Fuck's sake. Yesterday in the House they tried to have the traditional moment of silence for the victims of Sunday's attack. Tried. Before they could silently pay their respects, Democrats started loudly yelling and chanting about gun control and several of them walked out. This country is beyond broken and neither Trump nor Hillary are the people to fix it. http://www.postandcourier.com/20160...o-shooting-in-call-for-action-on-gun-violence
You have to appreciate the irony that the Senate/Congress that has done nothing whatsoever to curb gun violence in the face of ever escalating mass shootings is honouring the most recent victims with a moment of silence, though. It is, quite literally, the very least they could do.
Dont let the media bullshit you. Gun homicides have dropped by 31% and nonfatal gun violence has dropped by over 60% in the last 20 years in the US. Source
We have many, many gun laws on the books already. Wouldn't it just be much easier to actually enforce those laws? Specifically the laws aimed at the possession of stolen firearms and felons in possession of firearms...you know, the guns that are actually used to commit crimes.
However, the vast majority of that drop was in the early 90's - and I would attribute that largely to the mass incarcerations and 'abortion' drop that I referred to in an earlier post. Yet, the question remains: we have more gun violence than any other First World country, and I still believe, as DCC mentioned earlier, we are hypocrites as a society because we bemoan these tragedies, say we want them to stop, but the moment actually doing what needs to be done, become silent. I guess my point is as Americans, either accept these things are a necessary part of gun ownership, or do something about it.
And again this old chestnut. Most of the guns used in these mass shootings were legally obtained, and only stolen prior to their use in these shootings, typically. So unless you're prepared to have a cop sitting watching every single one of the 300 million legally obtained firearms in the US to make sure they aren't 'stolen' by a person living in that home, the enforcement of these laws isn't going to change a thing - because while the shooter would be charged undoubtedly with that particular crime, they are usually dead at that point.
You do realize that these highly publicized mass shootings are just a drop in the bucket of the shootings in this country? Most shootings are not reported anywhere above local news and involve felons, should be felons (Thanks to reduced charges in previous crimes) and stolen weapons.
Just a thought here....it's becoming more and more likely the shooter was a closeted gay. Interestingly his father said he had become upset when he saw two men kissing. What if one of those men kissing was the object of his affection, whom he'd met at Pulse, and he chose that target as revenge for being spurned?
I think the men kissing stuff was down in Miami? Or did I hear that wrong? Either way, his father is a fucking piece of shit for not taking any responsibility for downloading extreme homophobia in his kids brain his whole life. No one is taking it a step further and wondering why it made him so mad to see dudes kissing. That shit is taught and usually from your parents.
It's sad to me talking to friends that their only real interactions with guns AT ALL is just hearing theses stories on tv and the resulting political discussion.
The new leading theory is that he was gay and couldn't come to terms with it due to the blatant homophobic teachings of his father and that he was trying make amends to his father for his own issues by attacking a large group of gay people.
As far as I know, it was in Miami. And yes, people are wondering (And placing blame) on why it made him so mad. The general consensus I'm seeing is the PC version....it's because of the conservatives and Christians, because blaming his father and/or religion would be hateful against marginalized people.
Yeah I called this on the weekend when I was talking to my father. I said, "It's going to turn out that he was probably gay," and it looks like that might be the case. They need to stop treating this as an act of terror. It's a hate crime, probably acting out against a life within himself that he hated.
You can hash out all the details of this guy's life, learn what made him tick, whether he was a closeted spurned gay man, whether he was affiliated with a radical Islamist terror cell, whether he'd had enough of beating his wife and decided to go out in a hail of bullets - honestly, none of it matters. None of it. Like a bomb tester after the fact, you will know what caused that one to go off - but not what will cause the next one, or the one after that, or the one after that. And there will be more of these. That's the sad reality of it. Is mental health part of the problem? Absolutely. But mental health problems exist in other countries where people don't go on rampages on this regular of a basis. Is homophobia and bigotry part of the problem? Absolutely. But those problems also exist in other countries where people don't react by wiping out 50 people in a matter of minutes. Is gun control and responsible gun ownership part of the problem? Absolutely. But this issue is met with such backlash and argument that it'll never be changed. Never. I'm putting money that, in my lifetime, the gun laws in America will never ever change. People want a reason - they want a reason why this person did the things they did, what we could have done to prevent it, what we could have done to identify him earlier and keep that kind of weapon out of his hands. And we will focus on those reasons until we're past the point of feeling that high level of pain that initiates any kind of action, and we'll go back to being complacent and feeling that sense of security that comes from "no one in my neighbourhood/county/parish/state has been shot this week". It happened with Sandy Hook, it happened with San Bernadino, it happened with Columbine, it happened with Virginia Tech, it'll happen with Orlando, and it'll happen with the next one. I realize I'm speaking from a perch. My country has violence too, be assured. But it hasn't become so commonplace for someone to grab a gun, in Canada, that it doesn't make the front pages until the number of dead and wounded exceed X. For Christ's sake, one of the top stories in Toronto - the most highly populated area in Canada - right now, is one remaining escaped Capybara from the local zoo. To close, I'm sad. I'm sad that this keeps happening. I'm sad that I, and so many others, feel the despair and hopelessness that comes from not feeling protected and not feeling safe. I don't have a solution. But I know that what has been done hasn't worked. So something else needs to be tried.
Yes, I do realize that most shootings are mass shootings. Yes, I'm aware some shootings involve felons - but as to the bolded section, we don't live in a world of Minority Report, unfortunately. Almost all stolen weapons were initially legally obtained, then someone steals them. Hence, my prior point regarding how do you prevent that? The enforcement of laws can generally only happen initially, and after the fact. Meaning, initially, dealers can't sell to felons. While there is certainly cases where this does happen, that's not where the majority of the weapons are obtained by felons. As noted, they are usually purchased by someone else who doesn't have a record (strawman purchases) or they are stolen from people whom legally obtained them in the first place. So 'enforcement' on that end of things might help a little, but by and large, those laws are enforced. Plus, theft is a crime in its own right. If the felon is not caught with the weapon between the time of the theft/straw purchase, then they use the weapon in a crime, which is a further crime. Then they are charged with that offense, and possession of the weapon. The thing that the enforcement argument glosses over is that unless you are willing to forego every other Constitutional right implicated, i.e. search and seizure, property rights, privacy rights, the only way to truly make a dent in the rate of shootings is either: lock everyone up, post a policeman on every person in the US, or... get rid of some of the 300 million guns we have in this country. I understand no one likes that argument, but the avoidance of the obvious is why this 'political discussion' is all a red herring (mental health, enforcement, etc.) How do I know its the only way? Because we've tried everything else. This is not a new thing, it has been going on for decades, we're armed people - because people with guns stop bad guys with guns. Except that almost never happens. We've restricted sales to pretty much everyone that we can Constitutionally (which isn't very many people overall - juveniles, felons), and we still have the most gun violence in the civilized world. All this so we can avoid the obvious, because we don't want to do two things: 1) give up guns; and 2) Acknowledge that the assertion of that gun right necessarily results in violence because with the amount of guns we have, someone, somewhere, is going to get their hands on one and use it unlawfully. That's unfortunately how freedom works - some people will abuse it. Look, I don't like guns, but if that's what people want, that's fine by me. My main point is let's not be hypocritical about it and bemoan the fact that we have shootings when we're not really willing to do the one obvious thing that would reduce it. You like your guns? Great. Dead kids go along with that. You don't want dead kids from firearms? Then you have to reduce the amount of firearms. That's the math. Australia did it, and it worked (now cue someone trotting out the NRA sponsored report by an economist saying that the law didn't make a statistical impact - but make sure you view the last index where the hard numbers are and you see for yourself that it indeed did do just that.
What are you talking about? The solution is simple. Prevent all would be domestic terrorists from obtaining firearms and stop them before they try to commit heinous acts then lock them up forever.
What exactly should Congress do to prevent this type of crime? Edited to remove trolling: We've had this discussion before. Let me be more specific. What law can Congress pass that falls within the limits of the Constitution that will have a real effect in preventing crime while also protecting the rights of millions of gun owners who have never shot anyone? Usually when I ask this question I get "I don't know but they have to do something!" Or "Well, first you have to admit there is a gun problem in America." Those are not solutions.
Pass legislation that makes it more difficult to obtain a fire arm, and pass legislation to reduce the number of guns in circulation? I agree with VI. The only way to curve the gun violence issue is to reduce the number of fire arms.
That's a very general answer. You have to be more specific. What restriction would you put on gun purchases to have made it impossible for the man who committed this crime to obtain a weapon? Also, how do you "pass legislation to reduce the number of guns in circulation?" What does that law look like? You're talking about a confiscation scheme now. Whose guns will you take? Let me remind you that the Brady Bill would not have prevented John Hinckley, Jr. from purchasing the weapon he used to shoot President Reagan and Jim Brady. We cannot pass laws that will have no real effect simply for the sake of passing laws.