Are mass shootings and higher gun deaths an acceptable part of a free society?

[SheWolf]

They cannot address issues like mental illness because they are not health care professionals.

The fact that mental illness is connected to gun deaths is not relevant.

Mass shootings are inevitable until something changes.

 

[TurtleDude]

Mass shootings are inevitable until something changes.

more gun control is not going to change that. Less gun free zones might stop a few mass shootings

 

[SheWolf]

more gun control is not going to change that. Less gun free zones might stop a few mass shootings

Or the NRA or congress could encourage addressing mental health issues. They only play lip service to the issue, and all of their supporters are fine with it.

 

[Goshin]

We live in a country in which we are guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves and our property. In order to maintain that right we sometimes must deal with mass shootings. Are these shootings a necessary part, or an inevitable side effect of that right?

Acceptable as in "yeah that's fine".... no.


Tolerable as an alternative to the draconian Police State that would be necessary to prevent most (never all) of them? Yes, unfortunately.



Want to reduce them? First fix our severely broken mental health system and go back to putting dangerously ill people in institutions.

 

[Josie]

Mass shootings are inevitable until something changes.

What will stop them?

 

[TurtleDude]

Or the NRA or congress could encourage addressing mental health issues. They only play lip service to the issue, and all of their supporters are fine with it.

not their job. if the Bannerrhoids hadn't used gun control as a scheme for crime control the NRA never would have had to become political. If the USSC had done its duty, there never would have been any federal gun control

 

[SheWolf]

not their job. if the Bannerrhoids hadn't used gun control as a scheme for crime control the NRA never would have had to become political. If the USSC had done its duty, there never would have been any federal gun control

I also mentioned Congress. They support the claims made by the NRA. The issue of mental health is only paid lip service to, nobody is going to do anything. That's why gun violence is inevitable.

 

[TurtleDude]

I also mentioned Congress. They support the claims made by the NRA. The issue of mental health is only paid lip service to, nobody is going to do anything. That's why gun violence is inevitable.

most gun violence is not due to mental health issues. sure, some suicides and a few mass killers are but most gun violence is caused by the war on drugs and the drug trade.

 

[dnsmith]

We live in a country in which we are guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves and our property. In order to maintain that right we sometimes must deal with mass shootings. Are these shootings a necessary part, or an inevitable side effect of that right?

They are not inevitable, and can be better controlled with better background checks. Beyond that we need no more draconian gun control, the most vile being attacks on law abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms.

 

[blackjack50]

No

Murder, suicide, accidents, stolen, threats and intimidation at gun point are all situations which can be improved upon. If we only collectively desired to do so.

We do. But let me ask you: if guns are the problem...how is it with increasing firearms...how do we get reductions in murder rates? Our rates of ownership haven't really declined (they have stayed at about roughly 40-50% and I doubt those Count all the owners...Given there is no database and nothing to track inheritance).

The fact is...democrat politicians who are demanding gun control...they aren't interested. They only want to fight the NRA, a major campaign contributor for republicans. You want to deal with murder rates? Let's talk drug control. Not gun control. Let's talk gang control, recidivism in our prisons, violence fostering inner cities, our despicable treatment options for those with anger or impulse control problems. And being fair to democrats, republicans have not done a good job with some the above and regularly oppose things that are proven effective to help.

BASICALLY?

I will shell down the corn with you. But in order to do that we gotta be honest about what our intentions and the ultimate objective is. When you hear someone talking about reducing our gun murder rates, ask yourself if it makes a lick of difference to the person being murdered if it is with a knife or a gun. And does it matter to how we punish the criminal? Murder is murder. And we need to learn what we are doing wrong that keeps us higher than other first world nations. And we need to recognize what we are doing right that keeps us dropping.

 

[blackjack50]

They are not inevitable, and can be better controlled with better background checks. Beyond that we need no more draconian gun control, the most vile being attacks on law abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms.

how does a better background check control mass shooters?

 

[TurtleDude]

how does a better background check control mass shooters?

well i suppose if the VA NICS had all the information about the VT shooter he might not have been able to buy a gun

LEGALLY

of course someone who planned premeditated murder-up to and including CHAINING the doors of a hall so as to prevent his targets from escaping, is going to get a gun no matter what the laws are

 

[Russell797]

We do. But let me ask you: if guns are the problem...how is it with increasing firearms...how do we get reductions in murder rates? Our rates of ownership haven't really declined (they have stayed at about roughly 40-50% and I doubt those Count all the owners...Given there is no database and nothing to track inheritance).

The fact is...democrat politicians who are demanding gun control...they aren't interested. They only want to fight the NRA, a major campaign contributor for republicans. You want to deal with murder rates? Let's talk drug control. Not gun control. Let's talk gang control, recidivism in our prisons, violence fostering inner cities, our despicable treatment options for those with anger or impulse control problems. And being fair to democrats, republicans have not done a good job with some the above and regularly oppose things that are proven effective to help.

BASICALLY?

I will shell down the corn with you. But in order to do that we gotta be honest about what our intentions and the ultimate objective is. When you hear someone talking about reducing our gun murder rates, ask yourself if it makes a lick of difference to the person being murdered if it is with a knife or a gun. And does it matter to how we punish the criminal? Murder is murder. And we need to learn what we are doing wrong that keeps us higher than other first world nations. And we need to recognize what we are doing right that keeps us dropping.

All the factors you mention contribute to crime, murder, suicides etc. They all should be addressed and to some degree they all are. Our prisons are full. We can do more. Lots more in some cases such as mental health. Obviously we can't eliminate human behaviours which create an atmosphere of crime, murder, suicide and accidents, but we can do more to reduce their frequency.

When you say that murder rates are decreasing do that mean that the more guns there are the less the rate of incidents? If it's true that rates are decreasing, for how long has it been happening and is it part of long term trend or just a matter of normal frequency variation? There are 300,000,000 guns out there. If there were only 1,000,000 would the rates be different? I think the rates would be much lower. The rates would increase with the increased availability of guns, so at 50,000,000 the rates would be higher one would think. At 150,000,000 higher still. The absolute number would be higher also because during that period of gun growth the population would have increased.

Now we have 300,000,000 guns and growing. Somewhere in those numbers there must be a point where more guns results in lower rates of crime, murder, suicide if there is a causal relationship. The increasing trend must have reversed from a positive one to a negative one. Is that what you are claiming?

 

[TurtleDude]

All the factors you mention contribute to crime, murder, suicides etc. They all should be addressed and to some degree they all are. Our prisons are full. We can do more. Lots more in some cases such as mental health. Obviously we can't eliminate human behaviours which create an atmosphere of crime, murder, suicide and accidents, but we can do more to reduce their frequency.

When you say that murder rates are decreasing do that mean that the more guns there are the less the rate of incidents? If it's true that rates are decreasing, for how long has it been happening and is it part of long term trend or just a matter of normal frequency variation? There are 300,000,000 guns out there. If there were only 1,000,000 would the rates be different? I think the rates would be much lower. The rates would increase with the increased availability of guns, so at 50,000,000 the rates would be higher one would think. At 150,000,000 higher still. The absolute number would be higher also because during that period of gun growth the population would have increased.

Now we have 300,000,000 guns and growing. Somewhere in those numbers there must be a point where more guns results in lower rates of crime, murder, suicide if there is a causal relationship. The increasing trend must have reversed from a positive one to a negative one. Is that what you are claiming?

one of the things the Bannerrhoid movement never seems to understand (or more likely, ignores) is that they see gun ownership as a monolithic-and bad. They ignore the fact that guns in the hands of honest citizens generally do not increase crime and in some cases, cause it to decrease, while guns in the hands of criminals-people who are already banned from owning guns-increase violent crime. SURE, if there were only a million guns in the USA, there MIGHT be less violent crime or there might be MORE depending on who owned the guns.

But one thing is beyond any serious dispute. Laws banning law abiding citizens from owning or acquiring firearms are far more likely to prevent honest people from owning firearms than disarm criminals. In fact those laws are least likely to disarm criminals

since the Bannerrhoid movement doesn't admit or understand that guns in the hands of good people is at worst-insignificant when it comes to crime causation and is generally seen as actually reducing crime according to numerous studies, the Bannerrhoid attitude that banning 100 good people to prevent one scum bag from having a gun is a worthwhile result. That is because the Bannerrhoid movement doesnt care about the rights of those 100 and don't admit that them being armed actually helps society

and that is why we who own firearms refuse to accept the Bannerrhoid suggestions that we give up our rights so (if you actually believe that the BM is motivated by this) criminals will somehow be disarmed by some sort of "trickle down deprivation"

 

[Aberration]

All the factors you mention contribute to crime, murder, suicides etc. They all should be addressed and to some degree they all are. Our prisons are full. We can do more. Lots more in some cases such as mental health. Obviously we can't eliminate human behaviours which create an atmosphere of crime, murder, suicide and accidents, but we can do more to reduce their frequency.

When you say that murder rates are decreasing do that mean that the more guns there are the less the rate of incidents? If it's true that rates are decreasing, for how long has it been happening and is it part of long term trend or just a matter of normal frequency variation? There are 300,000,000 guns out there. If there were only 1,000,000 would the rates be different? I think the rates would be much lower. The rates would increase with the increased availability of guns, so at 50,000,000 the rates would be higher one would think. At 150,000,000 higher still. The absolute number would be higher also because during that period of gun growth the population would have increased.

Now we have 300,000,000 guns and growing. Somewhere in those numbers there must be a point where more guns results in lower rates of crime, murder, suicide if there is a causal relationship. The increasing trend must have reversed from a positive one to a negative one. Is that what you are claiming?

There is absolutely no doubt that gun laws, especially the ones regarding carrying, have been drastically liberalized since the 70's.

There is also no doubt the connection between black markets, control of those illegal markets by criminals, and a criminals propensity to use force. They will use whatever tool is available. A firearm is an effective tool. Not just for them.

If we accept that the 2A is sacrosanct, then why focus on infringing that which is sacrosanct? Last time I checked I thought Capitalism was also sacrosanct. How about we hold both sacrosanct?

If we did that then we would abolish the laws that create the black markets that create a demand for criminal control?

It seems like a no-brainier to me yet I will hear hell from the 'far left' and the 'far right'.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

As compared to the NRA ghouls that rushed out to buy a gun just like the one the Sandy Hook killer used? Or the obscene profits that gun manufacturers make after every massacre? Yes, that was absolutely despicable and beyond disgusting.

Sorry, had a bit of work and family obligations. I am a bit late to return, but I don't want you to feel like I ignored you.

I don't quite understand what you are suggesting. You seem to suggest that those who bought an AR after Sandy Hook did so because they are an NRA ghoul. You also seem to imply that those who bought one did so because it was what the killer used. I don't understand how gun manufacturers profit from each massacre.

Help me understand how you come to these conclusions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Sorry, had a bit of work and family obligations. I am a bit late to return, but I don't want you to feel like I ignored you.

I don't quite understand what you are suggesting. You seem to suggest that those who bought an AR after Sandy Hook did so because they are an NRA ghoul. You also seem to imply that those who bought one did so because it was what the killer used. I don't understand how gun manufacturers profit from each massacre.

Help me understand how you come to these conclusions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Many gun haters don't understand that what spikes sales after massacres is not some ghoulish desire of people to emulate the killer (though the press's fixation on these shootings might spur copycats), but rather than pavlovian responses from the bannerrhoid movement that screams for gun restrictions no matter who stupid the connection is. For example, when Sandy Hook took place, people screamed for "registration" or background checks when neither had any chance of stopping a killer who murdered someone whose guns were bought after a check etc.

What causes more guns to be sold are NOT the massacres but rather the reactionary response from people like Moot. She hates the NRA and no longer even attempts to pretend that crime control is what motivates her desire for more and more restrictions on gun owners

 

[Russell797]

There is absolutely no doubt that gun laws, especially the ones regarding carrying, have been drastically liberalized since the 70's.

There is also no doubt the connection between black markets, control of those illegal markets by criminals, and a criminals propensity to use force. They will use whatever tool is available. A firearm is an effective tool. Not just for them.

If we accept that the 2A is sacrosanct, then why focus on infringing that which is sacrosanct? Last time I checked I thought Capitalism was also sacrosanct. How about we hold both sacrosanct?

If we did that then we would abolish the laws that create the black markets that create a demand for criminal control?

It seems like a no-brainier to me yet I will hear hell from the 'far left' and the 'far right'.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you consider anything "sacrosanct" then you subscribe to dogma and an unchanging inflexibility which renders you unable to adapt with changing conditions. That's not only a foolish attitude but it is down right dangerous.

Capitalism has a role to play in human affairs. So does socialism. A mix of the two is what we employ in this country and for good reason. Neither scheme by itself is capable of addressing 100% of the issues we face.