Jump to content
beginnergirl

USA shootings and gun laws

Recommended Posts

Latest shootings in the US today. A female opened fire in the Youtube HQ shooting 3 people (all injured) and then herself. 

 

I wonder if they have it on video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if she hadn't been armed she wouldn't have been able to kill herself and the situation may have carried on for longer.  See, more guns is the answer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Latest shootings in the US today. A female opened fire in the Youtube HQ shooting 3 people (all injured) and then herself. 

 

I wonder if they have it on video?

If they do I'd imagine it would be the basis of a pretty through overhaul of security

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Latest shootings in the US today. A female opened fire in the Youtube HQ shooting 3 people (all injured) and then herself. 

 

I wonder if they have it on video?

I see what you did there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cottoneyes said:

Confirmed animal "rights" activist - so chalk it up to another religious extremist attack

Mentally ill person is ignored by authorities and shoots up a church in Texas

Mentally ill person is ignored by authorities and shoots up a school in Florida

Mentally ill person is ignored by authorities and shoots up YouTube HQ

 

"There's only one common link - everyone has to give up their gun"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given there are two common factors in the cases you mentioned above, I would say that a gun is a gun, always has been , always will be, its easy to identify, and to disable. Mental health is not easy to identify, is fluid, can change at any moment with any person.

Surely any "risk analysis" would say its easier and safer to remove the gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all three cases the shooters were known to the authorities Roxii

In any case though, if you remove guns the three sites just get blown up instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

In any case though, if you remove guns the three sites just get blown up instead

Nah, dont think so. 

Access is the issue, easy access to guns during a moment of madness. Be it by purchasing, or unsecured guns, black market, or combinations of these. 

There is no "easy access" to explosives for a spur of the moment attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, roxii said:

Nah, dont think so. 

Access is the issue, easy access to guns during a moment of madness. Be it by purchasing, or unsecured guns, black market, or combinations of these. 

There is no "easy access" to explosives for a spur of the moment attack. 

Unsecured guns is a problem which we've already discussed

Purchases by mentally ill people due to authorities failing to enforce existing regulations are also a problem which we've already discussed

But the black market is the elephant in the room which nobody wants to talk about, because most gun owners would see it as a very good reason to want to keep their guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the solution is kill all 26% of the US population estimated to be affected by mental illness (including their legislature and judiciary) eh Jimbo, or blame the authorities who haven't marched them off to a labour camp or something. But don't touch gun legislation. Don't make it harder to legally aquire a deadly weapon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Parkside said:

So the solution is kill all 26% of the US population estimated to be affected by mental illness (including their legislature and judiciary) eh Jimbo, or blame the authorities who haven't marched them off to a labour camp or something. But don't touch gun legislation. Don't make it harder to legally aquire a deadly weapon. 

Serious question Parky - If my opinions are really as nonsensical as you suggest, why can't you respond to them without lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ironjimbo you really should go on a trip to the USA. 

 

I think you would learn a lot.  Visit Northern California and then head to Nashville or Houston. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parkside said:

global_mental_disorders.gif

I wasn't questioning your statistic parky

Unfortunately it was the only truthful part of your post though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bored@work said:

ironjimbo you really should go on a trip to the USA. 

 

I think you would learn a lot.  Visit Northern California and then head to Nashville or Houston. 

Cool

I don't need to go to California to know that Californians don't like guns though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Cool

I don't need to go to California to know that Californians don't like guns though 

No but you will get a better understanding of why they don’t like guns & can see they are not needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • You can't legislate against mental illness.
  • Mentally ill people will always exist.
  • Mental illness does not manifest from birth, it may even happen after a person lawfully buys a deadly weapon.
  • A mentally ill person may pick up a gun owned by a family member in their family home. 
  • Being male, or a substance abuser is a greater risk factor for violence than serious mental illness
  • Quote

    Despite the widespread belief that a person with serious mental illness like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia can be dangerous, only 3 to 4 percent of all the violent acts committed in a given year in the U.S. are committed by people who have been diagnosed with commonly cited mental illness of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression.

  • Quote

     

    Also, these conditions are rather strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, not homicide. Furthermore, risk of violence among severely mentally ill declines in the absence of substance use. In other words, prevention and treatment of substance use can decrease the risk of violence in this population. 

    Another fact to consider is that the prevalence of severe mental illnesses, is relatively similar across different countries, including those with much lower rates of mass murder than the U.S.

     

    quotes from http://theconversation.com/mental-illness-and-gun-laws-what-you-may-not-know-about-the-complexities-92337

  • To effect your ability to buy a gun, it would appear that you either have to be involuntarily committed and held for treatment for more than 72 hours, or declared mentally incompetent by a court (i.e. assigned a legal guardian). This gets flagged in a federal database, not all states mandate that licensed gun dealers check this database.

  • Buying at swap meets, gun shows, online ads or the black market all circumvent these background checks

  • Trump rescinded an Obama exec order stopping 75,000 getting access to guns:

  • Quote

    Early into his first year in the White House, Trump signed a measure that got rid of a regulation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people who were either receiving full disability benefits because of mental illness and couldn't work or people who were unable to manage their own Social Security benefits and needed the help of third parties

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html

  • The laws as they stand, appear not effective in identifying those who pose a danger to others for gun violence

  • Quote

     

    "The existing body of research on mass shooters suggests that a history of civil commitment or legal adjudication" -- the standards set by the federal law -- "is practically unheard of among perpetrators of mass homicide and mass homicide-suicide, according to Gun Violence and Mental Illness, a 2016 book published by the American Psychiatric Association.

    (Experts told the New York Times -- which noted Cruz was clearly troubled but had no mental diagnosis -- that if Cruz had undergone a full psychiatric evaluation, it might have resulted in a temporary commitment at best, but not full-time institutionalization. One who has studied mass killers said: "Most of these shooters are angry, antisocial individuals you cannot spot in advance, and even if you could, you don’t have the right to institutionalize them.")

     

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/26/paul-ryan/wake-parkland-paul-ryans-claim-about-laws-aimed-st/

  • Demonising the mentally ill, and/or "the authorities" for not enforcing the laws is weak as piss. I expect nothing less from Trump, Paul Ryan, the NRA, or Iron Jimbo. "Ignored by authorities" should apply to legislators, not cops or civil servants. "Known to the authorities" is not good enough. If everyone "known to the authorities" couldn't own a gun most of the problem would be solved. Following even the most stringent of US gun access laws would still see semi-automatic weapons end up in the hands of angry, unhinged would be mass shooters. But it's not guns....

  • Restricting access to guns to people with a history of substance abuse, alcoholism/DUI or domestic violence, or raising the age to over 21, as well as mandating nation wide background checks for all avenues of gun access is suggested to reduce gun related behaviours. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bored@work said:

No but you will get a better understanding of why they don’t like guns & can see they are not needed. 

Should I go to Chicago and ask people there if they think their guns are needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Parkside said:
  • You can't legislate against mental illness.
  • Mentally ill people will always exist.
  • Mental illness does not manifest from birth, it may even happen after a person lawfully buys a deadly weapon.
  • A mentally ill person may pick up a gun owned by a family member in their family home. 
  • Being male, or a substance abuser is a greater risk factor for violence than serious mental illness
  •  
  • quotes from http://theconversation.com/mental-illness-and-gun-laws-what-you-may-not-know-about-the-complexities-92337

  • To effect your ability to buy a gun, it would appear that you either have to be involuntarily committed and held for treatment for more than 72 hours, or declared mentally incompetent by a court (i.e. assigned a legal guardian). This gets flagged in a federal database, not all states mandate that licensed gun dealers check this database.

  • Buying at swap meets, gun shows, online ads or the black market all circumvent these background checks

  • Trump rescinded an Obama exec order stopping 75,000 getting access to guns:

  • https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html

  • The laws as they stand, appear not effective in identifying those who pose a danger to others for gun violence

  • http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/26/paul-ryan/wake-parkland-paul-ryans-claim-about-laws-aimed-st/

  • Demonising the mentally ill, and/or "the authorities" for not enforcing the laws is weak as piss. I expect nothing less from Trump, Paul Ryan, the NRA, or Iron Jimbo. "Ignored by authorities" should apply to legislators, not cops or civil servants. "Known to the authorities" is not good enough. If everyone "known to the authorities" couldn't own a gun most of the problem would be solved. Following even the most stringent of US gun access laws would still see semi-automatic weapons end up in the hands of angry, unhinged would be mass shooters. But it's not guns....

  • Restricting access to guns to people with a history of substance abuse, alcoholism/DUI or domestic violence, or raising the age to over 21, as well as mandating nation wide background checks for all avenues of gun access is suggested to reduce gun related behaviours. 

Awww.  You were doing pretty well there until you reverted back to whining like a cranky toddler

You accusing me of demonising the mentally ill without evidence does not make me a demoniser of the mentally ill.  It makes you an  arsehole

The shooter of the Texas church had a history of domestic violence and therefore should not have had a gun.  I've already advocated for the removal of weapons from people like that.  And if your interest was the topic rather than attacking me personally you would have recognised that

And pointing out repeated failures of the authorities to enforce existing regulations is perfectly valid, especially when your 'solution' is to pass even more regulations

Stick to the facts and leave the interpersonal bullshit out of it

Edited by IronJimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The shooter of the Texas church had a history of domestic violence and therefore should not have had a gun.  I've already advocated for the removal of weapons from people like that. 

How do you classify "a history of domestic violence". I've heard reports of of 20% of US women have at one point been the victim of domestic violence. Does this mean you are advocating for over 20% of US men having their guns taken off them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

How do you classify "a history of domestic violence". I've heard reports of of 20% of US women have at one point been the victim of domestic violence. Does this mean you are advocating for over 20% of US men having their guns taken off them?

I'm sure that would be assessed on a case by case basis, but broadly yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The laws are piss weak and most states don’t use background check data that is available and allow unlicensed selling. I don’t see how adding more load to a broken system by making them chase down domestic violence offenders will make any difference. 

swanson_slide1.png

 

swanson_slide2.png

 

Edited by Parkside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Awww.  You were doing pretty well there until you reverted back to whining like a cranky toddler

You accusing me of demonising the mentally ill without evidence does not make me a demoniser of the mentally ill.  It makes you an  arsehole

The shooter of the Texas church had a history of domestic violence and therefore should not have had a gun.  I've already advocated for the removal of weapons from people like that.  And if your interest was the topic rather than attacking me personally you would have recognised that

And pointing out repeated failures of the authorities to enforce existing regulations is perfectly valid, especially when your 'solution' is to pass even more regulations

Stick to the facts and leave the interpersonal bullshit out of it

You have pointed to mental illness and authorities ignoring notification on numerous occasions. Yet I haven't seen any concrete evidence authorities have done anything but follow the letter of the law. The fault lies in the lack of regulations, no background checks, no cooling off period, unlicensed selling etc. Even perfectly applied, the regulations put too many guns in the hands of citizens. Even toddlers who ill more Americans with guns than terrorists.  You and I may agree that violent people shouldn't have guns but the law allows them to. There are no regulations to stop them, would you have them introduce another regulation? That's my crime isn't it? I don't understand how blaming cops for doing what the law dictates them to do is anything but blatant blame-shifting, unless you are advocating more regulation of gun ownership. Less guns: less gun deaths. The common denominator in America's horrific gun violence statistics is not people, it is guns. It seems pretty obvious to most people reading this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  There's so much wrong with that post I'm not sure where to start

Firearm dealers are federally licensed.  They must do a background checks whether you're in their shop, buying online or at a gun show

I suggest that you head over to www.atf.gov and read up on all of the regulations you think don't exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Firearm dealers are federally licensed.

No, only licensed firearms dealers are federally licensed.

ATF's own data states up to 25% of gun sellers at shows aren't licensed. If it is not your primary business, then you don't need to be. And unlicensed dealers don't need to do a NIC check.

And referring to it as the the "Gun show Loophole" is a misnomer. Unlicensed dealers are allowed to sell online or from their home as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

No, only licensed firearms dealers are federally licensed.

ATF's own data states up to 25% of gun sellers at shows aren't licensed. If it is not your primary business, then you don't need to be. And unlicensed dealers don't need to do a NIC check.

And referring to it as the the "Gun show Loophole" is a misnomer. Unlicensed dealers are allowed to sell online or from their home as well. 

If they're not in the business of selling guns, they're not gun dealers, are they?

The 25% you're referring to are private sales.  Which you're not going to be able to monitor without a register.  Which is also not going to happen anytime soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

If they're not in the business of selling guns, they're not gun dealers, are they?

No, it's just not their primary business. Some unlicensed sellers sell hundreds of guns.

36 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The 25% you're referring to are private sales.  Which you're not going to be able to monitor without a register.  Which is also not going to happen anytime soon

No, that is sellers at shows, many of whom sell hundreds of guns. 

And why do you say it can't happen? 9 states have already introduced legislation requiring mandatory background checks for all transactions, private or not. Others do the same for handguns.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s ok it’s only the legal firearms you have to worry about. If they weren’t purchased from a registered dealer they won’t work. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Wow.  There's so much wrong with that post I'm not sure where to start

Firearm dealers are federally licensed.  They must do a background checks whether you're in their shop, buying online or at a gun show

I suggest that you head over to www.atf.gov and read up on all of the regulations you think don't exist

As someone with very good knowledge of one of those unregistered dealers, I can tell you certain buyers are provided the gun of their choice without any regulations - you know those of former military experience who have suspicions of the government taking away their freedoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roxii said:

It’s ok it’s only the legal firearms you have to worry about. If they weren’t purchased from a registered dealer they won’t work. 

The whole thing needs a bit of holiday brought to it, the one where the gun only works when the DNA it is registered to allows it to work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to draw a line in the sand, abolish concealed carry hand guns, semi-automatics full stop and weapons for anyone not a farmer or licensed sporting shooter, then have an amnesty and buy back. Get caught with a weapon outside the regulations after that the police confiscate it on the spot.

yeah, but

never happen

the authorities

etc...

I'm done

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome new billboard (the first billboard near our village) just appeared today. It's making great Facebook entertainment. :)

Image may contain: 2 people, outdoor and nature

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2018 at 7:39 AM, Cottoneyes said:

The whole thing needs a bit of holiday brought to it, the one where the gun only works when the DNA it is registered to allows it to work

That tech is a decade away according to a guy that seems to know his stuff on ST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And guess what?  The civilian in the US who disarmed the latest military weapon totting  murdering c*ckhead in the US didn't even have a gun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

And guess what?  The civilian in the US who disarmed the latest military weapon totting  murdering c*ckhead in the US didn't even have a gun!

Wait what?  

So the people the most qualified to have a gun, didnt use one?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Peter said:

Wait what?  

So the people the most qualified to have a gun, didnt use one?  

Bizarre eh!

I've got a good American idea. Let's allow military grade weapons to be owned by anyone.  Seemed like a good idea at the time :rolleyes1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love his interview too! Total hero who refuses to accept he was one, he "just wanted to save himself and saved another bunch of people in the process".

Legend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎24‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 6:51 PM, ComfortablyNumb said:

And guess what?  The civilian in the US who disarmed the latest military weapon totting  murdering c*ckhead in the US didn't even have a gun!

So let me get this straight - nobody needs a gun because a guy somehow managed to take down a shooter without one

But the reason teachers shouldn't be armed is because AR-15s are more powerful than handguns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, monkie said:

I love his interview too! Total hero who refuses to accept he was one, he "just wanted to save himself and saved another bunch of people in the process".

Legend.

Indeed

It's not hard to imagine at least two of the four victims being saved if he had also been armed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Indeed

It's not hard to imagine at least two of the four victims being saved if he had also been armed

1) It's not hard to imagine more deaths if there had been a shoot out between the two of them.

2) It's not hard to imagine that no one would have been killed if he did not have an AR-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ironnerd said:

1) It's not hard to imagine more deaths if there had been a shoot out between the two of them.

Shooter shoots victim #1.  Shooter is shot by our hero.  End of story

I think that scenario is a bit more likely than yours

 

2) It's not hard to imagine that no one would have been killed if he did not have an AR-15

 

True

Which is why his father should be looking at a criminal negligence charge

 

 

Edited by IronJimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you clarify IronJimbo, in one word, do you advocate that teachers in the USA should be armed with a gun? One word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Could you clarify IronJimbo, in one word, do you advocate that teachers in the USA should be armed with a gun? One word.

Could you clarify Parky, why you require a one word answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If more guns is the answer then the question is fucking stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Brevity

No it isn't

You know as well as I do that the real reason you want a one-word answer is because one word answers are easier to misrepresent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, roxii said:

If more guns is the answer then the question is ****ing stupid.

I would have thought that "how could three lives have been saved" would be a pretty good question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's a yes from you then? You advocate teachers being armed to engage active shooters? State your position in as many words as you like if you can't be succinct.

For the record I say "NO"

 

Edited by Parkside
added shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...