Mass Shooting Incidents in the United States

[Spikey]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Surely some change might in order after this tragedy. How difficult is it to get a constitutional amendment in the US?

check out the guy who hates the founding fathers and wants to worship tyranny

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Yeah, was coming in to say the same thing. They won't though, because they'll cling on to a 225 year old bit of paper where the 'right to bear arms' refers to front-loading single-shot muskets, not semi-automatic weapons, like it's a security blanket and claim they wouldn't feel safe if everyone couldn't buy a gun from K-Mart. From what I understand, England had something similar in their constitution and they sorted themselves out long ago. The idea that everyone in the U.S is responsible enough to own a gun is completely bewildering.

In the meantime we'll sit back and wait for the next one to happen.

The American Constitution - controlling population growth in the U.S.A since industrialised gun production came into being.

If anything, opinions are worse now than ever before. I read somewhere that a survey in 1959 had 60% in favour of some sort of gun control, whereas now it's under 30%.

So we can only stay shocked & heart-broken at the lives lost and furious at the retards in the NRA and the politicians who are too spineless to do the right thing.

[Spikey]

in 1959, the NRA was barely a thing

[zorax]

I am no pro banning guns. That will create a lot of other problems (a big gun black market for one, and then not being able to track registered gun owners, or to ensure that all gun owners undergo some safety training) and is simply a knee-jerk reaction.

I do feel they need to be tightened though, and that's where it gets tricky. How to you ensure the people that get guns don't go crazy with them? Do you only legalise smaller guns (my lack of actual gun-knowledge showing here)? Do you make them pass some sort of psychiatric evaluation before they own one? Do you make the application process to own a gun longer than it currently is, to put off people who might buy them somewhat impulsively?

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

this is becoming a monthly feature. Surely in a developed country like the US they can easily control gun access can't they?

Surely some change might in order after this tragedy. How difficult is it to get a constitutional amendment in the US?

you know what, there is something even more base wrong here, even if i'm not sure exactly what. I don't want to say this the wrong way, but in pakistan, afghanistan, hell cambodia or ukraine ****s just dont seem to go shooting innocent kids

make the guns harder to get and all and that will limit the damage for sure, but something deeper and worse in that a human can hurt and kill something innocent. it's harder to kill so many with a knife, with a handgun - no: it just doesn't happen, most societies just seem to prevent this kind of atrocity somehow.

[BoyBrumby]

I've no doubt there are other causes at play in the US, but the ease with which firearms are acquired is a factor. Almost certainly the main one too. Leads the way in the "guns per capita" table, after all.

[vic_orthdox]

America, if you continue to insist that guns don't kill people; people kill people...

Then ****ing sort out your people.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by zorax

I am no pro banning guns. That will create a lot of other problems (a big gun black market for one, and then not being able to track registered gun owners, or to ensure that all gun owners undergo some safety training) and is simply a knee-jerk reaction.

I do feel they need to be tightened though, and that's where it gets tricky. How to you ensure the people that get guns don't go crazy with them? Do you only legalise smaller guns (my lack of actual gun-knowledge showing here)? Do you make them pass some sort of psychiatric evaluation before they own one? Do you make the application process to own a gun longer than it currently is, to put off people who might buy them somewhat impulsively?

Getting a gun from the black market is hardly that easy. I am pretty sure just some panzy looking bitch having issues with their mommy or trying to seek fame because they feel nobody cares about them won't just be able to get a gun from the black market and start massacring people. You have to know the right type of people for that kind of stuff which I would be willing to bet most of these sorry little ****s wouldn't.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Getting a gun from the black market is hardly that easy. I am pretty sure just some panzy looking bitch having issues with their mommy or trying to seek fame because they feel nobody cares about them won't just be able to get a gun from the black market and start massacring people. You have to know the right type of people for that kind of stuff which I would be willing to bet most of these sorry little ****s wouldn't.

This is the point, so many of these murders are done by geeky people. Hate to say it, but the Australians have really been the benchmark for most civilized countries with regards to gun law.

[zorax]

The problem with a black market isnt that it makes acquiring these weapons easier (it doesn't), but all the crime that comes with a black market.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by zorax

The problem with a black market isnt that it makes acquiring these weapons easier (it doesn't), but all the crime that comes with a black market.

Good point, as it is gun-crime in the States really going, ahem great guns, so we wouldn't want to upset the balance would we?

[cpr]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Getting a gun from the black market is hardly that easy.

Depends how big the black market is. Banning guns is one thing, getting all the ones currently in circulation withdrawn is another. If you've got 200 million guns that suddenly everyone has to hand back, then how many will be handed in safely, and how many kept illicitly? How many criminals will offer people some money for the guns, rather than give them away free.

Even still, if you do want to aquire one, no ones really going to question you, or do a background check. I dare say most of us at least know 'someone who knows someone who can get stuff', so if anyone was really serious about getting a weapon on the black market, i doubt they'd have to ask too many people to be pointed in the right direction.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

you know what, there is something even more base wrong here, even if i'm not sure exactly what. I don't want to say this the wrong way, but in pakistan, afghanistan, hell cambodia or ukraine ****s just dont seem to go shooting innocent kids

make the guns harder to get and all and that will limit the damage for sure, but something deeper and worse in that a human can hurt and kill something innocent. it's harder to kill so many with a knife, with a handgun - no: it just doesn't happen, most societies just seem to prevent this kind of atrocity somehow.

I am not sure I get your point but you just can't do anything about twisted individuals in society except limiting their access to things that might cause excessive damage to others (guns in this instance) through their actions

[howardj]

Yeah Obama needs to attack it from the angle of restricting access to the semi-automatic, maximum carnage guns

No good reason why people need to own such guns

But, even on that score, good luck with getting anywhere

[zorax]

Originally Posted by grecian

Good point, as it is gun-crime in the States really going, ahem great guns, so we wouldn't want to upset the balance would we?

That's an issue with regulations, and not legalisation of guns itself.

While guns are legal, you can track who owns them, control the supply of guns, and to some extent control who can own them (an area where the USA hasn't been doing to well in).

If they are made illegal, you can't keep track of, nor control, who owns a gun.

There are also the smaller issues of monitoring and controlling the supply chain of the guns (what guns are on the market? Are they manufactured safely? Who are the manufacturers and distributors?), and ensuring the owners have gone through some sort of gun safety training.

By banning guns you are creating a scenario where you don't know where these guns are coming from, what types of guns are being traded, who owns them, who is buying and selling them, and where the money is going. And since they're illegal, it is more likely that there will be a lot more additional crime going along with this black market (look at the problems with drugs and gangs and all the people who die as a result of that as an example).

You are also creating a scenario where honest people who genuinely want a gun to feel safe (think of an elderly couple living alone) are now going to either not get one, or do so illegally and be considered a criminal for doing so, and will also now lack the necessary gun safety training.

You also have to spend a lot more additional resources into policing and monitoring people, to ensure this ban is tightly enforced. As mentioned earlier, recalling guns will be massively difficult, and then imagine trying to hunt down and catch those owning/trading guns illegally - as if that isn't going to lead to more bloodshed.

Banning or legalising guns, either way you will have people who are desperate enough to kill -murders and psychopaths- that they will get their hands on a gun one way or another. And if they can't, then they'll build a bomb, or start a fire, or run people over with a car, or use a machete to cut people's heads off...the point is, guns aren't the cause of that, and banning them will not prevent tragic incidents like this, or stop maniacs like this man.

I do feel regulations need to be tightened when it comes to what guns are being sold and who are allowed to own them...but making them illegal will definitely not solve anything or prevent future incidents such as these.