firearms violence in the U.S. Here are four preliminary predictions about the gun-control debate we're about to have all over again. Nothing will happen on gun control Take note of President Obama's reaction on Thursday: equal parts heartfelt grief about racially motivated slaughter and resignation that American politics preclude tougher gun restrictions at the national level. “At some point, we, as a country, will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries,” Obama said at the White House. Then he conceded that “in this town”—Washington—even what took place at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church would not be enough to overcome the resistance of gun-rights advocates in Congress. “At some point," he added, "it’s going to be important for Americans to come to grips with it and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.” But that point didn't come after the December 2012 elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., and it hasn't come now. Without strong presidential leadership, gun-control proponents will not overcome the National Rifle Association and its allies. What may happen is that gun sales will increase That's the way our gun politics and culture work these days: 1. Mass shooting leads to discussion of gun control. 2. Gun-control laws do not change much, or at all. 3. Citing the mere possibility of stricter gun control (and egged on by the NRA and its allies), gun owners go out and buy another firearm before any restrictions can be imposed. "The gun shops will be crowded this weekend," Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association in New Hampshire, predicted. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, he's probably correct. A 2013 surge in gun sales after Newtown has just begun to level off this year. Now we might have a new one. The usual gun-control proposals probably wouldn't have much to do with Charleston anyway As of this writing, we don't know a lot about how the apparent killer, a 21-year-old racist, obtained his weapon(s). There are news reports that he received a .45 pistol in April as a birthday gift from a relative. There are also reports that he reloaded five times during his spree, suggesting, perhaps, that he used the gift pistol and conventional ammunition magazines, as opposed to a military-style semiautomatic rifle with an oversized magazine. Until we learn more, consider: 1. A ban on "assault weapons" (a loose term for large-capacity military-style rifles) wouldn't affect a killer with a handgun. 2. A ban on supersize magazines wouldn't impede a killer able to reload rapidly with conventional magazines. 3. Closing the "gun show loophole" by requiring comprehensive criminal background checks wouldn't prevent a misguided relative from giving a troubled young man a gun for his birthday. I happen to favor comprehensive background checks and limits on magazine capacity, because those reforms might deter some criminals and crazy people in some circumstances. But I don't pretend that those steps would have prevented what happened in Charleston—or in Newtown. Deranged mass killers present a challenge that politically feasible gun-control laws will not solve No rational person proposes to confiscate the 300 million (give or take) firearms already in private hands in the U.S. It just ain't happening. The gun-control provisions within the realm of political feasibility—if not today, then at some point in the future—simply would not stop an alienated young maniac from obtaining a firearm. Not in a society where guns are so widely disseminated and where the Second Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, protects an individual's right to keep a gun. We are too far down the road to waste time talking about mass confiscation. So, when it comes to mass murder, we must turn our attention to mental health. When a maladjusted loner begins to talk about killing people—as reportedly was the case in South Carolina and has been the case in similar incidents—relatives, neighbors, "the community" must take action. We must take responsibility for each other, especially for those of us who are sending signals of danger. This may require compromising civil liberties. The alternative, sadly, is the next Newtown, the next Charleston.
The 2013 National Crime Victimize Survey report there were almost exactly 300,000 crimes, including murders, facilitated with a firearm. Of those, not more than 5,000 can be shown to have been facilitated with a firearm legally purchased by the offender. It should not really come as a huge surprise that people who are willing to engage in things like murder are also very likely to illegally own a gun. from a Forbes article: And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
Sorry to answer a question with a question. But why make it illegal? Here in lovely NJ our state has made the .50 cal semi auto rifle illegal. Would you like to hazard a guess as to how many people have been killed or committed a crime with a semi auto .50 cal rifle in NJ? Spoiler Looks scary though.
Crazy racist pill popper shoots up church, so naturally the millions of people who aren't crazy that own guns to protect their families should lose their's.
SIAP, but read something this morning about this. To shorten it up, it basically said: -118 million gun owners in America -78 "mass murder" incidents in past 30 years(so, .00007% of gun owning population are potential mass murderers) -total of 547 people killed in those incidents -people killed in drunk driving crashes in 2013: 10,076 (28 people/day) -should we ban cars as well? (would save many more lives than banning guns) Figured it was worth posting. http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/heres-what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-mass-shootings/
The price of personal liberties, freedom, and living in an open society. I'm gonna get slaughtered for saying it, but its an unfortunate truth.
When I was living in Oklahoma I bought my shotgun at a Walmart in Arkansas. It should probably be a little bit harder than walking into a Walmart without a gun, and leaving with one
Statistically, it actually makes you far less safe. People who own guns are 5 times more likely to be killed by a firearm.
I dont really have a strong opinion either way but i dont see any useful purpose for this weapon. So I think you could make an argument for banning it.
I just think a Mexican standoff is no way to make sure a country's citizen's are "safe." The problem with handguns isn't that people are irresponsible with them all the time. The problem is that it puts everyone on edge at all times. You never know who has one. The police never know who has one. So they act accordingly because they're scared for their lives when interacting with a civilian. It's makes you "feel safe." I get it. But the reality is that your gun is more likely to kill you or your family than anyone trying to do you harm. And if you're carrying it around it's more likely that you use it in a heat of the moment type decision than "stopping the bad guy." I'd be fine with hunting rifles being legal. At least it's clear to everyone that you are carrying it. That's my issue with handguns, you never know who has them so you always expect someone "might" have one. That's not a good way to operate as a society at all.
One of my many issues is, people make bad decisions. People make really bad decisions in the heat of emotion. I know I have. Now add a gun into that situation.
Do you think it'd be as easy to find an illegal weapon if you couldn't buy one legally? What effect do you think it would have on the illegal weapon's price if a civilian didn't have the option of purchasing one legally?
A semi-automatic rifle like an AR is still plenty dangerous though. No, it's not fully auto so it's not spitting rounds out constantly but it's still much closer to that than pretty much any other hunting rifle. Someone could probably squeeze a dozen rounds out of an AR before they could fire and reload a bolt-action rifle.
How would he have carried it out without handguns being legal? Logistically, explain it to me. Let's assume handguns were made illegal in 2005 Pressure cooker bomb like the Boston Marathon guys used seems like a good one. But he'd have to google that shit and do some research, which would raise flags. Fertilizer bomb would require the same research. You know this kid would have used the web if he was dumb enough to use an ATM machine. He could procure a handgun illegally. Which would have required him to know an illegal arms dealer, which seems to be an incredibly dangerous job that not very many people are going to take on. Could he have even afforded it? Would he know where to find one. The most likely case is that his folks never turned in their handgun during the buyback program. So he's using a handgun that hasn't really seen the light of day in 10 years and ammo that is a decade old. Do you think they properly maintained that gun over that time? Would the ammo still work properly? (This is part of why I want all guns illegal. The ammunition aspect) He could use a rifle, but the people would have seen it coming at least. He certainly couldn't sit there with them. Everyone uses this bullshit "there are too many guns out there/pandora's box" argument, but the fact is that over time less and less functional guns would be available.
there are lots of things that have been made illegal recently that, as I understand it, are still pretty easy to obtain. I may or may not have heard about someone I may or may not know having a 100 round drum on an AK-47. Now that is illegal, which would make you think it's difficult or impossible to buy, but.....
Every person I've ever purchased drugs from is a middle class white boy that's about 3 people removed from the real dealer. I promise that dude isn't getting into the illegal arms trade. That's a real stupid comparison. On top of the fact that what incentive does this arms dealer even have to not straight up rob you? Who are you gonna run and tell? You obviously don't have a gun to protect yourself.
Research and red flags sure didn't stop the Boston bombers. Also I know of 50 year old blue collar workers that have burners. They aren't really that hard to find. Ask NoleNBlue
But how convinced are you that that guy won't construct his own camouflaged metallurgy plant if legal manufacturing of weapons are halted in this country?
They aren't hard to find because they are legal in this country. People leave the legal ones lying around in their house and cars and people steal them, then sell them illegally. No doubt. I'm not saying it'd be impossible. But it would be a fuckload harder than just asking daddy to buy me a gun. That's the point I was making in the other thread regarding dynamite. It was an incredibly common thing at the time. But after its regulation you don't even know how to get your hands on it. Okay let's try that instead of the "go find heroine" bit. Go find dynamite. Just go get your hands on some. There's obviously some sort of black market for it.
I'm really curious to find out whether or not I could score drugs today in my town... If there is a place in town, I'd assume it's on the block that is run down a bit, but I could also try the garden apartments where a lot of chinese live (but I'm not sure I could communicate with them). The dude who edges my lawn looks kinda strung out sometimes, so I'd probably start by asking him if he knows anyone who does drugs or sells them, but he won't come back until Monday and I don't know where he lives. A second idea is to ask one of my buddies who are lawyers in town whether they have defended anyone for possession (and lawyers sometimes do drugs themselves, right?)
No I am in no way saying its EASY. I am saying with enough effort it can be accomplished. Seriously, with enough time and effort you can get just about anything you want for a price.
I'd ask the people who look like shit/ask for money/are relatively you but have no teeth. This is probably wrong but i assume most of them are strung out on something.
For the record I'm all for more stringent back ground checks, waiting periods for any firearm, extensive training required for carry permits, closing the gun show loophole. And we definitely need to improve mental health diagnosis and treatment. Unfortunately compromise pretty much doesn't exist in our government anymore. It's all or nothing for either side.
This is why I thought of the dude who cuts my lawn. He used to come to me over the winter and ask for money since he was having trouble making ends meet without lawns to mow. He's also very skinny and has bad teeth.
No doubt, but a lot of people won't jump through the hurdles. Putting up the hurdles is a huge barrier that most people will not take the time/care to accomplish. Especially people with serious mental issues. It's just like saying "well if he didn't have a gun, he'd find another way of killing himself." The fact is that making suicide more difficult causes suicides to drop at an amazing rate. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/struck-living/201012/can-obstacle-prevent-suicide