A lot of the times what breaks the radio-noise of these constant shootings is hearing a parent or a loved one talk about the victim so personally. Really humanizes it and makes it more personal. What if it was me, one day? How would my family feel? I guess to some this is an appeal to emotion, but I think we're too emotionally removed from these tragedies just because of how often they happen and because of how the victims are always just numbers on a headline.
Sorry, but US style gun control wouldn't have done much. The gun was not an "assault weapons", perpetrator was not a criminal and was not dishonourably discharged, 10+ round magazine ban didn't do anything. Perhaps better mental healthcare for veterans, or just everyone in general?
Look, I know that, as a Brit, my opinions on guns are sometimes discounted on this forum, and I totally get how the US' feelings on freedoms have a lot of benefits, but I do think a mandatory 1-hour waiting period for a gun, universal background checks and a psychological assessment are reasonable things. Many will probably disagree, and I have had my juvenile 100% anti-gun stance soften significantly since speaking to some reasonable people producing reasonable arguments here. Still, it would be nice if the debate/discussion was not so toxic/partisan and we could talk about these things objectively.
It's really sad and shocking to see these events run in a cyclical pattern in the USA. I just feel that it's so upsetting and wish it could be corrected. Mental health funding would be a great start, but I do think some gun control measures, ignoring dumb shit like AWB, could be beneficial also.
I am sorry, America, that you must continue to go through national tragedies such as these. I know it'd depress me and I imagine it does the same for you guys.
<3
Oh dear, this thread will end well.
Top tier contribution my dude. Real thought provoking.
US style gun "control" is barely even that lmao. The checks and balances around gun ownership can prevent these kinds of attacks, but it involves actually doing more than cursory criminal record checks. Things like the AWB don't keep guns away from potential threats, proper training, storage requirements or more in depth checks on the potential buyer could help a lot here. What is their mental state like on average? Have they ever expressed extreme opinions / actively wanted to incite violence? etc.
US style gun control is not gun control
The state that this occurred in has some of the strictest regulations on firearms in the coutry including background checks and waiting periods, not to mention bans on other things that do nothing but appease gun control advocates. I almost never voice my opinion on here but I'm getting tired of people blaming guns and the law not being tight enough. If anything california still has the same problem as the rest of the u.s. with guns despite having these controls.
I'm not saying it's mental health specifically, but it feels lile there's something wrong inherent in our society such as wealth inequality, political polarization and otherization of political opponents, and possible other things that I'm not aware of.
Lazy policymaking to me is flat out banning and regulating things without clear understanding about why it is necessary and what is the cause of the problem. Banning guns for gangs doesn't solve poverty and poor education; banning guns for suicidal people doesn't solve the lacking mental healthcare and general healthcare system in the u.s. it plugs a hole in a sinking ship, it doesn't repair it.
But that's only my opinion, could be wrong but like I said. I'm getting tired of hearing that gun control is the solution.
Key word being "US style".
Sorry to burst your bubble, not only are you not going to get it, it's not possible to enforce the level of prohibition you want when the law can't even enforce the existing regulations properly.
California gun laws still are nothing compared to a lot of other countries' gun laws.
Plugging holes in sinking ships still buys you time to save some of the passengers aboard, even if it doesn't save the ship entirely.
You mentioned suicide by firearm. It's been discussed how having ready access to easy and quick ways to kill oneself increases the likelihood of suicidal people to go through with the act. Correlations between firearm ownership and suicide have been pointed out, and it doesn't seem that absurd to me that it would indeed contribute.
Stricter gun laws wouldn't get rid of the root cause of suicides, but it most certainly would still reduce their amount regardless.
The same goes for the topic at hand. Maybe being more careful about firearm ownership regarding people with PTSD would've prevented shootings such as this one, even if it simply means restricting access until those people get the proper care.
People are actually being subjected to multiple mass shootings in their lives until they are finally killed by one.
Think what it must be like for those people.
The U.S. also isn't a lot of other countries and restrictions on firearms aren't a clear way to stop any of this. It's stopgap, not to mention everything legal surrounding U.S. gun law. It isn't a privilge, it's legal, individual right to bear arms. It's not juat a right for fun or for protecting against criminals. It's mainly meant as a measure against tyranny, whatever form that it is. Political and civil power all derive from the root of force and the people literally bearing that power is not just symbolic.
Moreover, the amount of people killed in "mass shootings" is miniscule compared to vehicular death or suicide by firearm. NPR just did a report on incidents of school shootings and found that the majority of reported school shootings were misreported and overreported. Gun violence in terms of "mass shooting" is sensationalized and made a spectacle. I do however agree that mental health acreen would be good, but it brings problems.
Backgroumd checks already exist. Psychological screening is what might stop suicide by firearm but that invites 1. Cost of healthcare that some might not be able to afford. 2. Discrimination and denial of access to firearms based on political decision of a psychologist. Better treatment for people with depression and better access to healthcare would drive suicides down more than gun regulation in my opinion because problem 1. Is a healthcare issue and problem 2. Is overpoliticization and polarization of what should be a secular decision. Perhaps either of these problems might be rare, but I know 1. is a problem I face and 2. is something that frequently happens with police departments in the U.S. with an agenda.
Also taking rights away from people specifically due to mental health can be tricky. Some people cannot use firearms responsibly. That said, one case of PTSD or depression is not always like the other. People have PTSD and can function fine with firearms, others are suicide risks. The line of where to draw who should and who shouldn't is tricky.
On correlation of suicide versus firearm ownership. Excluding the U.S. in developed nations, it does not. Only in the U.S. is there this correlation. But I don' think this is primarily due to firearm ownership regulation. Mental health screening is probably best at dropping that correlation. But there are also the large social safety nets, healthcare systems, more representative parliamentary systems which enfranchise people, treat poverty, provide better education, and allow for more opportunities. I think these systems would, if implememted in the U.S., would be infinitely more effective im dropping gun deaths than juat regulation.
My state has very lax gun laws, a low crime rate, moderate-low suicide rate. Gun deaths aren't super common because there is also high per capita income. But there is a lack of very good social programs. I feel that mainly the affluence of the state is the biggest factor in bringing overall crime and death down and that social programs along with healthcare could improve this. But gun regulation also won't solve anything in this state.
There's already a week long waiting period for handguns and a universal background check. I do agree that within the background check, medical records of the person's mental health should be included. But people snap and go nuts every day, so I doubt even that would prevent anything. Even with all of that, this guy still would have been able to do this
We have more than DOUBLE the guns per capita than the second most armed country on the planet. It's just not feasible or possible to say Alright, No more guns, turn them in. Even IF 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate both agreed to repeal the 2nd amendment, 38 of the 50 states would also have to ratify it before it would become repealed. And even IF that happened, how are we going to collect AND seize over 400 million guns. We'd have to deploy police and military to go house to house to house, alley to alley, shed to shed, from shore to shore, turning everyone's house upside down to get them all. Otherwise only those who care are going to turn them in. Criminals sure aren't, and there's a good ass chunk of the country who will shoot someone before letting the government take their guns. I wish we could get rid of them, but I just can't see it ever happening
It's just simply too late for the US. All you can do is arm yourself with a conceal carry, practice with it a bit, and in the event you're caught up in some lunatics spree there's a chance you could save yourself and maybe other people, too
I still am going to think a gun ban is the best way to prevent mass shootings.
Sure, I know its near impossible to do it with how many guns are in the US, but it works for plenty of countries.
do you have a link to that npr report by any chance?
The School Shootings That Weren't
I wish the issue wasn't so polarizing. It seems if you're a politician you're either for kicking the can down the road and doing literally nothing, or for an Australia solution (or praying that anything enacted really is a slippery slope for an Australia solution) which wouldn't work for the US considering how prolific guns and gun culture is in the united states.
Mainstream Republicans dig in their heels and want no change at all, paying lip service at best to mental health (and then defunding it).
Mainstream Democrats keep clinging to this stupid idea that guns are divided into 'normal self defense/hunting guns' and 'weapons of war and mass killing', and we can fix everything while respecting the 2nd Amendment by only banning the latter. Plus the occasional noise, that goes absolutely nowhere, about repealing the 2nd Amendment and having an Australia-style mass confiscation.
It'd be nice if anyone in power demonstrated an interest in trying to bridge the gap, and do any of the things that might address gun violence without jumping straight to confiscations, but at this point I'm not holding my breath. It doesn't have to be this way, but we're too deep into partisan rhetoric and tribal politics now, and I don't see an end that doesn't involve one side simply crushing the other into submission to their simplistic platform.
What kind of gun ban? A total one? If not, what get's banned and how do you decide on what is banned?
Also, what are you going to do about the massive quantities of firearms already in the country?
Oh boy, here we go.
See you guys on page 20!
thank you, a very interesting article. it's a shame it's so hard to get actual numbers on these things.
see, i'm thinking this is going to become increasingly common and these people are going to attain some level of celebrity status
"Dave, this is your fifth mass shooting. How did you feel about your performance out there today?"
"Well, I kept my mind calm and stayed in the game. It's not my first rodeo *chuckles* so I had a bit of an edge when it came to the rookies. There was a moment where I thought he'd found me in the ceiling panel, but aside from that it was smooth sailing. Great police response time here today too."
The youtube comments are some of the most disgusting I have ever seen to this day.
Guns aren't really the problem. it's the sheer frequency of attacks.
You don't go on a shooting spree just because you think it's fun.
People act like it's not a wide-spread problem, but it is.
Even my little dusty Bumshart, Nowhere town had a mass-shooting.
And as someone who lost a friend to what was deemed "accidental discharge" while helping a cousin move, it's an incredibly surreal experience, having known someone since you were in kindergarten suddenly vanish from your life.
There is actually some evidence in the midterms that gun control is more electorally viable than ever
https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/1060977811584962560
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/gun-control-is-winning-issue-in-midterms-as-advocates-gain-in-house-defy-nra.html
California has every piece of gun control that gun control advocates ask for that hasn't already been declared illegal by the Supreme Court, and yet this mass shooting still happened there. They have "assault weapon" bans, they have magazine capacity restrictions, they have universal background checks, they have safe storage laws, the even have bloody background checks for ammo sales now, and despite that being exactly what every gun control advocate asks for none of it stopped this shooting. There are countries in Europe with looser gun control than California that don't experience mass shootings, but California, IIRC, has had at least 2 this year.
We're going to go back to 1994, but with even more emotionally charged minds. This is a problem that cannot and will not be solved with a single act being passed, and to do it properly is going to take years, possibly decades, of time.
Why build a house on a weak foundation, when you can do it right?
mass shootings will happened with or without gun control.
But we can sure as hell make the possibility lower if there is better gun control.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.