Enforcing anything based on a mental health diagnosis is lunacy. Look at the DSM and see how vague and nebulous those definitions are. It's not like biological medicine where the presence of a bacteria can be confirmed by anyone, over and over again. The solution to guns in this country is instilling a sense of inclusion. We are all in this together, kind of thing. That's how the countries with tons of weapons (like Sweden) avoid this kind of shit. Culturally aligning people against violence, and instilling enough military discipline in the populace to ensure responsible gun owners. We don't have a gun problem nearly as much as we have a mental health problem. Our mental health problem, however, cannot be addressed through legislation
I'm not a doctor so I can't say what criteria would be necessary, but doesn't the number of mass shooters who are mentally ill make you think it is at least worth considering a look into those laws? I very much agree that in the big picture we need to massively reform how we help those who have issues, but to me it seems like one of several things we need to take a look at in reducing the amount of gun violence. I could be wrong, and who even knows if some laws could have prevented this event now, but I don't think it should be dismissed. It is part of what the ATF does, but they can't do anything if the states aren't reporting to them. According to a 2012 Government Accountability Office report, 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited for mental health reasons. The state laws for reporting are all over the place: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43040.pdf
You know another thing most of these mass shootings have in common? "Gun Free Zones." ( I *Think* I may have read yesterday that this school in Oregon is an exception to that though.) You know where I'm going to go if I'm a lunatic and I want to turn real life in to a session of GTA? A place where guns aren't allowed. Seriously, train and arm instructors. That would put a stop to a lot of these school shootings if the person knows instead of fish in a barrel, they'll be dealing with folks that are equally armed and probably better trained then them.
You're honestly advocating arming teachers? I don't care how well you train a teacher on turning a safety on and how to hit a target, unless they are trained in some sort of combat situation, the likelihood of that weapon having negative fallout is far higher than the odds of it stopping a madman. The idea of combating school shootings by adding more guns, more guns into a school setting with children no less, makes my head spin. Oh and as for equally armed, if I'm walking into a school with an assault rifle, I wouldn't imagine teachers aren't equally armed.
Okay, you can't write a good sized post talking about how we need to stop going after the symptoms and focus on the problem, then post the above. The problem is someone thought it was a good idea to walk into college and start shooting people up AND had the easy access to the tools necessary to pull it off. No matter how hard it might be, we need to figure out how to solve for those two things.
Yup and yup. As someone who works in a "gun free zone," it scares me. All gun free zones do is deter those who are following the law and prevent those who are capable of lawfully defending themselves from doing so; those who are determined to kill couldn't care less. I do not agree with arming teachers, for too many reasons to get into here. I do, however, firmly agree with arming someone one premises, with the caveat that that person is highly trained both in non-lethal self defense and laws governing such, subjected to random drug screening, proficient in using the firearm, and goes through periodic mental and physical health evaluations. I've been involved in a few school lockdowns, always better safe than sorry. Some of them were way too close for comfort. We have backup plans for backup plans for backup plans. But what it will come down to is who will react and in what ways if shit hits the fan, and violence of action if/when they do. Have to make the intruder realize that the cost of continuing is greater than the cost of retreating. That being said, you're more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to school (or slipping in the shower getting ready) than you ever are at school. The amount of preparation that goes into protecting for something statistically rare, vs preventing something relatively common is absurd.
I never bought the gun free zone argument. Has a single mass killer specifically mentioned searching out a gun free zone? Like researched the facilities policies before hand? Maybe Holmes? I think the more logical conclusion is the vast majority of public and private spaces are gun free to begin with. Doesn't take much happenstance to wander into one. I do think they more likely keep law abiding citizens afraid to carry over all than being a specific target for a shooter.
I agree that teachers are probably not the best choice to protect the students. Like ROTN pointed out a well trained security guard/team depending on school size would probably be the best route to go in order to protect the students. Adding barriers to entry (key cards, ect) would also help. I think using buzz words like "assault rifle" are somewhat misleading since those are simply semi-auto rifles that look cool. It's far more likely to be hand guns because they are easier to transport and hide when walking into a building.
Actually, that college is a Gun Free Zone. Not allowed to have a gun because, you know, someone might get shot.
Funny you say that... http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...th-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/
Armed citizens are still hairless monkeys that are easily panicked, and especially susceptible to overreaction. We have wide disparities in the laws that would allow for a gun owner to legally dispatch a mass shooter and escape prosecution. It's also far more likely that a gun would be used inappropriately than it would save lives (cuz, y'know...they are designed to do the opposite). For examples, look at police officers who are highly trained compared to the average citizen. You won't have to search far for a panicked cop shooting someone by accident, stray bullets hitting bystanders or unnecessarily escalating a situation by brandishing a gun. Also, gun owners are more likely to have accidents or commit suicide using a firearm....hundreds of times more likely than using said firearm to defend their home. I don't buy gun-free zones as prime targets and I don't buy the idea that armed teachers make for safer schools. Statistically, just being around guns is more dangerous than not...more dangerous to your kids, your neighbors and you. That's the simplest logic that exists: guns are tools designed to kill indiscriminately, so being around them is dangerous. Not being around them is generally safer. However there are .9 guns for every 1 person in this country. At this point, trying to control access would be practically unenforceable. Proliferation seems to make a much more volatile and violent society (look at places like Mexico and Somalia for the answer to "what if we all had guns all the time everywhere?"), especially in the absence of formal, standardized training.
I'm not buying the ownership high/violence low concept. Look at suicides, domestic violence incidents and gun charges that don't involve actual shootings (having a gun where you are not allowed to have a gun). I simply don't believe being around guns is safer. If you substitute the word gun for any other weapon, like "bomb" or "land mine", that argument falls on it's face. Having a highly armed populace and believing that gun ownership is the key to safety and security is a lot like only having a hammer and every problem looks like a nail. Also, I know enough cops and military who are not human beings I would trust to react calmly in a tense situation, especially with everyone armed. I'm saying that throwing a pile of weaponry into the general population does not make it safer, regardless of population density, training, etc. The only thing that will overcome that is a culture where we are all in this together and shooting someone isn't glorified from Saturday morning cartoons to CNN. To be fair, I'm a gun owner and I will never relinquish control of my firearms to the government. I am supremely glad that my guns were not around during my depression or when I got robbed, because I can't honestly believe I would have made perfect choices in those situations. Which is precisely why mental health can't be a requirement of gun ownership: it's too fluid. Remember when being homosexual was in the DSM? That wasn't too long ago. I'm also saying that controlling the supply of something that can be 3-d printed and easily 300 million already are privately owned is beyond the reach of our government as it stands today. I'm aware Mexico has tons of strict laws, and look at all the good it's doing. Rural crime rates differ from urban crime rates, even when gun ownership is the same. Why? Less people to commit crimes, for one. Higher familiarity/more difficulty committing a crime unrecognized is another. This is the hardest part of this argument: crime rates are at historic lows and no single factor can be isolated for a reason why. I keep going back to this: the government can't stop it. We, as a nation of people, have to change our culture before gun violence will ever subside.
There is always this talk on gun boards around the time of shootings. Some retard yahoos suggest Civil War 2.0, the least likely situation in today's electronic satiated world. I think most likely in this theoretical scenario of confiscation you might see very small pockets of organized resistance, they might rally around a handful of people that the government wants to make examples out of. This would lead to a few Branch Davidian style style stand offs with hardcore supporters (ie the oath keeper types). Problem there is public perception as a whole could easily be painted against them as extremist. I think it would be more likely you'd see a growing number of individual hold outs that turn sour, ie Ruby Ridge style interactions. With people just not willing to turn them over. You have mounting casualties in law enforcement in this type of situation, you might see them say fuck that, Im not dying to take some individual's guns away. I really don't see confiscation being a reality whatsoever. You have a pretty simple Constitutional Amendment that plainly lays out the case for individual ownership (much clearer than some of the summersaults the SCOTUS has done for other hot button issues), plus Supreme Court precedent on the gun rights side. It really is a hard thing to explain to non gun people. Being raised in a gun household with a lot of tradition around hunting and shooting, you develop strong ties to what they mean in your life. I have a Colt SP1 (Vietnam era AR15 to you normees) which is probably my most treasured possession that I have left to me from my dad. With no wife or kids at the moment, it really would have to be taken from my cold dead hands. I'd probably just hide it if I did have a family, will not comply sort of thing. What really makes people so attached to these types of causes? It opens my eyes to what other people experience when they fight for or argue over other hot button issues I have no real thoughts or attachment to. I can empathize with people on both sides of the abortion debate knowing they've probably have a similar attachment to their views as I do guns.
Obama made mention of this in his speech: Are the current figureheads and spokespeople of gun owners accurately representing the views of those who are responsible, law abiding gun owners? I see no reason to seize already legally owned guns, but why not make it difficult as hell to own and keep a gun? At least try and meet public opinion halfway because these shootings are making it more and more difficult to give any sort of credit to gun owners. It isn't fair, but all gun owners are getting placed together in the same image. I don't believe in gun ownership, but I am not going to try and take guns from anyone. Having grown up (I was 13) in the era of Columbine, I have a bias against gun owners in which I do not feel safe regardless of who the owner is. That is not fair to 99% of the gun owners. Get the current gun advocacy groups to meet with legislators and enact policies which change that.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings As far as the "criminals don't obey laws" rhetoric, that's a bullshit copout. Criminals don't obey breaking and entering laws either, but that doesn't mean we stop installing safeguards, criminals don't obey traffic laws, but that doesn't mean we get rid of the highway patrol. Criminals don't obey sexual assault laws, but that doesn't mean raping should be legal. It a specious argument. The real reason guns are still legal? We like shooting shit. It makes a bang noise and then something has a hole in it. COOL. I like that myself, and I've got some expert ribbons to say that I'm pretty good at it. If a more thorough vetting process for gun ownership (including deep background checks funded by the gun purchaser) means less access to guns for people with mental issues, I'm all for it, even if I have to wait longer to get my gun. [youtube]
So... why do you all think America has such an insane homicide-by-firearm rate? It's WAY higher than any other few countries' rates combined. What's going on? I don't have an opinion on this, I'm just curious. The debates on the issue rarely seem to address what the root cause(s) may be, and tend to jump to "well we need MORE/LESS guns, obviously!!" The other talking point that gets tossed around a lot is that America has a "mental health problem." What does that mean though? That's like saying your car has an engine problem. Why is there a mental health problem in America that's making so many of you murder each other with guns, and what is it exactly?
You're right. Mass shootings are nothing compared to how many people die from non "mass-shooting" gun violence. Free guns for everyone! Huh?
I haven't seen the actual polling questionnaire that gave that "90% of citizens and majority of gun owners support sensible gun legislation" talking point he and others bandy about. I would venture to guess, having worked for a few yeas in the market research industry, that the question of supporting legislation was left very vague as not to bias the taker. You'd have something like "would you support a change in gun laws?" If there are questions about restricting or expanding you better believe what ever side is looking at the final data will leave that out or frame their response so the data reflects their views. I mean on a general level there are some changes I might be able to support. When it comes to rubber hitting the road nothing gun control advocates suggest is anywhere close to what I'd support, without concessions from them. I've never met a single gun owner, personally, that supports any of these as well. I have a strong feeling they saw some information they liked and could use politically regardless of what strict scrutiny of the data actually plays out and decided to repeat it until it was believed as reality. You see this repeat it until people believe it all the time (PP was SELLING baby parts, being a recent example). You'll also run into opposition from gun owners that don't want more restrictions because the very real possibility of the slippery slope in the states or federally even if there is some sort of universal background check passed. It's will still be chipped away at by the opposition. The same works for other contentious topics. Does any ardent abortion rights advocate believe Republicans would stop at a 20 weeks ban? You'd still get weird outlandish local and state laws (ultra sounds or mandatory waiting periods anyone?). Even if passed youd have similarly outlandish restrictions state to state, bullet button bans, thumb hole stock restrictions, and a litany of others that have no real basis in safety or reality that state level gun owners still have to deal with.
That's not exactly an equivalent comparison. Abortion opponents are crystal clear in that they want - eventually - all abortions to be outlawed. All of the legislation that gets passed to make getting a legal abortion more difficult isn't a slippery-slope scenario; abortion opponents are simply taking what they can get. Conversely, to my knowledge no one proposing gun-control legislation is advocating the complete elimination of private gun ownership. Certain individuals and groups may fear a slippery-slope, but that's all it is, fear. The two issues are apples and oranges. There is a very simple restriction that could be passed and if successfully enforced that would end 99% of these mass shootings (and scores of others): No legal gun ownership for men under 35. Obviously something like that is fairytale thinking, but the one thing that all these shooters have in common is that they're young, angry, men.