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

[Howler63]

That's pure speculation and, frankly, not even realistic speculation.

We currently have a nationwide ban on various illegal drugs. You can't even buy them with a prescription yet we still have huge drug addiction and drug use problems.

The mistake people commonly make when comparing UK and AUS gun homicide rates is that those rates were negligible even before they imposed their bans. Furthermore, the US homicide rate dropped far more precipitously in the same time frame as the rates in those other nations did even though we did not ban firearms.

So you're suggesting that if we were to ban guns like Australia, the frequency of mass shootings would remain the same or even go up?

 

[Lutherf]

So you're suggesting that if we were to ban guns like Australia, the frequency of mass shootings would remain the same or even go up?

That would be a very real possibility. Should the law abiding public be disarmed the street gangs would then be free to run rampant. While we may see less rampage shootings (i.e. Aurora, Sandy Hook) we would likely see mass executions line what the cartels perpetrate in Mexico (which has very strict gun laws).

 

[Howler63]

That would be a very real possibility. Should the law abiding public be disarmed the street gangs would then be free to run rampant. While we may see less rampage shootings (i.e. Aurora, Sandy Hook) we would likely see mass executions line what the cartels perpetrate in Mexico (which has very strict gun laws).

Possible, to be sure. Not very likely.

 

[Lutherf]

Possible, to be sure. Not very likely.

Why, if it is happening elsewhere, would it be less likely to occur here?

The majority of homicides in this country are associated with gangs and/or drugs. Gun bans will not effect those crimes. Most of the other homicides are due to domestic violence. Those incidents will also not decrease because the assailants will merely turn to knives, blunt objects and poisons. Finally you have the rampage shooter and there is no reason to assume that someone who is already bent on becoming a martyr will be stopped because of a background check or a full blown gun ban. Why would someone who has already decided to die refrain from getting a gun illegally?

 

[Howler63]

Why, if it is happening elsewhere, would it be less likely to occur here?

The majority of homicides in this country are associated with gangs and/or drugs. Gun bans will not effect those crimes. Most of the other homicides are due to domestic violence. Those incidents will also not decrease because the assailants will merely turn to knives, blunt objects and poisons. Finally you have the rampage shooter and there is no reason to assume that someone who is already bent on becoming a martyr will be stopped because of a background check or a full blown gun ban. Why would someone who has already decided to die refrain from getting a gun illegally?

Other places, like Mexico border on Anarchy more than government and if they're made illegal, they'll be much harder to get after a while. Not impossible, but harder.

 

[Lutherf]

Other places, like Mexico border on Anarchy more than government and if they're made illegal, they'll be much harder to get after a while. Not impossible, but harder.

Mexico does not border on anarchy. Not even close.

 

[Howler63]

Mexico does not border on anarchy. Not even close.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/mexico-drug-wars/

Really?

 

[LowDown]

I'm not proposing to outlaw guns. I am a gun owner myself. I'm just asking the question, is the frequency of these shootings acceptable in order to maintain our 2nd Amendment right?

In case it's unclear, I believe it IS.

Allowing more people to carry guns into more venues would reduced mass shootings. Those shooters who attempt a mass shooting where people are armed don't fare too well.

Gun free zones are almost always a mistake. The only time it makes sense is if authorities establish a perimeter and screen everyone entering the zone.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Allowing more people to carry guns into more venues would reduced mass shootings. Those shooters who attempt a mass shooting where people are armed don't fare too well.

Gun free zones are almost always a mistake. The only time it makes sense is if authorities establish a perimeter and screen everyone entering the zone.

And how would more guns have prevented the shooting at the pulse? There would be civilians in the potential cross fire and everyone who is not the insane criminal would have been forced to hold their fire because, unlike the murdering maniac, there is a specific need to prevent colateral damage.

 

[Lutherf]

Mexico's Drug War: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

Really?

Really. There are some areas in Mexico where the cartels run pretty much everything but that doesn't mean that the country is heading for anarchy any more than the fact that parts of New Orleans, Chicago and Los Angeles are run by gangs.

 

[Howler63]

Really. There are some areas in Mexico where the cartels run pretty much everything but that doesn't mean that the country is heading for anarchy any more than the fact that parts of New Orleans, Chicago and Los Angeles are run by gangs.

It's a corrupt, crime-ridden, ****-hole. I know, I lived there for a time during the 90's.

 

[LowDown]

And how would more guns have prevented the shooting at the pulse? There would be civilians in the potential cross fire and everyone who is not the insane criminal would have been forced to hold their fire because, unlike the murdering maniac, there is a specific need to prevent colateral damage.

I'm sure someone would have known how to get a clear line of sight. After the first few seconds the area around the shooter would have cleared and the chances of getting a clear shot from a kneeling or prone position would have markedly increased. Besides which, putting your bullet in the target is an excellent way of avoiding collateral damage.

Those who have never handled guns have no idea and can't imagine what they are ignorant of. This whole episode has been an excellent demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I'm sure someone would have known how to get a clear line of sight. After the first few seconds the area around the shooter would have cleared and the chances of getting a clear shot from a kneeling or prone position would have markedly increased. Besides which, putting your bullet in the target is an excellent way of avoiding collateral damage.

Those who have never handled guns have no idea and can't imagine what they are ignorant of. This whole episode has been an excellent demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Some of us never handle guns because we choose not to.

Having a gun is pointless unless you are trained and conditioned on how to use one.

 

[Caine]

Personally, this is an inevitable side effect of freedom and liberty.

To all the people who think we should throw money at """"THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM""" as "the answer" to this are also being delusional. Unless of course you limit freedom and liberty by forcing everyone to be regularly examined by a mental health professional, there is no way of knowing who is mentally ill and who is not. Thus """"THE Mental Health System"""" cannot help those patients who they have no idea of knowing exist. If you make it easier for someone to merely "suggest" that a family member or co-worker, etc is mentally ill and then that person is taken off to some institute, then be prepared to blow millions of dollars on cases where people make these claims to grief a co-worker they don't like, or a parent who grounded them.

 

[LowDown]

Some of us never handle guns because we choose not to.

Having a gun is pointless unless you are trained and conditioned on how to use one.

I've noticed that my people like you have not let their ignorance stop them from waxing eloquent on the capabilities, characteristics, and limitations of firearms use. It has been a pretty sorry display.

 

[apdst]

Other places, like Mexico border on Anarchy more than government and if they're made illegal, they'll be much harder to get after a while. Not impossible, but harder.

It's illegal to carry a loaded gun, in public, in Mexico. How's that working out?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I've noticed that my people like you have not let their ignorance stop them from waxing eloquent on the capabilities, characteristics, and limitations of firearms use. It has been a pretty sorry display.

I know what I know and know what I don't know.

But does my lack of knowledge about firearms somehow bar me from making statements based on my perspective?

 

[earthworm]

''The right to bear arms'' For many here, this is more important than human life itself ...
Of course , I disagree - strongly and wish NOT to be a part of a ''sick society'' .
What we need is a shooter at a NRA convention .. maybe with a body count of 10% or 100 , that would change the mind of conservatives .. maybe ..

 

[earthworm]

It's illegal to carry a loaded gun, in public, in Mexico. How's that working out?

The basics , Apdst , the basics .. Man can make laws all day and all night, but, if the enforcement is lax to non-existent, then these noble acts are for nigh .

 

[apdst]

The basics , Apdst , the basics .. Man can make laws all day and all night, but, if the enforcement is lax to non-existent, then these noble acts are for nigh .

Reality, earthworm, reality. The law is being enforced in Mexico's. Guns are confiscated every year.

New report shows 74,000 guns seized in Mexico came from U.S. - Guns.com

 

[Port & Starboard]

It's illegal to carry a loaded gun, in public, in Mexico. How's that working out?

No it's not. I had to leave my gun in Nogales Az. at a gun shop when I had a load going to Hermosillo Mexico

Only citizens who have been granted a license to carry can lawfully carry a firearm outside their homes. Beyond military and law enforcement members, these permits are only issued to persons who qualify such as those employed in private security firms, those who live in rural areas, or those who may be targets of crime (politicians, public officials, wealthy citizens).

 

[apdst]

''The right to bear arms'' For many here, this is more important than human life itself ...
Of course , I disagree - strongly and wish NOT to be a part of a ''sick society'' .
What we need is a shooter at a NRA convention .. maybe with a body count of 10% or 100 , that would change the mind of conservatives .. maybe ..

Never let a crisis go to waste, right?

 

[apdst]

No it's not. I had to leave my gun in Nogales Az. at a gun shop when I had a load going to Hermosillo Mexico

Only citizens who have been granted a license to carry can lawfully carry a firearm outside their homes. Beyond military and law enforcement members, these permits are only issued to persons who qualify such as those employed in private security firms, those who live in rural areas, or those who may be targets of crime (politicians, public officials, wealthy citizens).

So basically only folks with the money and the connections can carry a gun. That's the same thing as, "it's illegal to carry a loaded gun in public".

 

[earthworm]

Anyone who thinks gun control laws will stop mass killings is delusional.

NO , this is yet another conservative lie . Gun control can be effective IF it has support of the people , the courts , the police , and the judges and whatever else .. Somewhere, there may be a breakdown .. maybe in cooperation....The mental health records must exist and they must be ''semi-public'' .. IF not , then we are back to step one and we may as well return to the dark ages .. or the 1800s ..

 

[bmr528]

I understand those that say "Ban all arms" I really do.. You probably never have faced a situation where you needed one.. And I hope you never do. I don't know what the percentage of the population has been a victim of a violent crime vs the percentage that has not, I carry homeowners insurance to "protect my home". I have car insurance to "Protect" my car. And not just because it's mandatory, I would have it anyway. And oddly enough I have never had a auto insurance claim in 40 years, But tomorrow I could go out and get hit by a drunk driver. It only takes one...

That's why I carry.. I may(and pray) that I never have to use my gun for self defense, but if the "one" ever happens, I want to be prepared.

djl