Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting [and gun control]

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Ever tried hiding a Glock in your rectum?

This one time, at gun camp, I....

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The UK has a diverse population, and gun control works there.

I think quite a few people in Belfast would disagree.

Beyond that, they don't have all that many guns in the UK.

At this point in the US considering how many guns the US has, imposing gun control laws similar to what Washington DC had before the Heller decision would strike me like locking the barn door after the horse has escaped.

In fact, such laws in Washinton DC were pretty useless and since they were ruled unconstitutional I don't think we've seen crime sky rocket.

[Czarcasm]

Anybody for locking the barn doors before we load it up with horses again?

[XT]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The UK has a diverse population, and gun control works there.

Here is the demographic breakdown by 'race' in the UK:

Ethnic group Population Proportion of total UK population
White British 50,366,497 85.67%
White (other) 3,096,169 5.27%
Indian 1,053,411 1.8%
Pakistani 747,285 1.3%
White Irish 691,232 1.2%
Mixed 677,117 1.2%
Black Caribbean 565,876 1.0%
Black African 485,277 0.8%
Bangladeshi 283,063 0.5%
Chinese 247,403 0.4%
Other Asian (non-Chinese) 247,644 0.4%
Black (others) 97,585 0.2%
Other 230,615 0.4%

Yes, they are diverse...relatively speaking. But they aren't close to as diverse as the US. Hell, we have more 'white' types of people than they do.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Anybody for locking the barn doors before we load it up with horses again?

Eh, someone would just shoot the lock off anyway.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by XT

Yes, they are diverse...relatively speaking. But they aren't close to as diverse as the US. Hell, we have more 'white' types of people than they do.

Sure they are, unless you count Hispanics as a totally separate group.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Sure they are, unless you count Hispanics as a totally separate group.

You did notice that 'white' people make up over 92% of the population in the UK, according to that cite...right? Even if you want to toss in all the Hispanics into the 'white' category you can't get the US up to that. You need to toss in our president and every one who has an even slightly pale complexion as 'white' to get us close to that here (blacks alone make up over 13% of the US population...compared to less than 8% if you count everyone not 'white' in the UK as 'black').

Come on...it's a silly point and it doesn't work. Yeah, the UK is diverse...but, let's get real here. They aren't in the same league as us diversity wise and you know it. Right?

[Really Not All That Bright]

White people are 72% of our population, not including people who identified as mixed-race. What difference do you think that 20% makes vis-a-vis gun control?

[XT]

A hell of a lot of difference, to be honest. Especially when you consider that even our 'white' people come from a truly diverse selection of nations, while theirs comes mostly from places in the UK (i.e. Wales, Southern England, Scotland, Middle England and Ireland). We have 'white' folks from pretty much every country in Europe (and everywhere else 'white' folks live) INCLUDING all of those regions in the UK (many of which alone bring all sorts of angst and tension, such as the Irish verse the English head butting)...and that's just one 'race' that you are blocking all together.

Seriously, you don't think there is more racial type tension in the US with or without guns than in some place like the UK? And that this tension translates into more violence? You figure we are like we are simply because we're 'allowed' to have guns??

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by XT

Seriously, you don't think there is more racial type tension in the US with or without guns than in some place like the UK? And that this tension translates into more violence? You figure we are like we are simply because we're 'allowed' to have guns??

The UK has 12,711 racially motivated hate crimes last year. The US had 4,057 in 2009 (the most recent year for which I could find Justice Department statistics). Even if we assume that 50% of the disparity is due to underreporting in the US (doubtful), we still have one eighth of the number of racially motivated crimes per capita.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Marley23

We also know where Holmes went to elementary school, and we know about his high school extracurriculars and church activities in addition to his college information. He's much younger than Wade Page was, so that seems pretty comparable to me. We'll know more about Page soon, including more recent activities and his job status. At this point we only know a few details, one of which is that he was in the military from 1992 to 1998 and that he was active in the white power music scene for a decade or so. I understand your opinion that his prior military service isn't relevant to what he just did and it makes sense to me, but we don't know that yet and the public can make its own determinations about relevance. It should be presented appropriate but there's no reason to ignore it or treat it as a footnote when not much else is known. Eventually it may be treated that way.

as has been noted his discharge has the potential to be highly relevant. It's logical to speculate that his white power views didn't happen overnight and likely created the situation which got him kicked out of the Army.

[Really Not All That Bright]

His discharge was for a series of alcohol related arrests, per CBS tonight.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The UK has 12,711 racially motivated hate crimes last year. The US had 4,057 in 2009 (the most recent year for which I could find Justice Department statistics). Even if we assume that 50% of the disparity is due to underreporting in the US (doubtful), we still have one eighth of the number of racially motivated crimes per capita.

At a guess the disparity has more to do with differences in reporting doctrine and criteria than less racial tension in the US than in the UK. Regardless, it doesn't show that the UK is as diverse as the US is, which it pretty clearly isn't.

Gun control works in the UK because of a variety of factors, most of which are historical...I don't believe the UK ever had guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms for the general population, so some form of control was always in effect there. They never had the huge amounts of private arms the US does either, so ramping up gun controls and even outright bans for most privately owned firearms was MUCH easier than it would be in the US. There are literally more guns in the US than there are Americans, so it would be a gargantuan task to round them all up, even if the population was behind it for the most part...which they surly aren't, not at this time in history.

Think about the fact that even today in the UK there are illegal guns available...then consider the fact that we have orders of magnitude more guns than they do in private hands.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The UK has 12,711 racially motivated hate crimes last year. The US had 4,057 in 2009 (the most recent year for which I could find Justice Department statistics). Even if we assume that 50% of the disparity is due to underreporting in the US (doubtful), we still have one eighth of the number of racially motivated crimes per capita.

I think one could make a very strong argument, though I'd be hesitant to make it, that there is more racism against Asians in the UK than blacks in the US and that African-Americans are better integrated into US society than Asians are in the UK.

Certainly, I don't think Asians in the UK are as remotely successful in politics or as represented among the most popular people in the country as blacks are in the US.

In fact, one thing I've found a bit disturbing as a fan of UK TV is the real paucity of Asian characters in UK television shows particularly in comparison to Black Britons.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

You cannot say the same thing about guns. Guns are made for fucking shit up.

Really? Other than practice to maintain proficiency around our house guns are used to do work - when feral dogs come to attack our poultry, they get shot and animal control gets a call to come dispose of the body [they tend to check them for rabies to see if it is in the feral population locally, I think it is a state program. Might be federal.] We also hunt - bambi and thumper are tasty when cooked properly. We also have used them to slaughter the occasional sheep for meat.

And yes, I do happen to have the idea that in case of home invasion I can shoot someone that is threatening my home and self - being unable to jump out a window puts me at serious risk. There is around a half hour wait before there is any sort of emergency police response, I am rural and the state police tend to patrol Willimantic which is a 20 minute drive minimum, or along rt 395 which is 20 minutes the other direction minimum.

No, I will not shoot anybody that is not threatening me - I have absolutely no interest in shooting up a temple of anybody, or a school, or post office, or grocery store. I am pretty much like most people who own guns in the US. Pretty much harmless unless threatened.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

Really? Other than practice to maintain proficiency around our house guns are used to do work - when feral dogs come to attack our poultry, they get shot and animal control gets a call to come dispose of the body [they tend to check them for rabies to see if it is in the feral population locally, I think it is a state program. Might be federal.] We also hunt - bambi and thumper are tasty when cooked properly. We also have used them to slaughter the occasional sheep for meat.

And yes, I do happen to have the idea that in case of home invasion I can shoot someone that is threatening my home and self - being unable to jump out a window puts me at serious risk. There is around a half hour wait before there is any sort of emergency police response, I am rural and the state police tend to patrol Willimantic which is a 20 minute drive minimum, or along rt 395 which is 20 minutes the other direction minimum.

No, I will not shoot anybody that is not threatening me - I have absolutely no interest in shooting up a temple of anybody, or a school, or post office, or grocery store. I am pretty much like most people who own guns in the US. Pretty much harmless unless threatened.

It doesn't take a lot of the other kind to make our country a very unsafe place to live. We need tools to fight the problem. Please stop/ do not oppose laws to track guns and ensure that those that possess them are mentally stable.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by XT

A hell of a lot of difference, to be honest. Especially when you consider that even our 'white' people come from a truly diverse selection of nations, while theirs comes mostly from places in the UK (i.e. Wales, Southern England, Scotland, Middle England and Ireland). We have 'white' folks from pretty much every country in Europe (and everywhere else 'white' folks live) INCLUDING all of those regions in the UK (many of which alone bring all sorts of angst and tension, such as the Irish verse the English head butting)...and that's just one 'race' that you are blocking all together.

Seriously, you don't think there is more racial type tension in the US with or without guns than in some place like the UK? And that this tension translates into more violence? You figure we are like we are simply because we're 'allowed' to have guns??

White people from different parts of the UK are plenty good at shooting each other. Ask the Oirish.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

You cannot say the same thing about guns. Guns are made for fucking shit up.

Originally Posted by aruvqan

Really? Other than practice to maintain proficiency around our house guns are used to do work -

... the work of fucking shit up.

... when feral dogs come to attack our poultry, they get shot and animal control gets a call to come dispose of the body ...

... then I'd say you definitely fucked that feral dog's shit up.

We also hunt - bambi and thumper are tasty when cooked properly. We also have used them to slaughter the occasional sheep for meat.

You wouldn't be eating any bambis, thumpers or occasional sheep unless you first fucked their shit up.

And yes, I do happen to have the idea that in case of home invasion I can shoot someone that is threatening my home and self -

And if you shoot someone sneaking out of your house with your Princess Di Commerative Plate collection, his shit will surely be fucked up.

Look, I'm not laying any moral judgement on guns, I just stated plainly what they do. Nothing gets built with a gun. A gun fucks shit up. That's what they are designed to do and they do it well.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by XT

At a guess the disparity has more to do with differences in reporting doctrine and criteria than less racial tension in the US than in the UK. Regardless, it doesn't show that the UK is as diverse as the US is, which it pretty clearly isn't.

It shows- rather conclusively, I might add- that racial animosity plays no part in explaining why the US is more violent than the UK.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I think one could make a very strong argument, though I'd be hesitant to make it, that there is more racism against Asians in the UK than blacks in the US and that African-Americans are better integrated into US society than Asians are in the UK.

Certainly, I don't think Asians in the UK are as remotely successful in politics or as represented among the most popular people in the country as blacks are in the US.

In fact, one thing I've found a bit disturbing as a fan of UK TV is the real paucity of Asian characters in UK television shows particularly in comparison to Black Britons.

Certainly when I was a kid there were no [South] Asian characters on TV, unless I was in London or Birmingham. There, you'd see lots of South Asian newsreaders and the like.

It's a bit different now, though. There have been Asians on Eastenders (a long running soap opera set in the shitty part of London) since the mid-eighties, and nowadays there are South Asian people on more or less all of them. There are even "Asian only" shows like Goodness Gracious Me, which was pretty much unthinkable when I was a kid.

If you look at the "most popular people in the country", most of those people are going to be athletes and entertainers. The UK's Asian community adopted Western music and sport (football, at any rate) relatively recently, so it's not surprising that there aren't many popular British Asian athletes or pop stars.

Asians have been fairly well represented on the England cricket team, and there are always outliers in music like Freddie Mercury, Biddu or Asian Dub Foundation.

As for politics, there have been Asians in Parliament since 1893, and in the Lords since 1919. All ethnic minorities are underrepresented in Parliament (only 22% of MPs are women, for example) so it's not surprising that Asians or black British people are underrepresented.

[BrainGlutton]

Pat Robertson blames atheists.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, he kind of burned out the blaming Satan one.

[Sekigahara]

It's rather astonishing to read these boards and find people arguing that the sale of guns and ammunition should not be strictly controlled, despite the regular occurrence of gun massacres in the United States (and elsewhere). All of the false-equivalence arguments aside, automatic pistols and assault-style rifles are designed for one thing: to kill people. Of course if you make them widely and easily available, more people will be killed by them. It's really that simple.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Sekigahara

It's rather astonishing to read these boards and find people arguing that the sale of guns and ammunition should not be strictly controlled, despite the regular occurrence of gun massacres in the United States (and elsewhere). All of the false-equivalence arguments aside, automatic pistols and assault-style rifles are designed for one thing: to kill people. Of course if you make them widely and easily available, more people will be killed by them. It's really that simple.

And yet you're still more likely to die in a plane crash or be struck by lightning than to be shot by a spree shooter.

People have been going on shooting rampages pretty much since cartridge revolvers were invented in the 1860s. Semi-automatics have existed since the 1890s and the .45 ACP dates from 1911. Yet somehow people weren't calling for abolishing the civil ownership of guns back then. I blame modern media. Before television one might read in a newspaper an account of a shooting in another state days or weeks after the fact, if at all. Now a shooting anywhere in the civilized world of billions of people gets televised in an hour or less.

If you completely abolished the private ownership of firearms, you would probably see some reduction in- not elimination of- shootings. Nuts and criminals who wanted guns badly enough would still get them. And this at the price of disarming the weak: women, the elderly, the outnumbered, who would go back to being helpless against people stronger than them or being ganged up on.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

And yet you're still more likely to die in a plane crash or be struck by lightning than to be shot by a spree shooter.

Thanks in no small part to relentless lobbying by the National Lightning Association.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

And yet you're still more likely to die in a plane crash or be struck by lightning than to be shot by a spree shooter.

People have been going on shooting rampages pretty much since cartridge revolvers were invented in the 1860s. Semi-automatics have existed since the 1890s and the .45 ACP dates from 1911. Yet somehow people weren't calling for abolishing the civil ownership of guns back then. I blame modern media. Before television one might read in a newspaper an account of a shooting in another state days or weeks after the fact, if at all. Now a shooting anywhere in the civilized world of billions of people gets televised in an hour or less.

If you completely abolished the private ownership of firearms, you would probably see some reduction in- not elimination of- shootings. Nuts and criminals who wanted guns badly enough would still get them. And this at the price of disarming the weak: women, the elderly, the outnumbered, who would go back to being helpless against people stronger than them or being ganged up on.

He wasn't saying anything about banning guns. Strict control of firearms would allow responsible people to have them (women, elderly, outnumbered ect) While diminishing the ability of people who associate with violent criminals to have them, and diminishing the ability of the mentally unstable to have them.

Argue against what most people actually propose not the extreme scenario you feel more comfortable talking about.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

People have been going on shooting rampages pretty much since cartridge revolvers were invented in the 1860s. Semi-automatics have existed since the 1890s and the .45 ACP dates from 1911. Yet somehow people weren't calling for abolishing the civil ownership of guns back then. I blame modern media. Before television one might read in a newspaper an account of a shooting in another state days or weeks after the fact, if at all. Now a shooting anywhere in the civilized world of billions of people gets televised in an hour or less.

To review: since the invention of revolvers there have been shooting rampages. In the past, people paid less attention. Today people get the news faster in more detail and they're horrified by the senseless violence committed with guns. Conclusion: guns fine, modern media bad. There's no reason there can't be some sensible, rational, effective gun control in the U.S., and there are some pretty good reasons to think that those things don't exist right now.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

And yet you're still more likely to die in a plane crash or be struck by lightning than to be shot by a spree shooter.

cite?

I think we already covered lightning strikes in this thread, concluding you are more likely to be shot in a shooting spree.

I don't think any Americans have been killed so far this year in plane crashes. Considering most Americans don't even fly during any given year I find your claim dubious.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

His discharge was for a series of alcohol related arrests, per CBS tonight.

It's not unheard of for people in the military to occasionally get drunk. I'm keeping the conjecture open that his discharge was for related anti-social behavior brought on by liquid courage.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

He wasn't saying anything about banning guns. Strict control of firearms would allow responsible people to have them (women, elderly, outnumbered ect) While diminishing the ability of people who associate with violent criminals to have them, and diminishing the ability of the mentally unstable to have them.

Argue against what most people actually propose not the extreme scenario you feel more comfortable talking about.

If not a general ban on firearms, then just what strict control are you talking about? Ban convicted felons from owning guns? Done that. Ban people with a history of serious mental illness from owning guns? Done that. Ban anyone from carrying in public without a permit? Done that. Ban gun dealers from selling anyone a handgun without doing a background check? Done that. Ban the interstate shipment of firearms except to and from federally licensed firearms dealers? Yup, you guessed it, done that too. So what do you suggest?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Ban people with a history of serious mental illness from owning guns? Done that.

Not really, from identifying people in need of treatment, including a lack of access to treatment, to reporting to the authorities who should not have access to guns for mental issues, the current system is a joke.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Magiver

It's not unheard of for people in the military to occasionally get drunk. I'm keeping the conjecture open that his discharge was for related anti-social behavior brought on by liquid courage.

A couple DUIs will get you the boot IIRC

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by aruvqan

Really? Other than practice to maintain proficiency around our house guns are used to do work - when feral dogs come to attack our poultry, they get shot and animal control gets a call to come dispose of the body [they tend to check them for rabies to see if it is in the feral population locally, I think it is a state program. Might be federal.] We also hunt - bambi and thumper are tasty when cooked properly. We also have used them to slaughter the occasional sheep for meat.

And yes, I do happen to have the idea that in case of home invasion I can shoot someone that is threatening my home and self - being unable to jump out a window puts me at serious risk. There is around a half hour wait before there is any sort of emergency police response, I am rural and the state police tend to patrol Willimantic which is a 20 minute drive minimum, or along rt 395 which is 20 minutes the other direction minimum.

No, I will not shoot anybody that is not threatening me - I have absolutely no interest in shooting up a temple of anybody, or a school, or post office, or grocery store. I am pretty much like most people who own guns in the US. Pretty much harmless unless threatened.

So then the question would need to be asked,

for an owner such as yourself, what sort of serious difficulty would a comprehensive set of gun registration and owner registration laws pose?

National database of gun owners with you name in it, serial number of a gun registered in your name, have to show that you have somewhere safe to keep it. Why would that be so bad?

Is it so very different to car ownership? Isn't a car registered to an owner? Don't you have to have a license to use it? If you use it unsafely you are subject to punishment?

[Lumpy]

How would registration have stopped either of the two most recent shootings? Both shooters were perfectly entitled to own the guns they did.

[XT]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

cite?

I think we already covered lightning strikes in this thread, concluding you are more likely to be shot in a shooting spree.

I don't think any Americans have been killed so far this year in plane crashes. Considering most Americans don't even fly during any given year I find your claim dubious.

I don't know, they both seem plausible to me. Where was it already covered that you are more likely to be shot in a shooting spree than struck by lighting? A quick search indicates that over 300 Americans are hit, on average, by lighting in any given year. How many are killed in a shooting spree, on average?

Plane crashes seem to vary wildly, and be dropping in recent years, but it seems to be between 500-800 deaths in the US due to play crashes per year (according to what I'm reading here there were none on commercial carriers in 2004, which is odd).

So, what are the average deaths due to shooting sprees in the US? I suppose it's all in how you define it, but my WAG is that it's a lot less than 300, on average in any given year. According to this it hovers around 100 (and, interestingly enough, has remained relatively constant since the 80's...it would be interesting to see if that remains true from the 50's to the 70's as well).

Originally Posted by Marley23

To review: since the invention of revolvers there have been shooting rampages. In the past, people paid less attention. Today people get the news faster in more detail and they're horrified by the senseless violence committed with guns. Conclusion: guns fine, modern media bad. There's no reason there can't be some sensible, rational, effective gun control in the U.S., and there are some pretty good reasons to think that those things don't exist right now.

We HAVE 'sensible, rational, effective gun control in the U.S.' already, so I guess my question here is why we need more? What problem are we trying to fix? Has the murder rate been increasing in the US due to personal fire arm possession? Has the rate of these mass murdering shooting sprees gone up and new regulation the only way to keep it under control? Skimming through Google I'd say that in both cases the answer is no...the murder rate in the US is actually going down slightly in recent years, and the number of these spectacular mass murders using guns has remained relatively constant over the past 30 years...so, again, my question is why do we need more regulation? Why aren't the current regulations working or enough?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by XT

We HAVE 'sensible, rational, effective gun control in the U.S.' already

I'm not convinced that's the case, and certainly just asserting it doesn't change my mind. I'm well aware of how rare these kinds of shootings are, and I'm suggesting they illustrate a problem with gun regulation as well as problems with the mental health system. I'm not proposing I have a specific answer on how to do that while respecting the Second Amendment, but I don't take it as a given that gun laws are in good shape.

[XT]

What metric are you using, then, to determine that our current controls aren't effective? To me, I think it shows that regulation of firearms isn't the only factor here, since we've had a changing regulatory environment while the rates of firearm crimes (especially these spectacular ones) has remained fairly constant over time, or even dropped.

I don't think that gun laws are in good shape (I think that the current regulation environment wrt gun control is a mess, with much of it being of the knee jerk variety that doesn't make much sense), but I guess I'm not seeing the problem we would be trying to fix with more (knee jerk IMHO) controls. Unless you could eliminate all privately held guns, something I frankly think is impossible in the US (at least on any sort of timescale that isn't generational), I'd say that things are about as good as they are likely to get. It's like alcohol...if you could ban it all, then you could save some lives every year. That's a given. However, since you can't ban it completely, society simply has to accept that this means some folks are going to die....sometimes tragically, and heart breakingly when it's the innocent killed by some idiot.

[Lumpy]

For the record, I'm not automatically against all gun laws. But too many things being proposed in the wake of the recent shootings are essentially security theater: they give the impression of increased safety while being unlikely to meaningfully improve the situation. The sad ugly truth is that once someone says "Fuck it! I'm going to go kill a bunch of people", they're beyond prohibition; there is next to nothing that can prevent it. Beyond the generalization that there are people willing to commit mass murder and that they will often use guns to do so, spree shootings are essentially a Black Swan Event.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Magiver

It's not unheard of for people in the military to occasionally get drunk. I'm keeping the conjecture open that his discharge was for related anti-social behavior brought on by liquid courage.

The last straw was apparently when he showed up for duty drunk.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Incredibly? Hardly. Page's military service (or hypotherical BA) was 15 years ago.

Holmes had, until the recent weeks, been a student, and I'm assuming that his PhD program was a direct continuation of his BS, which means that in this example they could practically be considered a single event.

Originally Posted by Marley23

We'll know more about Page soon, including more recent activities and his job status. At this point we only know a few details, one of which is that he was in the military from 1992 to 1998 and that he was active in the white power music scene for a decade or so.

I'm not sure Sicks Ate wants to press this point, but we now have plenty of additional details about the shooter and the military thing doesn't jump out all that much or look like a smear on veterans or something. The shooter was from Colorado, worked in missile system repair before becoming a psychological operations specialist, and was demoted and later discharged after being drunk on duty and going AWOL. He seems to have become active in white power music after that. He worked as a truck driver for about four years and was fired in 2010 after he received a drunk driving citation. So there's at least one small way his military service is relevant- that's two different jobs he lost for showing up drunk. Not to anyone's great shock, this guy sounds like a completely useless excuse for a person.

[Sekigahara]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

If not a general ban on firearms, then just what strict control are you talking about? Ban convicted felons from owning guns? Done that. Ban people with a history of serious mental illness from owning guns? Done that. Ban anyone from carrying in public without a permit? Done that. Ban gun dealers from selling anyone a handgun without doing a background check? Done that. Ban the interstate shipment of firearms except to and from federally licensed firearms dealers? Yup, you guessed it, done that too. So what do you suggest?

Sorry, your "facts" aren't accurate. US gun laws are a patchwork. In Arizona for example Jared Lee Loughner bought a Glock with an "instant background check", and in Arizona you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Cite: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801...lenient-in-u-s

The issue is not that there are NO regulations. The issue is that dangerous firearms (like automatic pistols and assault-style weapons) are too easy to acquire generally. So if you've been fired from your job, or if you're angry at your ex-wife, or you're drunk or on drugs, or if you are mentally unbalanced, you can now do a hell of a lot of damage before anyone can stop you. And I don't believe that the remedy is to ensure widespread ownership of firearms so old ladies and bystanders can shoot back. This is reality, not the movies.

So question for you: do you believe that the answer is to ensure that every law-abiding citizen is packing an assault weapon? I think Somalia tells you how that worked out.

[drewder]

It seems to me that there is only one thing that would stop these shootings. requiring every adult in the united states who is not a felon or insane to carry a firearm with them at all times in all places and know how to use it. This should be considered a civil duty akin to jury duty. How many would have died in CO with this policy? how many crimes would be stoped before they happened? As the saying goes when seconds count the police are minutes away.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by drewder

It seems to me that there is only one thing that would stop these shootings. requiring every adult in the united states who is not a felon or insane to carry a firearm with them at all times in all places and know how to use it.

Please define exactly what you mean by "...and know how to use it."

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by drewder

It seems to me that there is only one thing that would stop these shootings. requiring every adult in the united states who is not a felon or insane to carry a firearm with them at all times in all places and know how to use it. This should be considered a civil duty akin to jury duty. How many would have died in CO with this policy? how many crimes would be stoped before they happened? As the saying goes when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Is that an official stance of the NRA, because it sure sounds like it.

It's a perfectly ridiculous solution that only would make sense to Americans. We have more shooting deaths than any other country. Solution put more guns on the street! That will stop it!

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by drewder

How many would have died in CO with this policy?

With people shooting at each other in a dark, loud movie theater where the visibility was poor because of tear gas? It could have been less than 12 or significantly more than 12. I don't think you've thought this through very well. The 'jury duty' thing is another hint: people don't take jury duty seriously and they do whatever they can to get out of it. You can't wish the entire country into competent use of firearms, and in a crisis, general training is not going to help most people. People with real interest in firearm use and safety might respond well in a crisis, but those are the kinds of people who are either going to have guns and training, or they'll already be in the military or the police force. That aside, you can't force people to carry guns with them everyplace. Legal issues aside, people will end up leaving them home a lot - and the places they won't take their guns are the same types of places a lunatic like this guy might think to shoot up.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Is that an official stance of the NRA, because it sure sounds like it.

It might as well be, because as a lobby the NRA has been captured by firearms-industry leaders simply interested in selling as many guns as possible. Stoking their membership's paranoia of a government intent on taking their guns away is just a tactic to support this overall strategy.

Really, the disconnect between rank-and-file NRA members and the leadership's legislative priorities couldn't be more stark. A 2009 survey of NRA members--conducted by Fox News commentator Frank Luntz--found some surprising results:

• 65% of NRA members support closing the Gun Show Loophole, where 30+ states classify gun-show sales as "private sales" and hence don't require a background check.
• 69% of NRA members oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, provisions attached to federal spending bills that interfere with the ability of police agencies to use federal gun-trace data.
• 78% of NRA members support laws requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen. You may be surprised to learn that the NRA leadership opposes this--for example, by pursuing lawsuits and legislation in Pennsylvania that allows the NRA to sue local municipalities over such gun ordinances.

The list goes on, but it's enough to make the point that the NRA is far more interested in the money of gun manufacturers than its own membership. Much less trivialities like public safety.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

Stoking their membership's paranoia of a government intent on taking their guns away is just a tactic to support this overall strategy.

Who made that strategy possible in the first place?

[*]65% of NRA members support closing the Gun Show Loophole, where 30+ states classify gun-show sales as "private sales" and hence don't require a background check.

It's not a loophole. In most states it is legal for citizens to sell their firearms if they so desire. I could place an ad in my local newspaper in order to sell my hunting rifle if I wanted. So what exactly is the gun show loophole?

The list goes on, but it's enough to make the point that the NRA is far more interested in the money of gun manufacturers than its own membership. Much less trivialities like public safety.

If the leadership is divorced from the general membership of the NRA then why do those members stay?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Odesio

Who made that strategy possible in the first place?

I assume we're supposed to say the government here.

So what exactly is the gun show loophole?

You appear to be arguing that there's no loophole and that the loophole isn't a problem. I guess you don't like the term, but it was clear what CJJ* was talking about. The cite explained it in full.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I assume we're supposed to say the government here.

Nah, I like the government. I'm thinking that organizations like HCI and Mayors Against Guns have done a lot to shape the NRA into what it is today.

You appear to be arguing that there's no loophole and that the loophole isn't a problem. I guess you don't like the term, but it was clear what CJJ* was talking about. The cite explained it in full.

I know what he's talking about but I'm not clear about what makes it a loophole. Private sales of firearms are legal in most states. If someone sells a firearm at a gun show what loophole is being exploited? Maybe the NRA is coming down against this "loophole" for fear that it will lead to a general ban on private sales of firearms.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Sekigahara

The issue is not that there are NO regulations. The issue is that dangerous firearms (like automatic pistols and assault-style weapons) are too easy to acquire generally.

By "automatic pistols" I presume you mean autoloader or not-a-revolver. They've been around since the end of the 19th century; somehow people accepted them for over eighty years without screaming for them to be banned. As for "dangerous"- well what the heck is a gun supposed to be?

So if you've been fired from your job, or if you're angry at your ex-wife, or you're drunk or on drugs, or if you are mentally unbalanced, you can now do a hell of a lot of damage before anyone can stop you.

As opposed to killings where someone with an old-fashioned revolver or two shoots a dozen people? Or maybe just goes amok with a machete?

And I don't believe that the remedy is to ensure widespread ownership of firearms so old ladies and bystanders can shoot back. This is reality, not the movies. So question for you: do you believe that the answer is to ensure that every law-abiding citizen is packing an assault weapon? I think Somalia tells you how that worked out.

By the latest available statistics, the firearms ownership rate in Somalia is about 9%; that is, the total number of guns in the country is estimated to be equal to 9% of the population, and almost certainly most of those are held by armies and guerillas. The average Somalian is an unarmed helpless victim, cowering as brigands rape and loot the population.

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

It's a perfectly ridiculous solution that only would make sense to Americans. We have more shooting deaths than any other country. Solution put more guns on the street! That will stop it!

Has it ever really been tried? Even today only a small percentage of citizens routinely carry- carry permit rates hover at around 2% in my state and presumably not everyone who has a permit does carry. Some things only work if you go to one extreme or the other- a compromise or middle ground is worse than either extreme. Either you need for nobody to carry guns or for almost everyone to. The worst of both worlds is when a only a few people carry guns- the criminals and psychotics who intend to use them- and most people do not.

I would volunteer to live in a county in the USA where there was no government police protection, simply to participate in the experiment.

[Sekigahara]

Originally Posted by drewder

It seems to me that there is only one thing that would stop these shootings. requiring every adult in the united states who is not a felon or insane to carry a firearm with them at all times in all places and know how to use it. This should be considered a civil duty akin to jury duty. How many would have died in CO with this policy? how many crimes would be stoped before they happened? As the saying goes when seconds count the police are minutes away.

I have to assume your post is designed to provoke a reaction or you're into really earnest-sounding sarcasm. It certainly can't be taken seriously. Do you really think that engaging in a public gun battle qualifies as "stopping a crime before it happens?". I suppose you think calling the fire department prevents the fire from starting in the first place, do you?