That actually supports my point- it would be even harder to enforce these laws IN the US than it is to a country close to the US.
No it wouldn’t. Mexico can’t enforce it’s laws in America obviously, and having such an ocean of guns next door makes enforcing such laws ineffective. Neither factor would apply to America.
Yes it would- the ocean of guns wouldn’t be next door, it would be inside the house.
So you did. Don’t know how I missed that.
If he was a college student they’d tell us what college he went to. If he was a former Wal-Mart employee, they’d tell us that. It’s just biographical data. In this case, it’s particularly relevant since he would have received (at least some) weapons training.
You really think, if he earned an BA in theater from Little State Tech that they would make it a point to say so in the first paragraph or so? I don’t, which is why I think that mentioning his time in the military is nothing more than media sensationalism.
And the firearms training he is likely to have recieved is also so long ago, and so far detached from this type of scenario that it is also moot.
don’t say it don’t say it don’t say it don’t say it don’t…
It says he was given a “less-than-honorable discharge” for “acts of misconduct” which is pretty vague. Anyway, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that being in the army in the 90s, and never serving in a theatre of combat operations, made him into a racist since the army is arguably the most well-integrated institution in the US and has a zero tolerance policy regarding racism.
Rectum? Damn near killed 'em!
We don’t yet know why he was discharged. We know it was less than honorable, so it’s possible that that is relevant. Your link doesn’t say he served in an administrative position, but I’ll take your word for it, and Really Not All That Bright is also correct that it’s basic biographical information. I think leading with this detail can create a misleading impression and the fact that he was in some racist bands is more relevant, but I think you’re overreaching a bit to dismiss it entirely.
Suicides are suicides. However, if you want to leave in accidental deaths I’m game. Tell me…compared to all accidents in the home, how many involve firearms?
I noticed you didn’t answer the actual question though of whether gun violence has risen, dropped or remained the same despite a changing regulatory environment and the supposed softening of regulations and loopholes.
That’s fine as a nice dream, but realistically it’s not going to happen. Realistically, what you MIGHT get is some tougher regulations in some places…many of which won’t really make much sense and be more of the knee jerking type than ones that might actually address real, as opposed to perceived problems. So, again I ask…has this type of gun violence gotten more prevalent in the last few decades, less or remained about the same? How has realistic gun control and the loosening of controls recently affected the numbers of these types of spectacular shootings? How has it affected the normal gun violence in the US?
Well, it *is *Swiss. Doesn’t matter if it’s a rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle, it’s going to be regulated :p.
Maybe not in the first paragraph, but it’d be in the story.
Why does it matter when he received the training? You don’t forget how to shoot a gun, though your aim might get worse.
You certainly can ‘forget’ how to shoot a gun. Besides, just about anybody can pick up a gun and figure out how to shoot it…it’s not as if his military training was the least bit necessary for him to carry out this attack.
Another point I’d like to make is that I think, in general, people greatly overestimate the amount of firearms training the average non-infantry/MP/etc. military person has.
He was a missile system repairman and psychological operations specialist. It’s likely he actually shot for a couple days a year when he had to qualify.
I last fired a gun when I was nine or ten. I can still remember how to operate that gun (a bolt action rifle) without even having it in front of me.
That’s still more than the average citizen does. Look, I get that he’s hardly like to have PTSD or something as a result of his military experience. That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant.
Lest you think this is some sort of media campaign to demonize the military, the Postal Service has it twice as bad.
I do? Why? Please explain.
Were I to guess, I would say it’s probably because they’re seldom used. But that is just a guess. I’m curious as to why you think I’m required to explain this, or indeed address the matter at all.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Gun ownership in European nations was never as widespread as it has been in North America. They closed the barn door before the horse got out. In the States, you’ll have to deal with the fact that there are already hundreds of millions of firearms already out there, and a culture in which firearm ownership and use is considered pretty much a sacred right. Given those facts, I have very little trust that an effective program to great reduce the availability of firearms is going to work all that well.
I know a number of gun owners, some of them relatives. None of them fit that description.
Because you’re saying it is the mere availability of firearms which creates the problem, and drasticly reducing gun ownership will solve it. My view is that the attempt to remove firearms from society in general will simply create another mess similar to our drug laws, and severe restrictions on gun ownership will do little or nothing to reduce spree killing or more ordinary criminal violence.
The fact remains that firearms–military quality, no less–are widely distributed in Switzerland, and yet firearm deaths are so rare they don’t even keep statistics on them. Whatever the problem is, it isn’t that firearms are widely present in society at large.
You’re making things up. What I’m saying is that the comparison to pools and cars and ladders is invalid and poorly thought out. I didn’t say anything about your problems or how to solve them. Americans constantly shooting each other is a tragedy, but it isn’t my tragedy.
Are you trying to say that gun owners are addicted to their guns the same way that druggies are addicted to their drugs, and that sudden withdrawal could bring dire consequences, like a desire to break the law to support the addiction?