Gun Control

[Gameface]

Well, going by the answers you've given (and I acknowledge I may have misunderstood them), perhaps we could slightly reduce the fatality levels in mass shootings by restricting all but three types of gun:
1) Revolvers, which take a little longer and more effort to load repeatedly than magazine weapons
2) Rifles that load bullets directly into the stock
3) Shotguns and similar instruments that load from the rear

Going by that, an "assault weapon" might be any magazine-loaded weapon.

Would you support a retroactive ban on all weapons that do not fall under those three types? If not do you expect banning the sale of these weapons will eventually make a difference due to attrition of ownership? Or do you actually believe banning them now will make a meaningful difference now? Especially considering the extreme rarity of mass shootings in relation to all other types of gun violence.

 

[Scat]

I'm asking again, which of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by linking mental health evaluations to background checks?

The Joker shooter was seeing a psychiatrist. He bought his guns legally. More stringent mental health evaluation may have prevented the Aurora incident. Then again, if he was emulating the Joker, he may have opted to blow the theater up if he was refused access to guns.

 

[bordelais7]

I don't think armed guards will make schools or other areas safer. Most of these mass shooters expect to die.

Sure, but suicide by cop is generally not their only goal. Usually they hope to cause as much damage and/or drama as possible before being taken out. Knowing that an area has additional protection, thereby limiting their damage potential, could certainly be a deterrent.

 

[One Brow]

Would you support a retroactive ban on all weapons that do not fall under those three types? If not do you expect banning the sale of these weapons will eventually make a difference due to attrition of ownership? Or do you actually believe banning them now will make a meaningful difference now? Especially considering the extreme rarity of mass shootings in relation to all other types of gun violence.

I think "retroactive ban" is an oxymoron (or a flatly unconstitutional ex-post-facto law). You can ban possession of something that was not banned yesterday, but the ban is not retroactive.

I think banning of selling magazines for such weapons, and making their use illegal, would suffice. I think a relative few hard-core people would smuggle or create magazines; most owners would switch to legal weapons. Yes, the goal is reduction through attrition. I have no expectation we can do anything that will have a significant effect this year, or even next year.

I think any attempts at confiscation would be futile and counter-productive. It's just not realistic.

 

[One Brow]

The Joker shooter was seeing a psychiatrist. He bought his guns legally. More stringent mental health evaluation may have prevented the Aurora incident. Then again, if he was emulating the Joker, he may have opted to blow the theater up if he was refused access to guns.

Was he seeing the psychiatrist for anything that indicated to the psychiatrist such an incident was in the offing? Normally, if mental health professional gets such indications of future events, they are required to report them.

 

[One Brow]

Sure, but suicide by cop is generally not their only goal. Usually they hope to cause as much damage and/or drama as possible before being taken out. Knowing that an area has additional protection, thereby limiting their damage potential, could certainly be a deterrent.

You mean, they'll go to a playground or church instead? After all, "additional protection" implies there is some other area with less protection. If we have an armed guard on every street corner, there is no additional protection.

 

[bordelais7]

I'm asking again, which of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by linking mental health evaluations to background checks

"Ban guns!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to this gun control question which doesn't appear to have a good answer.
"Mental health!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to those who find the first answer to be lacking, but who still want to desperately (appear to?) answer the question.

Perhaps doing nothing is not an option, but rushing to action which will (in my opinion) produce empty results simply leaves me feeling empty as well.

 

[Hartsock]

"Ban guns!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to this gun control question which doesn't appear to have a good answer.
"Mental health!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to those who find the first answer to be lacking, but who still want to desperately (appear to?) answer the question.

Perhaps doing nothing is not an option, but rushing to action which will (in my opinion) produce empty results simply leaves me feeling empty as well.

Lose Lose Lose

 

[bordelais7]

You mean, they'll go to a playground or church instead? After all, "additional protection" implies there is some other area with less protection. If we have an armed guard on every street corner, there is no additional protection.

Thank you, Syndrome. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8I9pYCl9AQ)

So you're saying that shooting incidents are a "zero sum" equation? That having guards at Newtown would have simply resulted in a shooting elsewhere that day? Remember, this wasn't a randomly chosen location.

 

[Stoked]

babe mentioned increases in violent crimes after gun control was enacted. Are you claiming this is gun-related violence? To what studies do you refer?



Of course. Many more people own pistols than own assault rifles. Naturally they get used more. Why would that be relevant to this discussion?

Well the general arguement I am seeing (there are always exceptions) is that this is all about stopping the violence. Stopping the murders.

OK fine. Then let us look at where the bulk of those murders comes from. Handguns, not rifles. So if that is truly the goal it would make sense to handle the larger problem as well. There are more deaths and a much higher number of shootings from handguns. But that is not what people are askign for. They just want rifles being taken away. Has a ring of dishonesty to me.

It is like Trying to ban cigars but not cigarettes. Makes no sense.

 

[Stoked]

I don't recall advocating any action for the USA. I am only pointing out the complete evidentiary barrenness of your position. In societies where gun controls are strict, criminals don't have guns. You think the USA would be an exception. Do you have any evidence for that?

The fact that anything people want that is illegal is smuggled across the Mexican/American border in large quantities. People, drugs, weapons...

Pick any of thousands of articles on that subject. But this is all things you know and just want to deflect from.

 

[Stoked]

The Joker shooter was seeing a psychiatrist. He bought his guns legally. More stringent mental health evaluation may have prevented the Aurora incident. Then again, if he was emulating the Joker, he may have opted to blow the theater up if he was refused access to guns.

Also the Tucson shooter had a drug arrest record, was kicked out of college, denied military service and fired from his job due to his personality/mental problems. He bought his guns legally. Under a system that includes say military, medical and police records in full then he wouuld not have been able to buy his weapon.

 

[Stoked]

Sure, but suicide by cop is generally not their only goal. Usually they hope to cause as much damage and/or drama as possible before being taken out. Knowing that an area has additional protection, thereby limiting their damage potential, could certainly be a deterrent.

I think it would directly reduce violence. The Aurora shooter choose his target because it was a posted gun free zone. There were plenty of closer cinemas that had similar events and they all allowed firearms.

Why do you think they target malls, schools and other areas. Part of that reason is that the shooter knows that the likely hood of encountering armed civilians is greatly reduced.

 

[One Brow]

So you're saying that shooting incidents are a "zero sum" equation? That having guards at Newtown would have simply resulted in a shooting elsewhere that day? Remember, this wasn't a randomly chosen location.

I think the effects of having an armed guard would vary from incident to incident. If one of these shooters knows there is a guard on the premises and wants to maximize carnage, the preparations would seem to include bullet-proof vests and actively hunting down the guard(s). Does that save lives?

 

[One Brow]

Then let us look at where the bulk of those murders comes from.

Are you referring to mass shootings, or gun murders generally? It's hard to parse your argument.

 

[One Brow]

The fact that anything people want that is illegal is smuggled across the Mexican/American border in large quantities.

So? You think England isn't awash in smuggled drugs and (to a lesser degree) laborers? Yet, they have few guns.

 

[One Brow]

Also the Tucson shooter had a drug arrest record, was kicked out of college, denied military service and fired from his job due to his personality/mental problems. He bought his guns legally. Under a system that includes say military, medical and police records in full then he wouuld not have been able to buy his weapon.

Of those, I would say being denied military service is significant enough, public enough, and on-point enough about mental health that it would form a good candidate for such a database. Maybe also being kicked out of college, depending on the circumstances.

Anyone can be arrested for almost anything, so I don't see that as helpful. Same with being fired.

 

[One Brow]

I think it would directly reduce violence. The Aurora shooter choose his target because it was a posted gun free zone. There were plenty of closer cinemas that had similar events and they all allowed firearms.

Why do you think they target malls, schools and other areas. Part of that reason is that the shooter knows that the likely hood of encountering armed civilians is greatly reduced.

Do you have testimony to that effect from the Aurora shooter, or are you just guessing?

 

[candrew]

The fact that anything people want that is illegal is smuggled across the Mexican/American border in large quantities. People, drugs, weapons...

People and drugs yes.

But with guns it's the other way around - most of the guns in Mexico were smuggled into Mexico from the US.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So? You think England isn't awash in smuggled drugs and (to a lesser degree) laborers? Yet, they have few guns.

So should the police stop carrying guns then, like England? Good luck passing that.

Or are you saying we should have a class based society where a few elites have all the guns? And we can be sure that nobody will ever steal them...