Once again...nothing to be done but prayers and thoughts

[Irvinecommuter]

Irvine Commuter - perhaps those at the Bataclan may disagree with you. No matter the weapon of choice - gun, truck, bomb, knife, poison, there are plenty of mass killings that are not gun related.  Everyone loves the stat that Australia banned guns and killings were reduced... a good thing... but they fail to mention that the crime rate soared thereafter - a bad, and ongoing problem. Oh... and criminals still have access to guns.


My .02c

Bombs are illegal.  Knives are harmful but I much rather a crazy person have knife than a gun.  Not to mention the the cost/benefit analysis of a knife versus a military assault type weapon.   

And the Australia thing is categorically false.  There is very little evidence the gun ownership means lower crime.  There is a lot of evidence that gun control work to reduce gun violence both domestically and overseas.
https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
https://www.sciencealert.com/studies-show-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-to-save-lives
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

What do you mean the U.S. is the only country?

What about the shooting July 2016 in Munich? 9 dead, 27 injured.

Or Serbia in July 2016? 5 dead, 22 injured.

What about the Norway massacre where the shooter took a ferry to a summer camp?  77 dead?

Britain's had a few. Dunblane comes to mind. 16 kids (all but one innocent 5 year olds) and a teacher.

What about the suicide bombers?

Those are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.

Okay...

Dunblane was 1996...after which UK imposed a gun ban.   
http://theconversation.com/dunblane...gun-laws-and-the-challenge-it-faces-now-55896

Norway happened in 2011 and they imposed strict gun bans.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-16/what-can-us-learn-norways-gun-laws

Serbia?  Really Serbia? 
http://www.dw.com/en/serbia-the-land-of-guns/a-36946878

What about suicide bombers?  Somehow because suicide bombers exist, we should not try to deal with gun violence?  That's like saying well we don't need to worry about cancer because you will probably die of a heart attack.

We have had 18 school shooting already this year...18.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/florida-school-shooting-brings-yearly-tally-to-18-in-2018.html

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Irvinecommuter]

And yet mass shooting don't happen elsewhere...I mean is the US the only country with those problems?

What?!!??!?!  Are you kidding me?

Uhhh.... hello... Paris, November 2015... 130 people dead...


You don't need guns to inflict harm. The Boston Bombing was a prime example of a quick and easy to inflict harm instantaneously. Shooting requires a lot of precision, timing, and ensuring that your guns don't jam and somebody doesn't tackle you. Bombs are more effective (Boston Massacre) because you can set it and forget it. The Tsarnaev brothers had an arsenal of guns but I'm sure they knew that wasn't the most effective way to bring chaos.

264 people were injured and 16 lost their limbs and 3 died.

So we shouldn't do anything about gun violence because there are other ways that people can harm each other?  Then why have any laws?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Bombs are illegal.

So is drunk driving. Anyone can google how to build a bomb. how do you think the Tsarnaev brothers did it?

Then why have any laws?  We have laws against murder and rape and that still happens.  Heck...free for all.

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Irvinecommuter]

So we shouldn't do anything about gun violence because there are other ways that people can harm each other?  Then why have any laws?

Then why have any laws?  We have laws against murder and rape and that still happens.  Heck...free for all.

Like SGIP says, it won't solve any problems. There are already 300+ million guns in the US. One available for every man, woman, and child. Plenty of unregistered guns on the street to buy. If a crook wants one, he'll get one. Money is cheap to get now.

To get quick and cheap money fast, you:

1. break into houses, steal money, jewelry, and valuables
2. sell it at pawn shops and get cash
3. take cash and buy guns


Laws are needed for the D.A. to file charges under. Without laws, there is no statute to detain a suspect or charge him with anything under the 4th amendment. A police officer needs a book of crimes(law) in order to reasonably detain a person. A police officer cannot sentence nor execute unless his life is in immediate danger. That is up to the judicial system. When a criminal goes before a judge, the lawyer will argue whether or not his action "violated" and "matched" that specific penal code and if so is convicted.  (For example, using your car to crash into someone purposefully is murder, but if you suffered a stroke paralyzing your legs while driving and crashed into someone, it isn't murder).

Again...gun controls have worked in this country and elsewhere.  Why would we not try it?  Anything stopping criminals from doing any of those things now?  Are most of the people who conduct mass shooting "a crook"? 

80-90% people agree that certain gun control measures should be implemented.  You can do other things that require gun owners to carry insurance...or don't shield gun makers from liability. 

And again...why bother having any laws if there will be criminals to break them anyways?

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Irvinecommuter]

And again...why bother having any laws if there will be criminals to break them anyways?

Because this is Amurica! Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. It took me two decades to realize how it all works. Amurica lets you flourish and do anything and everything you want to do....be Pablo Escobar and sell drugs, don't pay taxes to IRS, rob banks, etc. up until you've appeared on the Feds radar, will they come knocking. It is a game. If you beat the game, (take all your money and run away and hide in a 3rd world country), you win.

Oh...okay...not much I can come up to counter that.  So I will just post this:

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Irvinecommuter]

This is not like China where Beijing actively monitors and puts up firewalls against their own citizens. Speak of any political injustice and inciting subversion and Beijing will throw you in the SHU for 24 hours a day in darkness without due process. That is FAR more scarier!

However, this is Amurica. Do the crime first as you please, then pay the fine later.  ;D

Nah...plenty of crime in China.  You just gotta to know the right people and not embarrass the CCP.  Other than that...do whatever the heck you want.

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[eyephone]

In China you will go to jail for posting unfavorable comments. (No first amendment)

 

[momopi]

Irvine Commuter - perhaps those at the Bataclan may disagree with you. No matter the weapon of choice - gun, truck, bomb, knife, poison, there are plenty of mass killings that are not gun related.  Everyone loves the stat that Australia banned guns and killings were reduced... a good thing... but they fail to mention that the crime rate soared thereafter - a bad, and ongoing problem. Oh... and criminals still have access to guns.

Australia did not ban firearm ownership.  They imposed stricter licensing & permit system and restrictions on semi-auto firearms.  The mandatory buyback program (mostly semi auto firearms) after the port author massacre destroyed about 1 million firearms, and in the 2 decades since, Australian gun stores have imported and sold about one million firearms (mostly manual action long guns).  In effect the buyback program was a huge boon for Australian gun stores.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150


IMO the biggest difference in "end result" between AU and US gun laws is not on the restrictions placed on semi auto center fire rifles.  It's AU's stricter requirements to purchase and own handguns.  The media loves to cover mass shootings by AR15's, but in terms of total gun related fatalities, rifles account for only a very small fraction compared to handguns in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html


So if anyone here oppose sale of AR-15's but support the right to own handguns, it's actually an illogical position.  If the goal is to reduce  total number of gun related deaths while retaining ownership rights of some sort, imposing mandatory trade-in program/stricter licensing for handguns and giving out rifles and shotguns in exchange may actually produce the desired outcome better.  i.e. trade in your glock for a Beretta A300.

As for the mental health issue, part of the problem is that our culture is cliquish and dog eat dog.  We don't provide a healthy, supportive environment for people who are emotionally and mentally stressed.  When enough people are made into outcasts, at some point one of them will flip out and massacre their target group by firearm, vehicle, explosive, fire, blade, whatever.  They don't feel like there's any chance of their grievances being addressed and nobody will lend a supportive shoulder and ear.  Instead they go on the dark corners of the internet where others with similar mindsets egg them on to commit mass murder.  I've personally read commentaries calling massacres "pest control".  How many years of hate does it take to reach that point?

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[eyephone]

We're Averaging One School Shooting Every 60 Hours In 2018https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-averaging-one-school-shooting-234023624.html


By the way, somebody on yahoo mentioned, assault rifles have been in existence way back since the 1960s. So why weren't there any school shootings back then?

Perhaps because society has given birth to deranged and crazy lunatic children.

Won?t you talk about the association he belongs to.

 

[Happiness]

We're Averaging One School Shooting Every 60 Hours In 2018https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-averaging-one-school-shooting-234023624.html


By the way, somebody on yahoo mentioned, assault rifles have been in existence way back since the 1960s. So why weren't there any school shootings back then?

Perhaps because society has given birth to deranged and crazy lunatic children.

If by "assault rifle" you mean the technical definition which is a selective fire intermediate cartridge rifle, these have been around since WWII (i.e. German Stgw rifles).

If by "assault rifle" you mean the clueless liberal media definition which is the scary looking rifle du jour, you are correct these have generally been available since the mid 1960s.

 

[Burn That Belly]

x

 

[Irvinecommuter]

We're Averaging One School Shooting Every 60 Hours In 2018https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-averaging-one-school-shooting-234023624.html


By the way, somebody on yahoo mentioned, assault rifles have been in existence way back since the 1960s. So why weren't there any school shootings back then?

Perhaps because society has given birth to deranged and crazy lunatic children.

If by "assault rifle" you mean the technical definition which is a selective fire intermediate cartridge rifle, these have been around since WWII (i.e. German Stgw rifles).

If by "assault rifle" you mean the clueless liberal media definition which is the scary looking rifle du jour, you are correct these have generally been available since the mid 1960s.

Efforts to create restrictions on "assault weapons" at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle. The Luby's shooting in October 1991, which left 23 people dead and 27 wounded, was another factor. The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers. The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon", as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device"

he assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004. Legislation to renew or replace the ban was proposed numerous times unsuccessfully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Provisions_of_the_1994_ban

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Irvine Commuter - perhaps those at the Bataclan may disagree with you. No matter the weapon of choice - gun, truck, bomb, knife, poison, there are plenty of mass killings that are not gun related.  Everyone loves the stat that Australia banned guns and killings were reduced... a good thing... but they fail to mention that the crime rate soared thereafter - a bad, and ongoing problem. Oh... and criminals still have access to guns.

Australia did not ban firearm ownership.  They imposed stricter licensing & permit system and restrictions on semi-auto firearms.  The mandatory buyback program (mostly semi auto firearms) after the port author massacre destroyed about 1 million firearms, and in the 2 decades since, Australian gun stores have imported and sold about one million firearms (mostly manual action long guns).  In effect the buyback program was a huge boon for Australian gun stores.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150


IMO the biggest difference in "end result" between AU and US gun laws is not on the restrictions placed on semi auto center fire rifles.  It's AU's stricter requirements to purchase and own handguns.  The media loves to cover mass shootings by AR15's, but in terms of total gun related fatalities, rifles account for only a very small fraction compared to handguns in the US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html


So if anyone here oppose sale of AR-15's but support the right to own handguns, it's actually an illogical position.  If the goal is to reduce  total number of gun related deaths while retaining ownership rights of some sort, imposing mandatory trade-in program/stricter licensing for handguns and giving out rifles and shotguns in exchange may actually produce the desired outcome better.  i.e. trade in your glock for a Beretta A300.

As for the mental health issue, part of the problem is that our culture is cliquish and dog eat dog.  We don't provide a healthy, supportive environment for people who are emotionally and mentally stressed.  When enough people are made into outcasts, at some point one of them will flip out and massacre their target group by firearm, vehicle, explosive, fire, blade, whatever.  They don't feel like there's any chance of their grievances being addressed and nobody will lend a supportive shoulder and ear.  Instead they go on the dark corners of the internet where others with similar mindsets egg them on to commit mass murder.  I've personally read commentaries calling massacres "pest control".  How many years of hate does it take to reach that point?

Can't we do all those things?