Yet Another Mass Shooting

[Are_grits_groceries]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/images/yet-another-mass-shooting.html

This is not meant to minimize the horrific nature of the crimes. It does show that these stories are all the same in some respects, and that the public at large never hears much else. It also shows that there is never much progress by different sides of issues such as gun control to look beyond their stock responses.

A lot of people now seem to be writing off these incidents as psychological problems, economic problems or both. This may be true or it may just be the beginning of a story.

Unless people begin to hear more than just the recitation on that form, they will never bother to look closely at a situation. It just makes it easier for people to dismiss the event as one more tragedy and become somewhat indifferent to it.

As Arthur Miller wrote in "Death of a Salesman,"Attention must be paid!"

[Mari333]

1. Its the perfect storm

guns and ammo being bought up like crazy by people out of fear
right wing radio hype promoting unfounded fears and paranoia
no mental health care
no jobs, foreclosures, stress, layoffs
a black man is president
lack of education
add them all up and you have huge problems.
I had a feeling this was coming.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. All that's bad enough. I'm additionally worried about them getting organized

like militias.

[Mari333]

4. in Michigan, they have been around for a long time

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. Wow five guys who've been together a little over a year.

[AlinPA]

19. Violence is a big part of American society. Guns help the violent to act it out efficiently.

[Turbineguy]

2. Why do you hate America?

For every shooting/suicide, George W Bush can give himself a Gold Star.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Why is Bush to blame for all of them?

[Turbineguy]

14. He isn't

and even if he was, he had a lot of help.

[FightingIrish]

5. Too true.

[anonymous171]

7. Banning guns is like banning drugs. In other words, pointless. nt

[cliffordu]

9. Yep.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

12. I agree with that

However, there should be better regulation in purchasing firearms. I realise that we cannot ban guns just like that, but the US Government can introduce regulations to make it harder to purchase them.

[Caliman73]

13. Problems with that strategy

What kind of regulation do you think would keep criminals or unstable people from getting guns while not making it impossible for responsible people to get them?

People who are inclined to follow the law and who meet the criteria to purchase a firearm will be affected by the increased regulations. People who are willing to use firearms for murder, intimidation, and mayhem are not likely to use legal channels to access those firearms. We need to address the factors that motivate violence where we can.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

20. Two things

One- my original point- making it harder for people to buy guns (stringent background checks etcetera)

and Two- owning a gun safe to keep your firearms out of reach of "crafty criminals" (ie the guys who somehow know where you hide your guns, even as you announce where you do on anonymous message boards like this).

[Caliman73]

27. Two things

One- Making it more difficult for people to buy firearms will only grow the black market for guns. Criminals don't usually buy their guns from FFL's and subject themselves to background check. So people who abide by the law will find it more difficult, and criminals will continue to have access to firearms fairly easily.

Two- Unless you put in provisions to make gun safes inexpensive, you are basically putting a poll tax on gun ownership. Poor people cannot afford the 600 to 2500 dollars that it takes to purchase an effective safe. So basically, if I cannot afford a safe, then I cannot practice my constitutional right of self defense?

[virginia mountainman]

15. Harder?

Have you ever bought one??

Federal Forms.... Background Checks, State Forms.....

In some states you even need a Permit to "buy" for each and every one. Even with all the forms.


I wonder if folks would like to apply those rules to the OTHER rights found in the Bill of Rights?

[anonymous171]

18. Exactly. There are already plenty of regulations in place.

Another example of how many anti-gun people don't know anything about firearms.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

21. LOL...

I am not anti-gun. I see it as a drug, a bit of a high to shoot something so powerful as a shotgun at clay pigeons.....

However, I would love the government to trust me and I'm willing to go through extensive checks to make sure I am an okay person to own a gun.

Are you scared of that? Is there something you're not telling us that makes you ineligible to own guns?

[virginia mountainman]

26. Their are "extensive checks"

That is the NICS check...

National Insta-Check System...

It checks, criminal history, restraining orders, Military Discharge status, Mental Records and probably a few things I am forgetting.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

30. No, there needs to be more

For example, testing people who sell guns at a gun shop. Closing the gun show loophole. And more.

[virginia mountainman]

35. I belive that to be, an FFL Dealer..

You MUST be able to PASS, the NICS check...

The gun show loophole does NOT exist....Federal Law, and state laws apply EVERYWHERE, Gun shows are not some mythical place where the gun laws do not apply.

More?! What MORE could anyone who respects the US Bill of Rights could ask for?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

37. Obviously you don't watch television

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/04/09/2009-04-09_abc_news_gets_disturbing_results_with_.html

Muir's reports show how easy it is to obtain a gun. ABC teams with Omar Samaha, whose sister Reema was killed at Virginia Tech, to show, thanks to a legal loophole, how easily people can buy guns at gun shows around the country without a background check.

What do you have to answer for that? Do not use the silly "but it's my right" excuse, I want a REAL answer.

I might wait but I won't hold my breath because you'll just ignore this post.

[X_Digger]

38. That's private sales.

Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce- sales between two state residents- pesky constitution again.

FFL dealers of any stripe must do a background check, no matter the location.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

46. Um...

Are you telling me that you don't want the government to track EVERY gun that's sold?

It's NOT the pesky constitution again, for goodness sakes, it's politics and politics are meddling again in these sort of things.

[X_Digger]

51. It's _state_ politics, not federal

Any national politician talking about fixing 'the gun show loophole' is talking out their backside- not their "problem" to fix.

And no, I don't want the government tracking every gun that's sold, I want every licensed dealer who sells a gun to check if a person is on the prohibited list. (They do, regardless of location.) I'd also like to open up NICS to individuals as a _voluntary_ means for private sellers to determine that the person they're selling to isn't a prohibited person.

(I put "problem" in quotes because, according to the DoJ, less than 1% of guns used in crime came from a gun show.)

[nashmack]

64. Why would we want that?

If Obama's administration knew where every gun was, then his administration would be able to take the next step (WHICH WAS PROPOSED BY PELOSI) and initiate confiscation. Now if they initiated confiscation, I know plenty of people that would be bearing arms against the government. Are YOU prepared for Civil War part 2?

[virginia mountainman]

41. No, not much, too much crap..

Like you just described..

Gun Show loophole is a myth, a gun show is not a mythical place, where state and Federal gun laws do not apply. Your talking about a "private sale" between two citizens... That is what your talking about, and it can happen ANYWHERE, legally, at anytime..

A transaction such as that, is perfectly legal in the overwhelming majority of states

Again, I will state a fact....Their is NO, gun show loophole.

To complain about one endlessly, IMHO only displays ignorance.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

47. Ok

Since you are so entrenched in your beliefs I think it's best to leave you alone. Whatever rational thing I tell you you're going to shoot it down with b.s. really.

Thank you for participating in this discussion. (BTW I am for guns as a sport but am against any idea of a gun as a right)

[Quintin]

62. gun owner ship is right though, no one needs your permission n/t

[kudzu22]

67. The problem with the so-called loophole

is that many of the spree killers would (and DID) pass background checks. Cho got his guns from an FFL and passed a background check both times. So what good is it to insist on checks for private sales? It is not within the pervue of the federal government to regulate what two residents of the same state sell to each other. A lot of people think it is, but that's our lame educational system at work.

The only solution is to be able to predict who will go crazy and kill people, and that's the realm of science fiction.

[Caliman73]

45. you see it as a drug?

That is not the mind set to have about guns. They are fun to shoot, but they are tools. They are tools for hunting, target shooting, and tools for self defense. They are also destructive and must be handled with respect to that fact. I don't care if the government trusts me. The government does not grant you rights, it is compelled to recognize and respect those rights. If is am in an eligible category to fully practice my right to keep and bear arms, the government's opinion of me is irrelevant. I submitted to the background checks required by law because I respect the laws the we have agreed to in order to have as civil a society as possible. I think that people who think that more laws are better, are naive. Those laws will affect me and other people who respect the law, but they will not affect those people who have neither respect for the law or for other people. For those people, alternative solutions to restricting access to lawful gun purchases must be looked into. Perhaps more funding to mental health programs, more emphasis in society on personal responsibility for one's actions, less glorification of violence as a solution to grievances. You need to think outside the narrow constructs of supply restriction.

[X_Digger]

16. Here are some interesting numbers..

Only 13.9% of firearms used in crime were purchased. 39.6% came from friends and family, and 39.2% came from 'street / illegal sources'.

So if the trend continues, any new regulation on the purchase of firearms will only affect 14% of 'crime guns' directly. If you say 'well, it will affect them more because they get them from friends and family' then you're admitting to punishing law abiding citizens on the chance that it will affect criminals.

For the most part, criminals don't go through all the legal hoops to purchase guns. They get them from the black market, or they get them from friends and family.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[FunkyLeprechaun]

22. Was Cho, Eric and Dylan criminals?

Mark Barton? hmm?

No.

That's your argument dead.

[ManiacJoe]

24. Probably not the best choices of examples for you.

Eric and Dylan were prohibited buyers. They used a straw purchaser. Both the buyer and seller went to jail for the sale.

Cho would have been a prohibited buyer if the databases had been updated properly.

Mark Barton used a hammer to kill his family before the shooting spree. No gun needed.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

31. So were they criminals?

By Columbine, Eric was old enough to buy ammunition but he made someone else buy it for him. Cho wasn't a criminal, mentally ill but not a criminal. Neither was Mark Barton. What about the man who killed his five family members? He wasn't a criminal at the time of owning a gun.

That's the argument shot dead, no pun intended.

[X_Digger]

29. What new regulation would stop them?

In Cho's case, VA did drop the ball on getting his information into NICS, which they were (rightfully) castigated about.

The columbine shooters got 1 gun from a family member, and if I recall, 2 were via straw purchase (already illegal.)

[FunkyLeprechaun]

32. Exactly

This demonstrates my point.

[X_Digger]

39. Your point being? n/t

[FunkyLeprechaun]

52. If you had bothered to read my point

then I wouldn't be bothered to repeat myself to you.

Ok?

[X_Digger]

54. You made three statements..

No 'point' to be 'gotten'.

[benEzra]

17. Harder for WHO to purchase them?

Lawful and responsible users, or criminals?

Failure to focus your efforts on the latter, rather than the former, will promote an epic fail a la 1994.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

23. Well if you want the government to TRUST you to own them

Why can't you garner the courage to allow the government that trust?

Perfectly good question awaiting a good answer.

[ManiacJoe]

25. What is wrong with the current level of trust?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

34. It seems to me that

People here and elsewhere want the government to get rid of laws to make it easier to buy guns. They want current regulations put in the trash because it "contravenes their right to own a gun".

For god's sake, it's like shooting after shooting in the US and no one is offering a solution, just making the problem worse.

[Caliman73]

44. False

The solution is going after the motivating factors for the violence, not the tools with which violence is performed. I understand that you are frustrated with the current information being given by the media. Anyone with a minimum of compassion is saddened when people die. The problem is that proponents of gun control are using the same tactics as people did in the 1920's with Prohibition. Banning alcohol did not stop the use or abuse of alcohol. It created a black market and gave organized crime the opportunity to really grow. Guns are as much a part of the tradition in this country as alcohol. The vast majority of the guns and gun owners are not used for crime or violence against others. Some are, and that is the tragedy that we have to continue to address. How do we do that? Obviously placing harsher and harsher restrictions on the tools people use for violence is not an adequate solution. The cities with the most stringent laws against firearms continue the cities with the highest rates of violent crimes including homicide in the US. Countries which have enacted strict control of firearms have a lower rate of firearms violence, but the rate of violence and death is similar to the US. Countries like Switzerland and Israel have higher per capita ownership rates to the US, and less restrictions on them, but lower rates of crime. It isn't merely about gun ownership. I don't believe I have seen anyone but the most radical proponents of firearms saying that we should just flood the streets with guns and have a free for all. Nobody wants psychopaths and violent criminals to have access to guns. The problem is that you are asking for laws to be set up that will guarantee a prediction of when a law abiding citizen might snap and commit violence and successful intervention. That is not able to be guaranteed with human beings unless you are willing to have ALL of your rights curtailed to such an extent to where we can no longer harm each other. The best solutions lay in addressing the societal factors that increase the likelihood for violence.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

48. Do you read the news at all, mister?

Get back to me when you've done that.

Don't fall back on irrational personal beliefs.

[Caliman73]

55. Yes I read the news, watch the news, and get it o my computer

I just know enough to check the sources of the information for their bias. Obviously you only care about what is fed to you as long as it fits into your belief system.

Irrational personal beliefs that the problem is violence in general and not an inanimate object that can be used for ill or for good? Ok I guess I should just switch to your side and start believing that the only cause of violence is the existence of guns and if we make it harder for people to get them, then all social ills will be gone. Give me a break!

[Caliman73]

28. government trust is not a pre-requisite for practicing a right

The government cannot search my home because they do not trust me. That right is enumerated in the 4th amendment. The government needs cause to suspend my rights. I don't need government trust to exercise my rights to due process as enumerated in the 5th amendment. I do not need the government's sanction or trust to practice my right of free speech and to protest grievances. AS long as I follow the laws which have been agreed upon by the collective citizenry, I can say what I want regardless of the government's view of me. As for the 2nd amendment, we already submit to background checks to purchase firearms as a compromise to promote public safety. Instead of making new laws to add to the confusion, we need to make sure that the information being provided for the background check system is kept current and available to sellers of firearms.

The government does not exist to bestow trust upon the citizenry. The government exists to protect the rights of citizen and to meet the basic needs we have elected them to meet.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

33. Sigh...

This isn't what I was saying.

The point went wayyyyyy over your head.

By the way I support the right to self defense, but owning a gun is not a right, it's a privilege that should be treated with the utmost respect; through regulations.

[X_Digger]

40. See Heller

It is a right, not a privelege.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

49. You really haven't read Heller have you?

I can interpret it one way, Heller was an open interpretation case. Next

[X_Digger]

53. My interpretation meshes well with the 9th circuit court in Nordyke v. King

How bout yours? Next.

[Caliman73]

42. say what you mean

Thing is when you say "if you want the government to trust you" what exactly are you saying? I assume that you mean what you write, or perhaps you need to learn to express yourself more clearly.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right enumerated in the Constitution. It is not an unlimited right. We agree to meet minimum requirements to practice the right, but nonetheless it is a right. Is freedom of speech a privilege? Are any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights privileges? With Rights come Responsibilities perhaps that is what you were trying to say? You are however, very wrong about firearm ownership being a privilege.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

50. Sure as an historian

I am very well aware of the American history side of things including the laws. And I have had many debates about this issue. In fact I had government class in 1999 my junior year in high school and the high point of debate was Columbine.

We are there to LEARN! not carry a freaking firearm to class.

Are you really that narrow minded?

[Caliman73]

56. Are you?

When did I say carry arms into class. I am talking about a right versus a privilege. I don't care what you debated in high school. The fact is the Government does not grant rights, it is bound to respect them. If limits are placed on how those rights are practiced, then so be it, but you cannot do so to the extent that the right becomes impossible to practice in a reasonable manner. There are already carry laws. That some people disagree with them is a matter for legislation and litigation. The right to own a firearm is protected.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

60. Where does the word "firearm" and "gun" appear in the Constitution

I'm waiting.

[Caliman73]

61. Don't play the fool

Although your arguments certainly qualify you for that role. You are either that unintelligent or you are being willfully dishonest.

There may be debate on where the right applies as in to individuals or to the collective state, although Heller and Nordyke have recently clarified that the right belongs to the individual. There are debates as to the scope of the right. However the application of the 2nd amendment by the courts and its treatment by pretty much every scholar has ALWAYS been about firearms. To say otherwise is not even worth further discussion. In case you did not understand what I wrote, I will simplify it for you: In the Bill of Rights ARMS = Firearms as discussed in every court case concerning the 2nd amendment and as written about by every 2nd amendment scholar.

Thus "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." means the right of individuals to own and use firearms shall not be interfered with by the Federal government.

[S_B_Jackson]

66. And who is seeking...

to have high school students armed in class? I suspect that you're constructing a strawman.

[dashrif]

43. Wow

Me being native Trust and Government well oil and water, long history of lies and its well documented.

You have to be one hell of a salesperson to have all the native people give up arms because thy trust the government

[Quintin]

63. You think I should trust the government when Bush and Asscroft were in power?

Golly gee whiz, I wonder why more gun owners don't trust the goobermint to tell them... what? Whether or not they are on the no-fly list (like Al Gore)? The no guns list? The no free speech list?

Show me your papers!

If you have so many ideas regarding what would keep you safer, would you mind surrendering a few of the rights you actually value for the same reason?

I suppose it's just us gun owners that haven't hurt anyone who should make all the sacrifices. After all, if it save just one.... whatever... insert ludicrous example there.

[Arugula Latte]

8. Perfect. nt

[virginia mountainman]

10. Some people are addicted to..

Dancing in the blood of the dead, to farther their cause of restricting the Bill of Rights.

Since those folks, have been thoroughly kicked out of the house and senate, their ONLY opportunity to get some press, is grab a mic when something bad happens.

But don't worry, ever since about 1994, these enemies of the US Bill of Rights, have steadily been loosing influence, money, and followers. As their nonsensical stances are exposed for all to see, when the the shining light of knowledge, cuts thru the gloomy haze that they live in.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

36. Huh?

I guess you don't care about other people's safety. I want to have the right to walk around my hometown in Minnesota and not be afraid of someone pulling their gun out at me because they don't like me.

Well, don't worry, if you just ignore the problem like school and workplace shootings, as long as they become commonplace, it's just fine and dandy because you have YOUR gun, not the dead innocent people.

By the way it's "losing" not "loosing".

[jody]

57. Govt is not obligated to protect you, what will you do if attacked?

ON EDIT ADD:
After posting I noted that you show UK as home,

You Brits don't have natural, inherent, unalienable/inalienable rights as we Americans have so my question may not make sense under UK law.

[Caliman73]

58. Oh Shit

You mean I have been arguing about government non interference with natural rights with a British SUBJECT. That would explain the recurring emphasis on making sure the government "trusts" the people.

[jody]

59. Like my friend Forrest Gump said "S..t Happens".

:hi:

[Taitertots]

65. You have no such right

I would like you to point to where the constitution spells out a right to be free from irrational fear and paranoia.

Do you live in constant fear of being shot because someone doesn't like you?