Welcome to 'Murica

[moevillini]

How can we know since most of these killers either end up dead by their own devices or killed by LE? Only a few have been captured and of those the common thread has been SSRI's.

Sorry viny, this is a pretty meaningless post - - what the heck do you mean by SSRI's? There are plenty of other types of medication that are prescribed for various mental health disorders, why are singling out SSRI'S? And are you saying that only those who were captured alive might have been taking any of these medications, but anyone killed in any fashion was medication free? Usually you make at least some sense, but not this time.

At any rate, it seems you're trying to portray the problem as primarily a mental health issue, and that's an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

 

[Stoked]

Sorry viny, this is a pretty meaningless post - - what the heck do you mean by SSRI's? There are plenty of other types of medication that are prescribed for various mental health disorders, why are singling out SSRI'S? And are you saying that only those who were captured alive might have been taking any of these medications, but anyone killed in any fashion was medication free? Usually you make at least some sense, but not this time.

At any rate, it seems you're trying to portray the problem as primarily a mental health issue, and that's an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

I am not so sure I agree. Something is driving people to kill in mass settings like this. Firearms enable them and make it possible but it is not what drives them to consider/decide to act on it.

So maybe the word "primarily" is emphasizing it to much but I do think that mental illness, and all that plays into that, has a healthy role to play in mass shooting.

 

[moevillini]

I am not so sure I agree. Something is driving people to kill in mass settings like this. Firearms enable them and make it possible but it is not what drives them to consider/decide to act on it.

So maybe the word "primarily" is emphasizing it to much but I do think that mental illness, and all that plays into that, has a healthy role to play in mass shooting.

yes...

but I thought one of the major points of this discussion was that we are talking about gun homicide in general, and not strictly those that might be classified as mass shootings

and (for example) the two most recent college campus shootings (at Texas Southern and Northern Arizona) would most likely NOT be considered mass shootings - - and may have had more "standard" motives such as drugs, theft or jealousy

for instance, the one at Northern Arizona State University appears to have started as a simple confrontation during a parking lot dispute
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/1-dead-dorm-shooting-northern-arizona-university-article-1.2391149

Firearms enable them and make it possible but it is not what drives them to consider/decide to act on it.

Personally, I would not categorically dismiss the easy accessibility and apparent acceptance of firearms as a driving force that leads people to consider to take that particular action

 

[Stoked]

In a single shooting there can be many things that come into play and the availability of guns would play a larger role in that. Or so I would think.

But in mass shootings they are usually planned out and thought thru. The entire point is to kill a bunch of people. In this cases there is less blame to lay at the feet of firearms.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

IMHO, gun advocates should, at least, agree to more robust background checks, the assault weapon ban, and support closing the gun show loophole. At least. We're not banning all guns and they are huge steps towards gun control and minimizing opportunities for criminals, the mentally ill, and general irresponsible people to get a gun.

If you agree that a significant mental health overhaul will be required to address the issue, then asking gun advocates to make the two changes above is, at best, equal in size and scale to what you're asking of the mental health industry. Changes would require significant subsidy that should probably come at the expense of a program that that gun advocates would like defunded, except Planned Parenthood

But if the gun lobby is unwilling to make big changes, then maybe we consider a gun tax for manufacturers fund mental health programs and efforts. These costs would passed on to the consumer, making guns more expensive and more difficult to get legally. Basically, you could buy your way out of the restrictions is you choose to lay gun violence at the feet of the mentally ill.

If we're going to compromise, then both sides have to give. Or pay for the privilege of doing nothing.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Define assault weapon, please. There are too many people that don't know what it means.

 

[fishonjazz]

Define assault weapon, please. There are too many people that don't know what it means.

I'm not sure what it means

I mean I have a picture that pops into my head (AK-47, M-16) but don't know how to define one

 

[gandalfe]

I'm not sure what it means

I mean I have a picture that pops into my head (AK-47, M-16) but don't know how to define one

From Wikipedia:

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. Some firearms are specified by name. At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."

The Justice Department definition is a good one, I think.

 

[VINYLONE]

The first thing is to get people to realize that there is a problem. In 2013, the most recent year for which I can easily find statistics, there were 33,169 deaths from firearms in the US (excluding deaths by "legal intervention," IE, cop). Almost 2/3 of those, 21,175, were suicides. The MINORITY were the attention-grabbing mass killings like what happened in Oregon.

Honestly, the first part of a solution would be to get Wayne LaPierre out. He has led the NRA in a disastrous and radical direction since the early 90's, although they have been pretty rough since the mid-late 70's.

As far as safety issues, common sense solutions: A "loaded" flag, so that you know if there is a round chambered. Chamber locks, trigger locks, smart guns. There are many ways to make guns safer AND THE NRA OPPOSES THEM.

Yes, education, but the mandatory education which has been proposed upthread assumes that, A) Everyone wants to learn (and wants their kids to learn) about guns, and B) we live in a fully armed society where we need to learn about guns.

Yes, waiting periods. Especially for handguns, honestly. Again, these are the weapons most commonly used in suicides and "crimes of passion," and, generally, if you can get people to wait 72 hours, they won't go thru with it.

Maybe if the NRA and the gun fondlers would agree to reasonable steps, there wouldn't be need for unreasonable ones.

As I'm sure you're well aware, I'm in favor of firearm ownership and in ALL instances a supporter of the 2nd amendment. My position is an evolved one, as 20 years ago I would consider my self an unabashed hoplophobe. Like you, I didn't understand firearms and attributed them human characteristics. That being said while much of the work that the NRA does affects me in a positive manner, I am not a big supporter of them, as, much like the left, they are fear mongerers and quite often use fear to advance their agenda.

The NRA is a private non-profit, so that can have whoever they want at the helm. If you don't want to support them, then don't.

Chamber locks, trigger locks, etc. are all run-of-the-mill "feel good" ******** that the left loves to offer as common sense solution. Firstly, how do you enforce these garbage? As a multiple firearm owner, I would never use any of this stuff. Why? Because a criminal will never give me a chance to rack my firearm. These solutions hinder the law abiding citizen and would give the criminal the upper hand.

Are you prepared to tell this woman that she should have asked the assailant for a "time out" so she could prepare her firearm?

https://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/13664961-55/reserve-woman-shoots-man-after

There are already reasonable steps in place in most states. For instance, here in California, I have many fees to pay in order to buy a handgun or a long gun. I have a waiting period. I have a certificate test I have to take.

Lastly, what does someone deciding to take their life have ANYTHING to do with me or anyone else protecting themselves against violence? Does a man shooting himself in the head in New York have anything to do with this man protecting himself:

https://www.ktnv.com/news/local-man-shoots-burglar-during-home-invasion

 

[VINYLONE]

I don't think everyone should have a waiting period. But there are some that should. Like those that have been admitted for mental health problems.

The problem that lies here is what is considered a "mental health problem?" Definitions are incredibly important.

 

[VINYLONE]

Well, not a flag, but an indicator. Like this:

View attachment 4432

Why? If one follows the 4 rules of gun safety, no indicators are needed. Accidents happen with firearms that have safetys because folks forget the 4 rules. Plain and simple. No amount of indicators will fix stupidity.

 

[Stoked]

The problem that lies here is what is considered a "mental health problem?" Definitions are incredibly important.

Being commeted, emergency room visits for suicide...I agree that it can get tricky.

@ Babypetterz

Yes to more robust back ground checks
No to "assault" weapons ban (assault weapons are often rifles with attachements)
Yes to the gunshow loophole