We should start by banning message boards!
Don’t knock it 'til you’ve tried it.
Message boards don’t kill people-people with message boards(and guns) kill people.
Fewer school shootings* but an even bigger obesity problem than now. :dubious:;)**
*Actually, none if you had 100% adoption of virtual schooling. A kid could still be shot at home, but then it would be a home shooting.
**Do we have a smiley that signifies “I get that you’re not serious” but doesn’t actually include a smile?
We have exactly the same problem here in the US. Until the person actually commits a crime, they can’t be forced into treatment - and in the case of mass homicide, that’s a bit late for action.
I don’t know how to change the situation, though, without risking unjustly forcing ill-but-harmless people into treatment. Even most crazy people who seem like they may be dangerous turn out not to be. That’s one reason these tragedies are so hard to prevent: there’s a horrible noise-to-signal problem.
No, I’m modeling it accurately. If you look at mass shootings, you’ll find that a significant number of them actually do involve the use of rifles or shotguns. These days, most long guns used for hunting have magazines which hold around five shots. They’re as quick to reload as pistols. All the shooter has to do is carry a few extra magazines, and he’s ready for mayhem. The rounds do weigh more, but given the quantities of ammo some of these jerks have on them when they begin their killing spree, I don’t think they’ll find that a big problem.
I think it’s a question of balance. In the past the balance was tipped too far in the direction of incarceration and other harsh measures in response to the mentally ill. In response, laws were reformed, but now the balance has tipped too far in the other direction - or at least, so it appears to me.
I know several families who are basically in dispair because they have family members who are ill and will not voluntarily get treatment, and in some cases are a potential danger to themselves and to others - and seemingly nothing can be done until they commit serious crimes. Even then, I understand, they may in some cases simply be dumped in with the general prison population.
My impression is that resources for dealing with the mentally ill who do not want to be helped are inadequate, both in terms of laws and in terms of funding and institutions.
It does seem unrealistic to me, at least partially because there’s no evidence stricter gun laws could effect anywhere near an order-of-magnitude reduction in gun violence. Take a look at this list of countries by firearm-related death rate, and click the arrow to order by homicide rate (because suicide rates aren’t reported there for most countries).
The United States comes in at 2.98 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people. Somewhat high, but comparable to Austria (2.94) or Belgium (2.43) and only around double that of Norway (1.78), Denmark (1.45), or Sweden (1.47). Is it significantly easier to procure a gun in Belgium than France? I dunno — but I suspect there’s a lot more going on WRT violence than gun control laws. And if that’s true, then clamoring for tighter regulations that’ll never happen may present a bit of a red herring.
The point is that someone who is planning to shoot up a classroom will obviously not be deterred by laws about gun licensing and registration.
“Oh, I’d really like to go commit mass murder, but I’m afraid I don’t have the necessary permits.”
Most people don’t know where to attain an illegal gun.
The Newtown school had such a program and put it into effect during the shooting. Children in other classes hid in closets and behind desks in case the shooter entered more classrooms.
Thats not the point I was responding to. Someone said we need to crack down on guns and runner responded (in typical pro-gun fashion) that the people who commit these crimes dont care about the laws - IE they would still get the guns by illegal means. I was refuting that point. If they don’t have a gun it is harder to shoot people with one.
Oh, I thought you were responding to his statement about carrying a gun, which requires a permit in most states.
If you are going to flat out ban all guns, sure, your point is valid. But if you are still going to allow law-abiding people to buy guns, then most of these shootings will still occur, because most of the shooters are initially indistinguishable from law-abiding citizens.
That’s the best idea I’ve heard of in a while. It would delay people getting guns, but back when it took a few days to get a letter in the paper no one said that their freedom of expression was infringed upon.
True. But here is a plan for that. All existing owned guns would be grandfathered in, but would have to be registered, and have a serial number added. Unregistered guns would be illegal. Each gun owner would be expected to keep a list, and to report guns which were stolen immediately.
It would be a great way of getting gang members and militia loons off the street.
I wonder what Madison and Hamilton would have thought about the current situation. The guns they protected were single shooters. It is not at all clear to me that the 2nd Amendment would be the same if the Founding Fathers had anticipated the current technology.
Yes. And the deaths of the 3000 children per year to auto accidents is also significant to the parents. And the 700 deaths to falls. And 30 deaths on playgrounds. And 800 deaths due to poisoning. And the many thousands of deaths to childhood diseases. And the several hundred deaths due to suicide. Several hundred to the flu. Several hundred to drowning. Several hundred to fires. Etc, etc.
You have to go pretty far down the list to find school shootings. Resources are better spent elsewhere, especially considering the insane opposition there would be to any such measure.
This is exactly the same as terrorism.. A completely overrated and overreported risk that everyone is paranoid about, and nobody has any right to be paranoid about it. It is an irrational fear. Tragic when it happens, obviously, but also, thankfully, incredibly rare.
Since gun control has so little effect when a country is awash in firearms, how about some sort of voluntary or mandatory nationwide disarmament campaign. I know Brazil has done something like it – not sure how it’s worked out though.
A defensive strategy (arm more people/increase security) seems silly to me when we could be focusing on diminishing the causes themselves: mental illness + guns.
Well, I can’t speak to the specifics of today’s tragedy as news is still forthcoming. But I was using the word “assault” meaning a weapon designed for a primarily offensive purpose, generally anything that wasn’t a hand gun, shot gun or hunting rifle. Something that holds more than 6 rounds, etc.
Except that a great deal is done to prevent terrorism on all levels of government, and there were ever another major terrorism attack in the U.S., nobody would take this “it happens” attitude. The fact that something is rare does not mean that nothing should be done about it. There are cost-benefit ratios to consider, but the fact that something doesn’t happen much - school shootings, terrorism, whatever it is - does not preclude taking rational measures to prevent it. Some of the responses to terrorism were absurd, others made sense. Some ideas in response to school shootings or shooting sprees don’t make sense, but some do. Good responses would be changes that make sense on their own and not just as reactions to a tragedy, like changes intended to get health care for people with severe mental illness and prevent them from getting guns, and not, say, an intrusive and expensive ID card system for schools that wouldn’t do anything when someone walks to the door and opens fire anyway.
It’s the best idea if you’re trying to make things unnecessarily difficult for law-abiding gun owners out of spite. Gun control enthusiasts will be happy at the thought that they’ve forced all the nasty gun owners to grovel in front of bureaucrats, but it will do very little to curb these mass shootings.
The 5 gun limit is pointless. All you need for a mass shooting is 1 gun. Maybe 2 guns if you’re a careful mass murderer and you want to have a backup. Once a person has 1 gun, additional guns don’t really change the equation, so any limit simply punishes gun enthusiasts.
And the requirement that the gun owner has to justify their ownership is ridiculous. As if a potential mass murderer is going to be put off by the requirement that he “certify” he only use the gun for hunting. Give me a break. All this will do is inconvenience law-abiding citizens.
I don’t see the purpose of a waiting period either. Most of these mass shooters carefully plan in advance, and making them wait a week won’t help much.
The shooter carried a Glock handgun and a Sig Sauer rifle, the latter of which seems to meet the (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) AWB criteria for an “assault weapon”, and is certainly an assault rifle.