Why Americans don't do anything about mass shootings[W:465]

[vegas giants]

No, most other developed countries have either confiscated their citizen's weapons or have small populations that cannot be compared to the US. You have manifestly failed to show how registration stops mass shootings. You have failed because it in no way can stop them.

Many of these countries have lots and lots of weapons. Lots of people own guns in canada for instance....and yet they have effective gun control including registration. What they don't have is our level of gun deaths

 

[vegas giants]

Keep repeating your clownish mantra without answering the questions. That's sure to convince everyone.:lol:

I have answered every single question put to me

 

[vegas giants]

You keep quoting is mantra, your refer to Canada, Australia and Europe, what you fail to realize is that the United States has a population of 320 million, California has the same population as Canada, 40 million. California has twice the population of Australia. Neither of these two countries have in their constitutions "the right to bear arms".

Your idea of jailing people who exercise their 2nd amendment rights is laughable.

Uh....ok. I don't see how any of that is relevant. LOL

 

[Terryj]

We call them psychiatrists and psychologists

Correct, then we'll have to determine their political leaning on firearm control, so we can get an un-bias opinion. Because if you think they will give an opinion that is not in line with their own bias you are fooling yourself.

 

[vegas giants]

Correct, then we'll have to determine their political leaning on firearm control, so we can get an un-bias opinion. Because if you think they will give an opinion that is not in line with their own bias you are fooling yourself.

Uh.....you know those people can lock you up right now if they want don't you? Why aren't the mental hospitals full of conservatives.....oh wait.....maybe they are. LOL

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

May I ask what it is that Americans are SUPPOSED to do about this? Aside from weeping and gnashing teeth, what are we SUPPOSED to do?

Well, you might want to take a look at what it is in American society that makes some people think that it is OK to kill people just because they can't get laid, or because someone didn't want to watch the same TV show as they did, or because their toast was burned, or because another driver took too long pulling away from a stop sign, or simply because they wanted to become famous as "America's Biggest Mass Murderer".

On the other hand, there is one hell of a lot more money to be made out of the "MORE Guns/FEWER Guns" debate, so guess which way I expect the decision to go.

 

[veritas1]

Many of these countries have lots and lots of weapons. Lots of people own guns in canada for instance....and yet they have effective gun control including registration. What they don't have is our level of gun deaths

Which you assume has something to do with registration which I totally reject. If somebody wants to shoot up a school, how on Earth would registration stop them? The real answer here is that Canada does not have the societal problems/psychoses/whatever you want to call it, that we have, which produces nuts that shoot up schools. It's not difficult to figure out.

If we snapped our fingers and every gun in America was registered tomorrow, it wouldn't stop anything. So a nut shoots up a school with a "registered" weapon. The result is the same.

 

[vegas giants]

Which you assume has something to do with registration which I totally reject. If somebody wants to shoot up a school, how on Earth would registration stop them? The real answer here is that Canada does not have the societal problems/psychoses/whatever you want to call it, that we have, which produces nuts that shoot up schools. It's not difficult to figure out.

If we snapped our fingers and every gun in America was registered tomorrow, it wouldn't stop anything. So a nut shoots up a school with a "registered" weapon. The result is the same.

Yes....all these wide variety of countries have low gun deaths due to SOMETHING else. It CAN'T be that they ALL have effective gun control. In fact ANY nation on EARTH that has low gun deaths has effective gun control. But it all must be some giant coincidence. LOL

 

[veritas1]

I have answered every single question put to me

No you haven't. When asked how registration would stop mass shootings, you start talking about Canada or Norway or some other place. The question is HOW it would stop mass shootings here in the US. Specifically, how would it do it? You also assume that every weapon could be registered which is a fantasy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Because NRA gets off on Watching Childrent getting blown away,...

I really disagree with you on that one.

The NRA is not a human being and so it has absolutely no capacity to "get off" on anything.

The human beings who belong to the NRA are always appalled when these mass shootings take place and do whatever the NRA leadership tells them to do about them.

The NRA leadership always tells the membership of the NRA to do what will ensure that the NRA leadership stays the NRA leadership, keeps the NRA money rolling in, and makes sure that all of those nice NRA salaries get paid.

... and NRA controls many politicians....

Not true, the NRA simply says "Unless you support our position we won't assist you in fundraising and we won't tell our members to vote for you.".

The politicians have complete freedom to oppose the NRA's position and to get elected without the votes of the NRA members.

How does that equate to the NRA "controlling" the politicians when the politicians support the NRA position voluntarily?

 

[vegas giants]

No you haven't. When asked how registration would stop mass shootings, you start talking about Canada or Norway or some other place. The question is HOW it would stop mass shootings here in the US. Specifically, how would it do it? You also assume that every weapon could be registered which is a fantasy.

I was quite clear how an effective gun control system can reduce mass shootings and reduce gun violence. I will not claim one law is the magic bullet. We need a lot more than that

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Even in prison, where almost all rights and freedoms are taken away, people are murdered, assaulted, and otherwise have their person violated unlawfully by another. The reality is, and I have to repeat this so very often, the entity that is responsible for the most heinous acts on truly grand scales have been at the hands of governments, not the individual. Yet people want to put the monopoly of power into the hands of that entity.

I deem those people to be ignorant of history.

View attachment 67233339

In short, you don't give a damn about the mass shootings?

 

[Terryj]

Uh....ok. I don't see how any of that is relevant. LOL

Let me see if I can explain something to you: First, the federal government has no business in taking up the idea of firearm control, nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to do so. The 2nd amendment states that "shall not be infringed". Article 1 section 8 spells out the "enumerated" powers of the federal government, any power NOT granted to the federal government is reserved to the States and the People. Firearm control is an issue for the States, period. I'm all for each State coming up with their own ideas on firearms, they have that right and the right should NOT be encroached on by the federal government, read the 10th amendment.

 

[veritas1]

Yes....all these wide variety of countries have low gun deaths due to SOMETHING else. It CAN'T be that they ALL have effective gun control. In fact ANY nation on EARTH that has low gun deaths has effective gun control. But it all must be some giant coincidence. LOL

Keep avoiding the questions. That's very convincing. Other countries don't have 100 weapons for every 100 citizens. Other countries don't have millions and millions of weapons that nobody could ever locate. Other countries don't have societies which produce nuts wanting to shoot up schools. The "effective gun control" you talk about in most instances involves confiscation as as happened in the UK and Australia. But you know what has happened in the UK since then? An explosion of street crime and home invasions because criminals know that nobody will be armed. That's your prescription for the US because 1 in ten million people might shoot up a school. Registration is not keeping gun crime low in the UK and Australia. Confiscation is.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Is it guns or is it a change in our society? Is guns the problem or has something happened to our society? Is the reason or the cause of these mass shootings guns or is there a deeper reason, a cause hidden in our society today?

...

I personally think the problem is much deeper than just gun control or even the banning of all firearms. I know, quite a lot of people don't want to hear that. They are looking for an easy fix, an easy answer, a feel good option. Gun control doesn't take care of the first two, but falls into number three.

I think we're afraid to delve deep into our society to find the root cause, the reasons for these mass killings. We're totally afraid of what we might find, where we let our society go wrong. We're scared to death that the answer to mass killing is what we let society become. Guns are nothing more than a tool, a deadly one for sure, but a tool used to accomplish an end. If we leave the reasons, the causes in place even if we take guns away, the tool will change. The change in tools may be less deadly, it could be more deadly.

Why are we so afraid to look deep into our society to find out what went wrong? Why in an era of no gun control there wasn't many mass shootings, but we now have them by the ton? Check out the trends in the link above. At one time mass shootings were familicides and felony related. The killer knew whom he was killing or in an act of a crime, Al Capone style. Today, mass shootings are in public places against unknown innocent bystanders. Killing for killing sake. The shooter doesn't know whom he is killing. Just think about it.

You are making the same points that I keep on trying to make.

The "MORE Guns/FEWER Guns" debate is like arguing on whether "putting a band aid on a bleeding left hand" or "putting a band aid on a bleeding right foot" is the correct treatment for a "sucking chest wound".

 

[Bullseye]

They can choose now not to register guns in places where registration is already required. Most will do it. If registration already exists in some places....even at the federal level...how can it be unconstitutional?

Problem with this is that ones that choose to register aren't the ones doing the killing.

 

[veritas1]

I was quite clear how an effective gun control system can reduce mass shootings and reduce gun violence. I will not claim one law is the magic bullet. We need a lot more than that

Outside of effective background checks, none of the stuff you mentioned would stop mass shooters. Even background checks can be evaded if the shooter is simply using an already existing weapon.

 

[Bullseye]

I actually assume the opposite. Are these countries all identical

Canada, France, Sweden, Germany, the UK, australia, New Zealand, Japan....etc. Yet gun control works in all of them

Bad assumption.

 

[trixare4kids]

Keep avoiding the questions. That's very convincing. Other countries don't have 100 weapons for every 100 citizens. Other countries don't have millions and millions of weapons that nobody could ever locate. Other countries don't have societies which produce nuts wanting to shoot up schools. The "effective gun control" you talk about in most instances involves confiscation as as happened in the UK and Australia. But you know what has happened in the UK since then? An explosion of street crime and home invasions because criminals know that nobody will be armed. That's your prescription for the US because 1 in ten million people might shoot up a school. Registration is not keeping gun crime low in the UK and Australia. Confiscation is.

Yes, and when mandatory registration is shown not to reduce gun violence, confiscation of those 'registered' guns will be the next step.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes, and when mandatory registration is shown not to reduce gun violence

False.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...hs-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

 

[veritas1]

Yes, and when mandatory registration is shown not to reduce gun violence, confiscation of those 'registered' guns will be the next step.

Confiscation is the objective. Let nobody be fooled on that point.

 

[Terryj]

Uh.....you know those people can lock you up right now if they want don't you? Why aren't the mental hospitals full of conservatives.....oh wait.....maybe they are. LOL

We have in this country a little thing called "due process" do you understand what that means? Let me see if I can explain this to you: Before any State or Federal government can confiscate your property (personal or rights) they must get a warrant (spelling out the exact nature of the property to be seized) you then are entitled to plea your case before a court. If the court determines for you or against you then your property is either confiscated or remains in your possession. If your property is your rights, then you may well be sent to a "mental hospital" or not, but due process must be maintained.

You asked why the mental hospitals are not full of conservatives, because all the beds are filled with "far left nut jobs".

 

[trixare4kids]

Confiscation is the objective. Let nobody be fooled on that point.

Yep. That's why when some argue that the solution is that our country emulate other countries gun laws, I call :bs

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Let me see if I can explain something to you: First, the federal government has no business in taking up the idea of firearm control, nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to do so.

Quite correct.

The 2nd amendment states that "shall not be infringed".

Yep.

Article 1 section 8 spells out the "enumerated" powers of the federal government, any power NOT granted to the federal government is reserved to the States and the People.

So far so good.

Firearm control is an issue for the States, period.

BRRRAAAAACK!!!!​

Wrong.

The Constitution does NOT say "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless a State wants to infringe on it.". That "shall not be infringed" bit is ABSOLUTE and that means, on the plain reading of the exact words of the Constitution of the United States of America, that the several States are prohibited, by the Constitution of the United States of America, from "infringing" on a person's "right to keep and bear arms".

If one were to adopt your "interpretation" then States could enact laws eliminating the federal rights to:

• no established religions;
• freedom of religion;
• freedom of speech;
• freedom of the press;
• peaceable assembly;
• petition the government for a redress of grievances;
• be free of a requirement to quarter soldiers in private residences;
• be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures;
• not have warrants issued upon speculation or supported by evidence
• not be subject to warrants that doe not particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized;
• not be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
• not be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
• not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;
• not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
• not have private property taken for public use, without just compensation;
• enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law;
• informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
• be confronted with the witnesses against him;
• have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;
• have the assistance of counsel for his defense;
• ...
• not be bound into slavery or involuntary servitude;
• ...
• vote (in State elections) regardless of sex;
• ...

I suspect that you get my drift by now.

I'm all for each State coming up with their own ideas on firearms, they have that right and the right should NOT be encroached on by the federal government, read the 10th amendment.

Having "a bit" of experience (for which I was actually paid) in both writing and interpreting legislation, I would suggest that you actually read the 2nd Amendment and then get back to me when you discover where there is any provision made in it for ANYONE to "infringe" on "the right to keep and bear arms".

PS - Not wanting you to go away forever, coming back and saying something like "There is no such provision in the 2nd Amendment." will suffice.

 

[veritas1]

False.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...hs-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

That article doesn't talk about mandatory registration reducing gun violence, only which policies the public favors the most. Restricting sales to criminals and people with mental issues would seem to be the key. There isn't much we can do about all the existing weapons. We're much better off making security improvements to our schools and other public places than we are thinking we can somehow control 300 million guns.