Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

But school shootings don't usually involve random strangers waltzing in, they are committed by current or former students who would know the teachers and have a pretty good idea who would be carrying, or at least who would know how to handle a gun in a pressure situation and who wouldn't.

Hopefully, the shooter is noticed somewhere between getting out of a car with a rifle and going to Mr Smiths classroom on the second floor, regardless of whether Mr Smith has a gun or not.

- - - Updated - - -

We're starting back up our active shooter/full lock-down drills starting next week. I'm predicting it will go horribly, since my students listen about as well as a deaf cow in India.

It's spring break in Broward county, so while a couple random Canadians may have declined to visit the state in protest, the slightly-older-than-these-kids people don't give a damn about a school shooting. The beer flows and all hints that this generation is full of activists ready to claim the mantle are forgotten.

So yeah, there's a few learners in the crowd of students, but most of them don't care about active-shooter drills anymore than they care about their school work.

[Citation required]

I'd also like a graph comparing those incidents against incidents of violence per annum going back to, say, 1950, if you have one handy.

Only back to 1950, huh? There have been plenty of studies, but it's always hard to pinpoint how many times a firearm defensive use happens if there is no injury since they're mostly unreported.

Besides that though, this whole "citation needed" culture prevalent on MMO-Champ and other places online is hilarious to me. Like 95% of the people care what proof is laid out. Not even a "hey, that sounds interesting, has it ever been studied?" but just "prove to me that I'm wrong". Not like any of us are writing policy/ laws, so what's the point in an informal discussion? Especially full of echo chambers as much as this site is.

[Antiganon]

Besides that though, this whole "citation needed" culture prevalent on MMO-Champ and other places online is hilarious to me. Like 95% of the people care what proof is laid out. Not even a "hey, that sounds interesting, has it ever been studied?" but just "prove to me that I'm wrong". Not like any of us are writing policy/ laws, so what's the point in an informal discussion? Especially full of echo chambers as much as this site is.

TL;DR - You have no sources to back up your claim.

MMO-C off topic seems two go in two different directions depending on the thread (and sometimes within the same thread):

1) Typical offtopic shitposting about mildly amusing topics. See any thread involving a poll, The Continuing Adventures of Floridaman, etc.
2) Rigorous debate between people who have better cited sources than most college term papers.

[Svifnymr]

TL;DR - You have no sources to back up your claim.

MMO-C off topic seems two go in two different directions depending on the thread (and sometimes within the same thread):

1) Typical offtopic shitposting about mildly amusing topics. See any thread involving a poll, The Continuing Adventures of Floridaman, etc.
2) Rigorous debate between people who have better cited sources than most college term papers.

It... wasn't my claim? Ghostpanther did site a source before I replied. It was a comment on the tone of the thread, not a distraction tactic. Asking for 70 years of data in what is not a well tracked phenomena seems a bit of a reach to me, but to you it seems normal?


Unrelated, but found this story while looking at local news, though I honestly don't even recall hearing about this shooting when it occurred.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nat...303-story.html

[drazota]

We have to be licensed to drive a car, why can't we be licensed to own a firearm?.

Nothing else need to be said. Also, it's beyond me why this isn't required by law 4. Extensive background checks

[misterpuk]

Nothing else need to be said. Also, it's beyond me why this isn't required by law 4. Extensive background checks

The car/gun comparison has been extensively debated here already. Here's the recap

You do NOT neeed to be licensed to drive/purchase/own a car on private property. You only need a license if you intend to drive on public roads.

In most states you are already required to have a license to carry concealed.

Backround checks are already in place - you get a background check when you purchase a firearm and when you obtain a carry license.

Further, you're comparing a driver's license, which is a privlege, to gun ownership, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Putting a license on gun ownership is the equal to requireing a license for people to go to church.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there anyone in this group who have shot other ppl? How and why?

Not shot, but I've had to draw on intruders in my home once. The sight of the pistol was enough to drive them away, thankfully.

[petej0]

Nothing else need to be said. Also, it's beyond me why this isn't required by law 4. Extensive background checks

A license to own a firearm and background checks does little to nothing to stop mass shootings. Sandy Hook, Vegas, Orlando, San Bernadino, Parkland, Virgina Tech etc... were accomplished by legal firearm owners who passed background checks. In fact, the case of the Orlando night club shooting, that shooter passed multiple background and mental health checks as required for his security job. What does this mean? Unless you have some type of "Minority Report" police division you wont stop seemingly "good" people from eventually doing bad things.

[Daelak]

A license to own a firearm and background checks does little to nothing to stop mass shootings. Sandy Hook, Vegas, Orlando, San Bernadino, Parkland, Virgina Tech etc... were accomplished by legal firearm owners who passed background checks. In fact, the case of the Orlando night club shooting, that shooter passed multiple background and mental health checks as required for his security job. What does this mean? Unless you have some type of "Minority Report" police division you wont stop seemingly "good" people from eventually doing bad things.

You are unfortunately right. If only we lived in a world where other countries' laws had any affect on the prevalence of mass shootings. If only there were other countries with laws that help curb firearm violence.

[Antiganon]

It... wasn't my claim? Ghostpanther did site a source before I replied. It was a comment on the tone of the thread, not a distraction tactic. Asking for 70 years of data in what is not a well tracked phenomena seems a bit of a reach to me, but to you it seems normal?


Unrelated, but found this story while looking at local news, though I honestly don't even recall hearing about this shooting when it occurred.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nat...303-story.html

Fair enough, it wasn't your claim, it isn't your responsibility to cite a source.

My comment was more on the nature of the original unsourced comment - "Oh people use firearms in self defense eleventy billion times a year, but they don't get reported most of the time. The only time it gets reported is when the attacker is shot."

There is no possible way to back up a claim like that.

[Stormdash]

Nothing else need to be said. Also, it's beyond me why this isn't required by law 4. Extensive background checks

No, this need never be said -- because it's a fatuous apples-pomegranate comparison. In the United States, we have an explicit constitutional liberty interest in owning firearms. Full stop. Since that is not true about the type of driving you need a license for (on public highways), it has no relevance whatsoever. Everybody that trots this tired bullshit out does so as if they were the first person to think it up, sigh.

[Draco-Onis]

A license to own a firearm and background checks does little to nothing to stop mass shootings. Sandy Hook, Vegas, Orlando, San Bernadino, Parkland, Virgina Tech etc... were accomplished by legal firearm owners who passed background checks. In fact, the case of the Orlando night club shooting, that shooter passed multiple background and mental health checks as required for his security job. What does this mean? Unless you have some type of "Minority Report" police division you wont stop seemingly "good" people from eventually doing bad things.

But those cases highlight the need for a better background check not less some of these shooters were known to have mental issues but they did not meet the high threshold to stop them from getting a gun nor did law enforcement have any means to take those guns away. The point of laws is not to stop all crimes but in this case if the system was done properly some of these tragedies would have been averted.

[drazota]

Why do you think ONLY in USA those mass shootings are an "issue"?

Stop being a sheep, take a look at 4chan, reddit, see all the "evidence", think for your self. A hint here is there was a US army veteran present in 3 of those mass shootings (3 cases confirmed at least), people noticed him on images from the "crime scene", same guy, 3 different states, dunno man, doesn't take much to connect dots.

Don't believe everything you see in mainstream media (TV, Facebook, News companies websites CNN, BBC; NBC etc.)

I am NO conspiracy theorist or supporter and I have no CLUE what's going on in dear USA, this is pure speculation, which I am making based on a lot of talking to other ppl / reading and looking at footages / pictures...
Grand scheme in all this is that they want to take that "constituional right" away from you, so you're defenseless and you can't defend your self when the time comes (I am not sure who, but some big players, much bigger than goverment for sure, why do I think this way, because weapons industry is huge and they can LOBBY the fucking senators and such, but that other player staging those fake attacks is smarter, he is pressuring via media on masses and this godlike player will keep those mass shooting happening until eventually senate / goverment won't be able to do anything else than take you taht right and that's when USA is RIP

Before you go spit on me, I wanna ask you... "How did 911 turn out???" I'll tell you HOW, not so great for people infected directly and indirectly by the "terrorist attack", but for USA it was great, great excuse to put hundreds of million of tax payer money in to ARMY and agencies such as NSA, CIA etc., money that SHOULD help fight the terrorism etc. HAHA, instead you get surveiled everywhere, you give fingerprint, retinal scan etc. at airport as international traveler

WAR = MONEY (easy maths)


We're getting "fucked" by fake immigrants here in EUROPE though, I've been personally to border where they are supposed to cross and there should be HUNDREDS of them as I've seen on TV. Drove that day there asked locals if they know anything about those immigrants and if they perhaps seen anyone, nope...

So I'm seeing thousands of immigrants on TV, but there is none at border, no tents nothing, where did they go? Ok, things might have been recorded when saw on TV or I was there to slow w/e pick your reason and stick with it.

Maybe you should watch that german movie that two teenagers recorded and won some sort of award (can't recall movie name or reward name at this time, but google is your friend and it's from 2k17 or 2k18)... anyway those teenagers went to greece and walked the "ROAD" immigrants are supposed to be taking, they spent 2 months and not seen any fucking immigrant...

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

Terrorism, Mass Shootings, 911, Syria Immigrants (not sure what to think, i'm sorry for the people if there is really war in Syria, but i simply don't believe that all of the immigrants so far (6.5M) is Syrian as that would make half of their population)...

[petej0]

You are unfortunately right. If only we lived in a world where other countries' laws had any affect on the prevalence of mass shootings. If only there were other countries with laws that help curb firearm violence.

I know you think you are trying to be cute, but you arent. Ok, I'll play your little game. What do those other countries have? They have much stricter gun laws, to the point that they are almost a defacto ban on owning firearms. We have been told time and time again by gun control supporting politicians that they dont support a ban or anything close to it. Ok, so how do you curb firearm violence without a ban? Well, for starters we introduce tougher background checks and mental health checks. We introduce a license system, training and safety mandates. This is all great and something I support, however you forget one thing. That person you deemed capable of owning a firearm can decide at any point he wants to check out and take as many people with him. Again, without some "Minority Report" force you wont stop this from happening.

If these mass shootings were conducted by people who were not allowed to own a firearm, not able to pass background checks, used gun show loopholes or back alley transaction I would buy your fucking point about firearms being too accessible to people who shouldnt be armed. However, that is not the case. What we have is a few high profile instances of mass shootings by deranged individuals not caught by the system because of politics, political correctness, laziness, "it could/would never happen to us"ness taking the heat for all the firearm deaths in this country when the vast majority of firearm related deaths are conducted by different class of people using a different class of firearm.

But those cases highlight the need for a better background check not less some of these shooters were known to have mental issues but they did not meet the high threshold to stop them from getting a gun nor did law enforcement have any means to take those guns away. The point of laws is not to stop all crimes but in this case if the system was done properly some of these tragedies would have been averted.

I am not aiming for less background checks, I am just pointing out that we will always have these types of instances. Can the system be cleaned up and more efficient, absolutely!!

[Daelak]

I know you think you are trying to be cute, but you arent. Ok, I'll play your little game. What do those other countries have? They have much stricter gun laws, to the point that they are almost a defacto ban on owning firearms. We have been told time and time again by gun control supporting politicians that they dont support a ban or anything close to it. Ok, so how do you curb firearm violence without a ban? Well, for starters we introduce tougher background checks and mental health checks. We introduce a license system, training and safety mandates. This is all great and something I support, however you forget one thing. That person you deemed capable of owning a firearm can decide at any point he wants to check out and take as many people with him. Again, without some "Minority Report" force you wont stop this from happening.

If these mass shootings were conducted by people who were not allowed to own a firearm, not able to pass background checks, used gun show loopholes or back alley transaction I would buy your fucking point about firearms being too accessible to people who shouldnt be armed. However, that is not the case. What we have is a few high profile instances of mass shootings by deranged individuals not caught by the system because of politics, political correctness, laziness, "it could/would never happen to us"ness taking the heat for all the firearm deaths in this country when the vast majority of firearm related deaths are conducted by different class of people using a different class of firearm.




I am not aiming for less background checks, I am just pointing out that we will always have these types of instances. Can the system be cleaned up and more efficient, absolutely!!

Here's a comprehensive glance at what other countries do to curb firearm smuggling and violence. None of them institute any sort of ban.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-gun-laws.html

Adopting any combination of these would eliminate the manic/spontaneous killing sprees, as well as the premeditated, calculated mass shooters like the guy in Las Vegas.

[zenkai]

I am not aiming for less background checks, I am just pointing out that we will always have these types of instances. Can the system be cleaned up and more efficient, absolutely!!

I agree with this.

[petej0]

Here's a comprehensive glance at what other countries do to curb firearm smuggling and violence. None of them institute any sort of ban.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-gun-laws.html

Adopting any combination of these would eliminate the manic/spontaneous killing sprees, as well as the premeditated, calculated mass shooters like the guy in Las Vegas.

...Sigh...

Ok lets just take Australia, because for some reason people like to use them as an example...

In response to a 1996 mass shooting, Australia made guns a privilege, not a right. Gun owners must provide a valid reason for owning a weapon, such as farming or hunting, and gun clubs must inform the authorities of inactive members.

This right off the bat, is a gun ban for recreational owners. The fact that the government can deny your claim to own a firearm for nothing more than "We deemed you dont need one" is a defacto ban because the decision to deny is based on nothing but "feels".

1 Join and regularly attend a hunting or shooting club, or document that you’re a collector.
2 Complete a course on firearm safety and operation, and pass a written test and practical assessment.
3 Arrange firearm storage that meets safety regulations.
4 Pass a review that considers criminal history, domestic violence, restraining orders and arrest history. Authorities may also interview your family and community members.
5 Apply for a permit to acquire a specific type of weapon.
6 Wait at least 28 days.
7 Buy the specific type of gun you received a permit for.

Other than the first one, I agree with all these items. Still doesnt stop any of the mass shootings I mentioned, other than MAYBE...MAYBE...Sandy Hook.

[Guy4123]

I know you think you are trying to be cute, but you arent. Ok, I'll play your little game. What do those other countries have? They have much stricter gun laws, to the point that they are almost a defacto ban on owning firearms.

I don't want to really get into this debate/argument further than this, but people who say the US should adopt UK/Australian don't see banning everything but breech loading single shot rifles/shotguns as a defacto ban. As long as they allow a single firearm to be legally owned they will not consider what they want a "ban on guns".

[Daelak]

...Sigh...

Ok lets just take Australia, because for some reason people like to use them as an example...



This right off the bat, is a gun ban for recreational owners. The fact that the government can deny your claim to own a firearm for nothing more than "We deemed you dont need one" is a defacto ban because the decision to deny is based on nothing but "feels".



Other than the first one, I agree with all these items. Still doesnt stop any of the mass shootings I mentioned, other than MAYBE...MAYBE...Sandy Hook.

Lol, how is it a ban on recreational owners? You join a local hunting or gun club, and voila, you get to shoot recreationally.

It would of stopped all mass shootings for if we had any of those steps towards using a firearm. The Vegas shooter would of had gone through those steps over ten times per each AR-15 he had, and they would of reviewed his portfolio over 10 times. You aren't making sense.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't want to really get into this debate/argument further than this, but people who say the US should adopt UK/Australian don't see banning everything but breech loading single shot rifles/shotguns as a defacto ban. As long as they allow a single firearm to be legally owned they will not consider what they want a "ban on guns".

You can apply for any specific type of firearm you want, then the vetting process begins.

[drazota]

Lol, how is it a ban on recreational owners? You join a local hunting or gun club, and voila, you get to shoot recreationally.

It would of stopped all mass shootings for if we had any of those steps towards using a firearm. The Vegas shooter would of had gone through those steps over ten times per each AR-15 he had, and they would of reviewed his portfolio over 10 times. You aren't making sense.

- - - Updated - - -



You can apply for any specific type of firearm you want, then the vetting process begins.

Exactly, they went over his portfolio 10 times and haven't realized how suspicious it is to buy 10 fucking automatic riffles of same caliber etc. You really believe everything media says / writes / publishes, why you even bother discussing anything wit hanyone if you're already decided in your mind

[Daelak]

Exactly, they went over his portfolio 10 times and haven't realized how suspicious it is to buy 10 fucking automatic riffles of same caliber etc. You really believe everything media says / writes / publishes, why you even bother discussing anything wit hanyone if you're already decided in your mind

The Vegas shooter lived in the US, not Australia. Look at my link to see the process for the US.

[petej0]

Lol, how is it a ban on recreational owners? You join a local hunting or gun club, and voila, you get to shoot recreationally.

What if someone doesnt want to join a gun club or hunting club, but just like to go out in their yard because they own 100 acres and shoot? And what constitutes a "Valid Reason" for owning a firearm?

It would of stopped all mass shootings for if we had any of those steps towards using a firearm. The Vegas shooter would of had gone through those steps over ten times per each AR-15 he had, and they would of reviewed his portfolio over 10 times. You aren't making sense.

The Vegas shooter would only have to go through the system once. Once he had the license to buy the first AR, he could return whenever to purchase the other. Thats how a license works, its not a one and done item (other than a renewal). If so, then the system would be overburdened with requests.