"gun violence"

[Brother Nature]

i'm open to hearing what anyone calls "common-sense gun laws" that can be passed to "protect society" while not punishing citizens that are not breaking laws. be prepared for heavy laughter & mocking. most folks that use that term have no damn idea how many laws are in effect RE firearms, purchasing, and legal storage/transportation. there is no law possible that will stop someone that is going to ignore the law, it really is that simple.

What about a tier system limiting the types of gun a person can own based on meeting specefic criteria? Say you want to buy a 6-shooter revolver, that's entry level, basic checks, pretty hard to commit a mass murder with only 6 shots at a small caliber, most could easily purchase one. Wanna buy an ar-15? You need a background check, competency test, psychological evaluation, house check that ensures your ar-15 can and will be kept in a safe place, then cool grab one if you pass that shit, use it for whatever you feel you need an ar-15 for. If you really want something you're going to work for it, if you put the work in you deserve it. Making it harder for certain types of people to get guns only leads to a higher suicide rate, and in the case of the most recent mass-shooting, who wouldn't be fine with that piece of shit offing himself instead of 19 children. The black market can't be controlled, but that's not where most of these mass shooting weapons have come from.

 

[HempKat]

you might be about to learn that there are pro 2nd amendment Democrats, that do not think that restricting citizens rights are the answer.. overreach is not the sole property of the GOP. "never let a disaster go to waste" does not always work..."we have to DO something!" is a battle cry for morons. until someone comes up with an idea that will work without shredding law-abiding citizens rights under our constitution, nothing WILL get done. over 70% of school shootings are committed by people under the age of 18, meaning they could not legally have a gun to start with. the kid in Texas should never have been allowed to buy a gun given his obvious mental problems and prior contacts with LEO as documented in the news...

I know it won't happen but I know the answer, pass a law that allows the next of kin of anyone killed in a mass shooting to be able to hold the representatives of that state financially responsible unless they are on record as voting to pass universal background checks. Once the politicians start losing all that money the gun lobbies give them, they'll start voting for universal background checks I guarantee it. That unfortunately is the best we can really hope for (passage of universal background checks) because even a large percentage of gun owners support that since it only prevents people that shouldn't have guns from being able to easily get them legally. So it will help some. Unfortunately with more legal guns floating around then there are citizens it's just a matter of time before those who shouldn't have guns, finds a way to get them. Still we should strive for at least that because to just throw your hands up in the air and say there is nothing we can do just means it will remain relatively easy for people who shouldn't have guns be able to get them

 

[HempKat]

What about a tier system limiting the types of gun a person can own based on meeting specefic criteria? Say you want to buy a 6-shooter revolver, that's entry level, basic checks, pretty hard to commit a mass murder with only 6 shots at a small caliber, most could easily purchase one. Wanna buy an ar-15? You need a background check, competency test, psychological evaluation, house check that ensures your ar-15 can and will be kept in a safe place, then cool grab one if you pass that shit, use it for whatever you feel you need an ar-15 for. If you really want something you're going to work for it, if you put the work in you deserve it. Making it harder for certain types of people to get guns only leads to a higher suicide rate, and in the case of the most recent mass-shooting, who wouldn't be fine with that piece of shit offing himself instead of 19 children. The black market can't be controlled, but that's not where most of these mass shooting weapons have come from.

I don't know how true this is but I heard a report today that suggested a large percentage of guns that end up in cartel hands or the hands of criminals in Mexico are purchase legally in Texas because the laws are so relaxed there it's easier and cheaper to get the guns in Texas then it is to get them any other way in Mexico.

 

[Frosty Nuggets]

I know it won't happen but I know the answer, pass a law that allows the next of kin of anyone killed in a mass shooting to be able to hold the representatives of that state financially responsible unless they are on record as voting to pass universal background checks. Once the politicians start losing all that money the gun lobbies give them, they'll start voting for universal background checks I guarantee it. That unfortunately is the best we can really hope for (passage of universal background checks) because even a large percentage of gun owners support that since it only prevents people that shouldn't have guns from being able to easily get them legally. So it will help some. Unfortunately with more legal guns floating around then there are citizens it's just a matter of time before those who shouldn't have guns, finds a way to get them. Still we should strive for at least that because to just throw your hands up in the air and say there is nothing we can do just means it will remain relatively easy for people who shouldn't have guns be able to get them

Canada has a higher gun to people ratio how come there are no mass shootings in Canada?

 

[h.h.]

It’s usually when bad shit happens that we reevaluate our laws. If there was no bad shit, we wouldn’t need laws. There would be no reason. Folks wanting an answer is not why nothing gets done. That’s NRA bullshit.

 

[Hermanthegerman]

When does it start with the mass shootings? In the 70s? I can´t remember and asked me that yesterday?

 

[audiohi]

Canada has a higher gun to people ratio how come there are no mass shootings in Canada?

You sure about that?

How the N.S. gunman got his weapons and who may have helped him in Maine​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-shooting-guns-houlton-maine-1.6433463

At least two people in Maine may have broken U.S. federal laws by helping a Nova Scotia man obtain two of the guns he used during the April 2020 rampage that left 22 people dead, a CBC News investigation has found — though it appears unlikely they will face charges.

The shooter, who didn't have a firearms licence, smuggled the guns into Canada. Based on American law, he should never have been able to obtain them in the first place.

Quebec City mosque shooting
Scarborough shooting
University of Alberta shooting
etc...

 

[St. Phatty]

When does it start with the mass shootings? In the 70s? I can´t remember and asked me that yesterday?

Been going on a long time. e.g. U of Texas, August 1, 1966

Just happens more often now.

University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[h.h.]

 

[HempKat]

Canada has a higher gun to people ratio how come there are no mass shootings in Canada?

Actually Canada does not have a higher gun to people ratio. In the USA there are 120.5 guns for every 100 people, while in Canada it's only 34.7 guns per 100 people. The USA is number one in guns to people by far. The number 2 honor goes to the Falkland Islands with 62.1 guns per 100. Yemen is 3rd at 52.8 guns per 100 people and that's with them in the middle of a civil war. Canada comes in at number 7. The USA is the only country in the world with the distinction of more guns then citizens.

Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[HempKat]

It’s usually when bad shit happens that we reevaluate our laws. If there was no bad shit, we wouldn’t need laws. There would be no reason. Folks wanting an answer is not why nothing gets done. That’s NRA bullshit.

Actually that's not entirely true. 67% of NRA members favor gun control in the form of Universal Background checks. So at least as far as here in the USA the blame for nothing getting done falls squarely on the shoulders of Republicans which is kind of odd because the general consensus of American's is that the reason Republicans always vote against gun reform is because they are bought off by the NRA. So at least in the case of Universal Background Checks, Republicans are actually voting against the interests of the people who line their pockets with money. You would think they would be smart enough to make it seem like they're actually doing something to improve the situation while still honoring the will of the lobbies that pay them so well by passing any law establishing Universal Background Checks.

 

[HempKat]

When does it start with the mass shootings? In the 70s? I can´t remember and asked me that yesterday?

There is no formal definition of mass shootings which makes it difficult to pinpoint when they began. The general accepted definition is "an act of public firearm violence (excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization) in which a shooter kills at least four victims. By this definition we started to see mass shooting in the mid to late 60's. In many people's minds these days however mass shootings, especially at schools, really started to become a thing after the Columbine High School Massacre which happened in 1999.

 

[Hermanthegerman]

Thank you for the answers!

Not far from here, in the city of Bremen happened 1913 a mass shooting at a school. The guy killed 5 little girls and wounded 18 girls and 2 teachers. I don´t now for sure, but I think I heard Germany is after the USA the country with most mass shootings. Before one week in my hometown, a guy was with a crossbow in a school and wounded the school secretary very bad. God thanks it happened not more.

 

[Cannavore]

 

[HempKat]

I would like to challenge everyone here to try to do something different. So far the 2 sides of the discussion (for gun reform and against gun reform) are lining up pretty much the same way they always do with the two sides saying the same things they usually do, just like our elected officials With the extremes being a total ban on guns on one side and "nothing can be done we just have to accept it" on the other side and of course everything else in between. Yet we all agree, I think, that these killings, especially of small innocent children is unacceptable and something needs to be done to change that. To do nothing is not really an acceptable outcome, yet with everyone taking what has essentially been the exact same positions as always and therefore there is no reason to believe that there will be any changes made based on the common definition of insanity which is generally seen as "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." So instead of following that path of insanity I would like to see us all try something different, instead of calling for the same measures that are generally called for by either side, how about we all try to come up with some new proposal that we think might improve the situation. When I reflect back on the most well known examples of mass shootings I see a common thread that all the shooters appear to have been suffering some form of mental illness. Because of that I feel like the most effective thing that can be done and be agreed upon by the greatest number of people would be to expand background checks to include mental illness as being something that disqualifies people from legally buying a gun but there is an inherent problem with that in that there are many people who suffer from mental illness that have not been diagnosed and/or treated. With most of these shooters it doesn't seem like they are recognized as suffering from mental illness until they commit a mass shooting. I feel like a big reason for that is that the cost for diagnosing and treating mental illness is very expensive and most people don't have health insurance that covers that sufficiently or worse yet they don't have any insurance at all and so their mental illness goes unnoticed and undocumented until the person snaps and commits a mass shooting. So I would propose that not only do we expand background checks to include mental illness but along with that we make the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness a totally free form of healthcare granted to all citizens and the cost be covered by the Federal government.

Now I recognize that doing that would not solve the problem and prevent any mass shootings from ever occurring again but that's not the point of this exercise. The goal isn't to come up with what we think will stop all future mass shooting from happening. Rather the goal is to come up with something new that we've never suggested before that might make a significant improvement on reducing the number of mass shootings without punishing all gun owners or take away the rights of sane, law abiding gun owners. The hope is that by proposing new and different solutions we might be able to come to an agreement on an effective answer to this problem of gun violence that we can then start pitching to our elected representatives.

 

[HempKat]

Thank you for the answers!

Not far from here, in the city of Bremen happened 1913 a mass shooting at a school. The guy killed 5 little girls and wounded 18 girls and 2 teachers. I don´t now for sure, but I think I heard Germany is after the USA the country with most mass shootings. Before one week in my hometown, a guy was with a crossbow in a school and wounded the school secretary very bad. God thanks it happened not more.

Just to be clear in my answer I wasn't trying to say that there were no mass shooting prior to the 60's that just the point in time where many seem to think it became a "thing". I'm sure if you looked carefully thru history you can find mass shootings that date back as far as when guns became a thing. Or at least as far back to when guns gained the ability to be fired rapidly in succession. I mean it's kind of hard to do a mass shooting if after every shot you have to repack the barrel with gun powder and a bullet.

 

[audiohi]

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the Uvalde school shooter had a "mental health challenge" and the state needed to "do a better job with mental health" — yet in April he slashed $211 million from the department that oversees mental health programs.

In addition, Texas ranked last out of all 50 states and the District of Columbia for overall access to mental health care, according to the 2021 State of Mental Health in America report.


Does anyone think he's going to add that $211 million back?

 

[Hermanthegerman]

Before an hour I thought the first one I heard of was 1979. Where the Boomtown Rats made the song "I don´t like sundays" about.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

I would like to challenge everyone here to try to do something different. So far the 2 sides of the discussion (for gun reform and against gun reform) are lining up pretty much the same way they always do with the two sides saying the same things they usually do, just like our elected officials With the extremes being a total ban on guns on one side and "nothing can be done we just have to accept it" on the other side and of course everything else in between. Yet we all agree, I think, that these killings, especially of small innocent children is unacceptable and something needs to be done to change that. To do nothing is not really an acceptable outcome, yet with everyone taking what has essentially been the exact same positions as always and therefore there is no reason to believe that there will be any changes made based on the common definition of insanity which is generally seen as "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." So instead of following that path of insanity I would like to see us all try something different, instead of calling for the same measures that are generally called for by either side, how about we all try to come up with some new proposal that we think might improve the situation. When I reflect back on the most well known examples of mass shootings I see a common thread that all the shooters appear to have been suffering some form of mental illness. Because of that I feel like the most effective thing that can be done and be agreed upon by the greatest number of people would be to expand background checks to include mental illness as being something that disqualifies people from legally buying a gun but there is an inherent problem with that in that there are many people who suffer from mental illness that have not been diagnosed and/or treated. With most of these shooters it doesn't seem like they are recognized as suffering from mental illness until they commit a mass shooting. I feel like a big reason for that is that the cost for diagnosing and treating mental illness is very expensive and most people don't have health insurance that covers that sufficiently or worse yet they don't have any insurance at all and so their mental illness goes unnoticed and undocumented until the person snaps and commits a mass shooting. So I would propose that not only do we expand background checks to include mental illness but along with that we make the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness a totally free form of healthcare granted to all citizens and the cost be covered by the Federal government.

Now I recognize that doing that would not solve the problem and prevent any mass shootings from ever occurring again but that's not the point of this exercise. The goal isn't to come up with what we think will stop all future mass shooting from happening. Rather the goal is to come up with something new that we've never suggested before that might make a significant improvement on reducing the number of mass shootings without punishing all gun owners or take away the rights of sane, law abiding gun owners. The hope is that by proposing new and different solutions we might be able to come to an agreement on an effective answer to this problem of gun violence that we can then start pitching to our elected representatives.

You and I already discussed my idea somewhat.

I'd like to circle back around to it and get more feedback, both positive and negative.

Medicare for All, a Universal Income program, and an end to the War on Drugs will do more to reduce gun violence than new gun laws.

Having said that, I would be ok with more stringent background checks and even reasonable waiting periods. And we absolutely need to close the DV loophole.

 

[unclefishstick]

I would like to challenge everyone here to try to do something different. So far the 2 sides of the discussion (for gun reform and against gun reform) are lining up pretty much the same way they always do with the two sides saying the same things they usually do, just like our elected officials With the extremes being a total ban on guns on one side and "nothing can be done we just have to accept it" on the other side and of course everything else in between. Yet we all agree, I think, that these killings, especially of small innocent children is unacceptable and something needs to be done to change that. To do nothing is not really an acceptable outcome, yet with everyone taking what has essentially been the exact same positions as always and therefore there is no reason to believe that there will be any changes made based on the common definition of insanity which is generally seen as "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." So instead of following that path of insanity I would like to see us all try something different, instead of calling for the same measures that are generally called for by either side, how about we all try to come up with some new proposal that we think might improve the situation. When I reflect back on the most well known examples of mass shootings I see a common thread that all the shooters appear to have been suffering some form of mental illness. Because of that I feel like the most effective thing that can be done and be agreed upon by the greatest number of people would be to expand background checks to include mental illness as being something that disqualifies people from legally buying a gun but there is an inherent problem with that in that there are many people who suffer from mental illness that have not been diagnosed and/or treated. With most of these shooters it doesn't seem like they are recognized as suffering from mental illness until they commit a mass shooting. I feel like a big reason for that is that the cost for diagnosing and treating mental illness is very expensive and most people don't have health insurance that covers that sufficiently or worse yet they don't have any insurance at all and so their mental illness goes unnoticed and undocumented until the person snaps and commits a mass shooting. So I would propose that not only do we expand background checks to include mental illness but along with that we make the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness a totally free form of healthcare granted to all citizens and the cost be covered by the Federal government.

Now I recognize that doing that would not solve the problem and prevent any mass shootings from ever occurring again but that's not the point of this exercise. The goal isn't to come up with what we think will stop all future mass shooting from happening. Rather the goal is to come up with something new that we've never suggested before that might make a significant improvement on reducing the number of mass shootings without punishing all gun owners or take away the rights of sane, law abiding gun owners. The hope is that by proposing new and different solutions we might be able to come to an agreement on an effective answer to this problem of gun violence that we can then start pitching to our elected representatives.

no more guns,but everyone gets a sword