How would YOU stop radical firearm events in America from occurring?

[Azadina]

I strongly oppose that.

But by your quote, you don't deserve the guns either now, having given up freedoms to boogeymen. Why I call it boogeymen? Because people are killed by guns over 100 times more than terrorists do.

[Kuntantee]

Banning guns would be a good start.

[sheggaro]

Oh yes, because clearly only the US manages to do liberty. It can't be done without allowing Joe Schmoe to run around with heavy artillery!

I understand that people in Europe, generally speaking view guns unfavorably, i.e they don't really like them. But what you have to understand is that just how you in Europe too justify the deaths caused by alcohol, because you as a society like it, Americans like guns as much as they like alcohol and thus we deem the cost acceptable.

You'll have a hard time ever finding common ground on this issue, because the cultural differences are entirely subjective.

[Citizen T]

I'm as much a Trudeau fan as any Canadian on here, and I'm also a gun owner with a restricted weapons permit. Trudeau hasn't made any attempt to increase restriction of gun ownership in Canada - because we already have a great system.

You register all guns.
You require a one day course to get a non-restricted permit, and another one-day course for a restricted permit.
There are 4 proficiency / safety tests required, a written for each of the above courses, and a practical test for each of the above.
You have to get 80%+ on the written tests, and 100% on the practicals (they aren't hard if you aren't a moron, but yes, this does prevent morons from owning guns).
There is a background check for violent criminals, terrorists, etc.
There is a basic psych evaluation.
There is a medical records check to see if you are currently taking medication for severe depression, or any manic condition.
You have to keep your gun in a safe, unloaded.
Police have a database of which residences have which guns on premise.

I got my license in a weekend (the two courses) and a followup phone call (the psych eval): that was it. In exchange for all that, the rate of firearm incidences in Canada are:
- 5-10 times lower gun homicide rate
- less than half the gun suicide rate
- like none of the mass shootings
- etc

It's not about taking away guns. It's about not giving them to people who have bad intentions, and responsible ownership practices when you have them. For responsible gun owners, who want to go to the range or hunt - it's basically no different between Can/US.

This is one of the differences between Canada and the US. While I admire the general concept of what you have outlined, this doesn't meet the general Constitutional right afforded American citizens. You wouldn't even consider those types of limitations on the basics rights of freedom of speech, search and seizure, privacy, etc. We have a specifically defined right to keep and bear arms. If anyone here disagrees with this, they have the freedom to speak against it, to form groups to protest it, to write articles and create documentaries against it, to petition the government against it (attempt to amend the Constitution). But in the end, until the Second Amendment is repealed we have the right to keep and bear arms without undue restrictions.

The "right" to abortion isn't even directly addressed in the Constitution but everyone goes up in arms when a state government tries to require common sense restriction such as requiring facilities to meet operating room standards or doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. You have no problem with requiring restrictions to the ownership of firearms that can cost more than the actual cost of the firearms themselves.

For example: Current requirement for conceal carry here in New Mexico cost approximately $300 for training, ammunition for qualification applications fees, etc. Add a gun safe requirement for that and we're in the $500 neighborhood. I can buy a decent handgun or a good long fun for that price.

[Queen of Hamsters]

That would fix nothing. People who are radicalized believe nothing is wrong with them and would not seek treatment.

Indeed. People also seem to forget a very simple fact...you don't have to be crazy, to kill. Plenty of people are "crazy" and never do shit to anyone else.

[stabetha]

Dont blame us liberals and true progressives when shit hits the fan again, we have the answer and the solution that will fix this problem.

no you don't, you think you do but you really don't

[Citizen T]

It could happen tomorrow.

It only requires one thing, and that's for the US to change its mind.

Well, in the most simple terms, it would require approximately 200 million people to change their minds.

[Malkiah]

in the US at least the gun situation is a genie that is out of the bottle - between the ambiguous language in the constitution and the rabid insanity of portions of the pro gun population there is no way to ban guns in the US like they did in australia (for example).

however, there might be something to banning or highly regulating/taxing the manufacture and sale of BULLETS, since there's nothing in the founding documents about ammunition.
make a 50 dollar per bullet tax or something and the issue from a street level would probably resolve itself after a few years once the current circulation dwindled.
of course, the other problem there is that unlike australia the US isn't water locked nor out of the way, so you're going to have massive smuggling from mexico and/or canada and there's really nothing you can do about that.

but, having ample ammo only in the hands of a known criminal/organized crime element would be much better than any random asshat off the street who gets a whim to go kill a bunch of people.

[Wthrmn]

Dont blame us liberals and true progressives when shit hits the fan again, we have the answer and the solution that will fix this problem.

What is the liberal answer for Car related deaths, Drug related deaths, Obesity related Deaths, Alcohol related deaths, Medical Malpractice deaths and other disease related deaths? These all kill way more people then guns do. Seems kind a silly to start way down the list.

[Tempguy]

Banning guns would be a good start.

What about those who already have guns?

[ArmoredDragoon]

Anybody who picked the first option is...well...let's be honest here: Fucking retarded.

I mean clearly Europe's gun control laws worked fantastically well for Charlie Hebdo and every other mass shooting that has happened there, am I right?

In fact, many European coutries have a much higher death rate from mass shootings in addition to a higher rate of occurrence of mass shootings when measured against population size.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/com...us-and-europe/

And yet the US's second amendment somehow makes our situation worse, even when it isn't actually worse? Are you guys high?

[Goondicker]

Banning guns outright is ignorant.

Guns need more restriciton on purchase, I agree.

You won't solve all violence no matter what you do, guns or not.

People who are mentally unstable or part of an extremist group should have zero access to guns.

[Wthrmn]

Banning guns outright is ignorant.

Guns need more restriciton on purchase, I agree.

You won't solve all violence no matter what you do, guns or not.

People who are mentally unstable or part of an extremist group should have zero access to guns.

This will not stop criminals. They break laws. That's why they are criminals.

[Kapadons]

Neocount posted this in the gay bar shooting thread;

There are currently more guns than people in the United States. The last estimate in 2015 put the number at around 357 million guns.

Time to do a little math.

Firstly, since there are mass shootings involved, my next premise is false, but it should still illustrate the point well.

There were 53,270 gun related incidents in the United States in 2015 (Source: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls). Lets assume then that in each incident, a different gun was used. Again, I realize that the number of guns used in those incidents is most likely lower. Still, using that figure, that means that roughly 0.00015% (0.00014921568 rounded) of guns in America are being used for violent purposes.

The way the media reports these things, and the way people react to it, one would think that all we do in America is shoot each other - and that is simply not true. Most gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens - and taking their guns away is not the solution. Particularly since, with today's technology, guns can be made at home with relative ease.

We don't have a gun problem in the US. We have a "crazy" people problem in the US. And you cannot fix crazy. You don't ban hundreds of millions Americans from owning guns because a very very small portion of the people are irresponsible.

You do nothing. The equation is working as it was intended.

[sheggaro]

Oh yes, because clearly only the US manages to do liberty. It can't be done without allowing Joe Schmoe to run around with heavy artillery!

I understand that Europeans, generally speaking, view guns unfavorably. But what you need to understand is that just as you justify the deaths caused by alcohol, because you as a society like it, Americans like their guns and thus we deem the price we have to pay for it as acceptable. You'll have a hard time ever convincing people that their way of doing things is wrong, as cultural differences are the deciding factor for their actions or inaction in this case and of course such things are highly subjective and often arbitrary.

When you look at the numbers you'll see drunk driving alone kills far more people than firearms btw. The difference? One is always accompanied by major media coverageand manufactured outrage, the other is not.

[stomination]

Banning guns would be a good start.

Some of the places in America where guns are banned have the most firearm violence by gangs.

[Mormolyce]

Except, you know, 372 figure is pure bullshit.

Federal government says 25 in 2013, the lastest year they have data for. You took that figure from Mass shooting Tracker that basis it off of nerwspaper clippings. Not exactly scientific

294 "mass shootings" with 380 deaths... do the math.

Differing definitions there I think, the "mass shooting tracker" goes off 4+ killed or wounded, while the FBI uses only killed.

No, there was not 372 mass shootings in the USa in 2015. Quit using those bogus numbers Bloombergs group use where they count airsoft guns, or a shooting where one person is shot but people witnessed it. Its a very bogus statistic

Okay, how many were there then?

[stomination]

Neocount posted this in the gay bar shooting thread;



We don't have a gun problem in the US. We have a "crazy" people problem in the US. And you cannot fix crazy. You don't ban hundreds of millions Americans from owning guns because a very very small portion of the people are irresponsible.

You do nothing. The equation is working as it was intended.

We have a media issue.

This thing in Orlando was awful. But at the same time you barely heard about the explosive that was thrown and killed a few ppl in Shanghai airport.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I understand that people in Europe, generally speaking view guns unfavorably, i.e they don't really like them. But what you have to understand is that just how you in Europe too justify the deaths caused by alcohol, because you as a society like it, Americans like guns as much as they like alcohol and thus we deem the cost acceptable.

You'll have a hard time ever finding common ground on this issue, because the cultural differences are entirely subjective.

I've never heard anyone try and justify drunk driving, alcoholism tearing families apart and shit with "It's part of our constitution, it spells FREEDOM!"...In fact, in my country, you can only buy the heavy stuff at ONE place. You can't find heavy booze 24/7. I am for all restrictions put on alcohol and more, always have been and always will be. I don't drink.

I've also never heard of personal alcohol consumption being used to murder 50 people as part of religious views. 2 wrongs don't make 1 right.

[A dot Ham]

I wouldn't. A society willing to give up its freedom to ensure its safety deserves neither.

The miniscule amount of people that die due to gun related homicides is a price well worth paying in order to preserve liberty and the right to gun ownership.

Before we decide to ban guns, logic dictates we have to ban Alcohol. Seeing how it kills way more people through drunk driving alone.

But of course that doesn't make for a good hysterical headline on the news. It pains me to see how many people fall for it.

I see your line of thought but I don't agree with you.

Any effort to keep people from dying is a noble cause.

If it were as simple as banning guns, then I would be all for it. Its not. Because owning guns is constitutional right, so by giving that up, we can also kiss freedom of speech goodbye, when that speech starts to mean that people die, when your belief means that people die, when the right of due process takes too long and people die, if you consent to a cop going through your house, car, place of work for no reason because people might die, if you are put in prison and your family is put in prison for no other reason than people might die.

If you are willing to give up those rights... then ya giving up something petty like owning guns seems a little ridiculous.

You people out there who think those that are pro second amendment are just rednecks/hillbillies that like to pew pew things are ignorant AF.

I don't own any guns and I am pro second amendment because I understand its value and the implications of violating that right.