Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[JMAUSGP]

You know, when I was a kid, there were no mass shootings at schools, none, nada, zero, and it makes me wonder why.

It certainly wasn't that people didn't have access to guns, they did, in fact there were no background checks at all back then. It wasn't that there were no mentally defective kids or adults, there were, I personally knew a couple in my neighborhood. So what is different between now and 40 to 50 years ago? I think that may be the crux of the problem. I think I can point to one element but I was more interested in hearing what others think it might be, in case it is something I may not be considering.......which is entirely possible.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I'll start with a few.

The advent of violence on TV / movies and the birth of computer games that are centered on killing in all its glory. With this comes a de-sensitivation of the impact this material has on our children.

Rap music.

Parents not paying attention.

The decline of our public / private school system (quality teachers, small class size, etc.) that allow abnormal / disturbed behavior to go unnoticed and untreated.

Computers, texting, e-mails,which further isolate individuals from personal constructive dialogue with others, and encourage kids and others to live in a "bubble", thereby creating their singular reality far removed from reality.

And yes, our insane gun policy that allows anyone over 18 to obtain / buy military weapons designed to kill people and have no redeeming value for public use.

The polarization of politics on every issue (read ideologues) that inhibits our wonderful elected officials to address real problems in a responsible manner.

Just off the top.

GG

 

[timm]

Another interesting read on msn.com discussed the change in gun laws after 1998 i think - after a mass murder of tourists the interesting stats i found were that over the next 10 years gun deaths decreased 60% and other deaths using other means DID NOT go up . No mass shootings and this is over a 10 year period . The aussies on the forum can comment further

I used to believe it wasnt the gun - it was the person. I still think that But sometimes i just think the masses are too ignorant or our society breeds this type of individual and maybe as a society we just cant handle the responsibility anymore

 

[Gordon Gray]

Absent responsible controls (in this case, the USA and the freedoms we enjoy), our society will take them to a place that will compromise / destroy the very things we were / are trying to protect.

Regarding guns, we are the laughing stock of irresponsibility / insanity in the eyes of the world.

Scary stuff.

 

[amey01]

It is amazing to still see how contentious this issue is in the media. The thing that strikes me is how a lot of Americans (and the NRA) immediately correlate "gun control" with elimination of guns. YOU CAN STILL HAVE YOUR GUNS!! It's just that there needs to be sensible restrictions in place to ensure that mentally ill people (and known criminals, etc) can't get hold of military assault weapons (and the like).

discussed the change in gun laws after 1998 i think - after a mass murder of tourists the interesting stats i found were that over the next 10 years gun deaths decreased 60% and other deaths using other means DID NOT go up . No mass shootings and this is over a 10 year period . The aussies on the forum can comment further

Yes, you're talking about the Port Arthur massacre. It was the catalyst for stricter gun control here. It was also unpopular at the time. Can it guarantee there won't be another massacre (with or without a military assault weapon)? Of course not. And there likely will be one day. But there is no arguing that it has made Australia a safer place. Interesting, I read just the other day that of the 20 worst (by number of people killed) massacres in the last 50 years, 11 have happened in the USA. That's more than half. In one country. Occupying the number 2 spot is Finland with two. The USA has had two just this year.

I think that may be the crux of the problem.

I think I do too. If it is anything like the situation here, it is a half-wit judiciary. The police duly bring forth the criminals, just to have them let off and back on the streets. It is my opinion that the judiciary need to be held accountable. If they let a known criminal off, and they go out and commit another crime, then the judge should be held just as accountable for that crime.

 

[Rich]

Well, we've got our answer from the NRA. It's all the fault of video games and rap music. Sigh. Not that I expected anything less from them. So glad I have never given any money to this organization. I support the right of citizens to bear arms, but like all our rights I think it should have reasonable restrictions placed on it for the good of all.

 

[twich54]

and now another shooting here in Pa, four dead............

 

[Gordon Gray]

Yes Rich,

I was surprised given their initial signal that they would offer something meaningful.

I guess that's means putting armed police in every school in America.

And yes. What device is used to "kill" people in video games? DUH.

 

[twich54]

Gordon / Rich, did either of you listen / watch the NRA Press Conference ?

I didn't hear Wayne say that it was 'all' the fault of violent games and music, I beleive the point being made is that those 'unhealthy' means of entertainment do play a role and for what it's worth this past week that has been echoed in almost every conversation I've been involved with regarding this latest tragedy.

 

[Rich]

Didn't watch it, Dave. But I did read the transcript. He basically blamed it on video games, movies, and the media, while never once mentioning the prevalence and easy accessibility of firearms or, for that matter, the need for better treatment of the mentally ill. His solution: put armed officers in every school. To me that seems completely unworkable, crazy expensive, and not very likely to prevent this sort of tragedy. There are almost 100,000 public schools in the U.S., another 33,000 private schools, and more than 6,000 post-secondary schools. Many of them are quite large and spread out. How many armed guards, and at what cost, would it take to adequately staff all of them with enough armed guards to prevent the occasional school shooting? It simply doesn't make sense, and it ignores the elephant in the room, which Mr. LaPierre desperately does not want to address.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Dave,

I did in its entirety.

My personal problem was the overall tone (very defensive) and the absolute denial that guns contributed to the Newtown tragedy. And their solution is more guns. Armed guards at every school in America.

And lots of whining about how all gun owners were being treated unfairly / ostracized by the media, public, etc. for those who practice responsible ownership of firearms. That's simply not true.

He did come across as sincere albeit without any sense of "ownership" regarding elements (assault weapons, large clips, and no required background check for those who purchase firearms at a gun show, etc.) of the overall problem.

Unfortunately and from my perspective, the same old "bunker" mentality. Reminds of that old phrase. "You can put a dress on a pig but its still a pig". The pig being the NRA's attitude about meaningful gun control.

What an incredible missed opportunity to raise their credibility in the eyes of many Americans.

Best,

Gordon

PS: Two students have been removed from schools in Wyoming (today) and Utah (two days ago) for bringing a handgun to school. Both are in the area of eleven years old.

Also, NPR reported today that there were two armed "in school" guards at the Columbine incident.

 

[Rich]

Also, NPR reported today that there were two armed "in school" guards at the Columbine incident.

Which makes my point about the inadequacy of this solution, and completely castrates LaPierre's whole argument. What a rube!

 

[twich54]

He did come across as sincere albeit without any sense of "ownership" regarding elements (assault weapons, large clips, and no required background check for those who purchase firearms at a gun show, etc.) of the overall problem.

Unfortunately and from my perspective, the same old "bunker" mentality. Reminds of that old phrase. "You can put a dress on a pig but its still a pig". The pig being the NRA's attitude about meaningful gun control.

good points Gordon and I concur, I was really hoping more for the 'olive branch' approach.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Interesting news on NPR tonight.

Since the Newtown tragedy, there have been 277 verifiable deaths caused by guns. This figure does not include gun related suicides.

Raises an interesting question. Some folks think Pierce Morgan, CNN commentator, should be silenced / deported for his aggressive anti-gun position.

What's the appropriate balance between the media and other interest groups (NRA, etc.) to provide "factual" data regarding the impact of gun violence, and resulting deaths, on our society?

GG

PS: After the two recent firefighter killings in upper State NY and the NRA position that we should place armed guards in all schools, does this mean that we should provide armed guards for all fire fighters who respond to a fire? And yes, this latest incident involved the use of the Bushmaster AR15 semi-automatic rifle, the same weapon used in Newtown.

 

[slowGEEZR]

PS: After the two recent firefighter killings in upper State NY and the NRA position that we should place armed guards in all schools, does this mean that we should provide armed guards for all fire fighters who respond to a fire? And yes, this latest incident involved the use of the Bushmaster AR15 semi-automatic rifle, the same weapon used in Newtown.

Gordon, I'm hearing from some of my right wing friends that the AR15 wasn't used in Newton, that it was a handgun and the "liberal" media got it wrong. I'm going to do a little googlin to see what I can find on this.

Everything I could find reported it was the AR15 that was used to kill most, if not all of the victims. I also felt this was pertinant to some of the arguements regarding the line of thinking that "guns don't kill people, people do"...

"Guns are strictly prohibited in China, except in rare cases, and many observers here and abroad credited that policy with saving the lives of 20 Chinese elementary school children who came under attack just hours before Mr. Lanza opened fire across the globe. A man used a kitchen knife to stab the children in a wild assault on a rural school in Guangshan, in the central Chinese province of Henan on Friday. None of his victims died. The suspect is in police custody."

I'm not saying we need to disarm Americans, but I do think we need stricter controls and training for anyone getting and keeping any firearms. Perhaps something along the lines of NY state's policy for issuing their carry permits. Yes, it's an "intrusion" and an imposed lengthy process, but in my opinion, is a small price to pay.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Steve,

Based on every news report I've seen regarding the weapons used, the weapon that killed all of the kids (and I assume the other 7 adult victims) was the Bushmaster. This is also consistent with the coroner's autopsies. I trust your research will support this conclusion.

I think your right wing friends are in total denial, much like the NRA leadership. Or maybe they have a bias against facts.

And of course, the "liberal"media is to blame. And video games, movies, etc.

Gordon

 

[Rich]

I agree that it has been reported that the Bushmaster was the weapon used in the Newtown shootings, but I would disagree that there is anything special about it that makes it any more lethal at close range than most other guns. In fact, many pistols are much more lethal and just as accurate at close range, and many have magazine capacities of up to 17 rounds. Not to mention it only takes about two to three seconds to change a magazine on a semi-auto pistol, so I just don't see how banning so-called "assault rifles" is going to solve our problems. They are used because they are popular, but if they were banned, several pistols or one pistol with multiple magazines would be just as effective at killing large numbers of people. In fact, it has been shown that the previous assault weapons ban had little effect in this study. I really think we have to think outside the box with this problem. I have some ideas, but don't have time to write about them right now. I will try to post later today or tonight.

 

[Rich]

Ok, I have some more time to post now. I think the first thing we have to decide is what problems are we trying to solve. Gun violence in general? Or just these mass shootings. If we are just trying to limit damage in mass shootings, then I think reducing magazine capacity is one way of doing that. It is going to slow someone down a little bit changing magazines every ten rounds vs. every thirty or fifty or more. Definitely need to outlaw high capacity drum magazines. I don't see any value in banning what are known as "assault weapons." A person can do more damage at close range with a .40 cal Glock with multiple 17 round magazines than he could do with a .223 cal. "assault rifle", in my opinion.

But if we really want to have an effect on firearms deaths in general, including these mass killings, I think we have to take several actions. The first is to provide a more lenient standard for civil commitment of the mentally ill so it is easier to force people into treatment, and also provide money for keeping them in treatment longer than we currently do when they are committed. (I have prosecuted over fifty civil commitment hearings in my life, so can speak directly to this subject with knowledge of how the system works. Simply put -- it doesn't.) Probably also need "parole" type conditions on them when they get out, such that they have to meet with a mental health officer regularly for evaluation and testing to ensure they are taking their meds. Every mass shooting that I have ever heard of was committed by a crazy person. The one here in my home town was committed by a University Professor that was known by coworkers to be crazy (which is probably why she was denied tenure, which is what set her off) and she killed multiple people with a pistol. It isn't always assault weapons, but it is always a crazy person. So rather than ban assault weapons, let's first deal with the crazy population in a realistic manner.

Second, it is a tired cliche that guns don't kill people, people do. But it is a cliche because there is a certain amount of truth to it. And in my mind, the first person that should be held responsible is the gun owner him(or her)self. That's right. I am proposing strict liability for gun owners. We need to have laws requiring guns be kept locked up when not in use. We need laws requiring gun owners to immediately report theft of their firearms (with serious criminal penalties if they don't do so within a reasonable time). And we need a strict liability accessory law. Meaning that if your gun is used by someone else in the commission of a crime, then you are charged as an accessory to the crime. That's right. If your gun gets stolen by your son's friend, and used to murder someone, you are charged with accessory to murder! If we had these types of laws and enforced them, then gun owners would get a lot more serious about taking care of their firearms and people who shouldn't be possessing them would have a lot harder time getting ahold of them. We also need to spend the money to enforce laws already on the books. States (and mine is one of the worst at this) need to pony up some financial resources to fund adding the names of committed persons to the federal list of those not allowed to purchase firearms.

These types of regulations are reasonable under the circumstances, are very likely to reduce gun violence over the long term, and are not an intrusion of anyone's 2nd amendment rights. An assault weapons ban is an intrusion of the 2nd amendment, and is not likely to reduce overall gun violence, as evidenced by the study I cited above. Lets dispense with the emotional responses and try to get to the heart of the real problem. And the real problem is that too many gun owners allow others easy accessibility to their guns, which results in a large percentage of the gun deaths. If the woman in Newtown had her guns secured in a safe and her son didn't have access, she and a lot of kids would still be alive today. Likewise, if her son had been in a mental hospital where he obviously belonged, or at least on some effective meds, same result. Less unnecessary deaths.

Thoughts?

 

[amey01]

I agree with much of what you say. But not this.

Second, it is a tired cliche that guns don't kill people, people do.
Thoughts?

My thoughts are this.

You're very right that people do kill.

So why give these killing people unchecked access to the apparatus of choice? Why give them unchecked access to apparatus that can execute mass killings at an extraordinary rate with extreme ease?

Also, there is little point in dealing with stolen weapons or "accessory to murder" type charges when someone can just go out and buy their own!

 

[Rich]

So why give these killing people unchecked access to the apparatus of choice? Why give them unchecked access to apparatus that can execute mass killings at an extraordinary rate with extreme ease?

Also, there is little point in dealing with stolen weapons or "accessory to murder" type charges when someone can just go out and buy their own!

The point is that the majority of gun owners in the U.S. are responsible citizens. The number of murders is really very small compared to the number of guns out there. We focus a lot on the "mass murders" because they get the headlines, but the truth is the numbers are pretty small. Something like less than fifty people a year killed by mass murders in a country of 300 million people. Compare that with alcohol-related deaths, which number about thirty a day. Perhaps we should ban alcohol instead. Oh, right . . . we already tried that. Most mass murders are committed by people that shouldn't have been able to possess a weapon by law, but somehow obtained one: either by buying it themselves at a gun show, borrowing it, stealing it, or having someone else buy it for them. I think requiring strict liability for gun owners would go a long way toward ensuring these folks can't get ahold of weapons. Knowing they could be tried for murder, wouldn't most people think twice about purchasing a firearm for a convicted felon or about just leaving their guns out and accessible to thieves? The whole point is that there are ways of assuring these people don't have unchecked access to such apparatus besides banning them for everyone. But heck, we don't even enforce the firearms laws we have already on the books, so I guess it is just easier to ban them all. Certainly works for cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana. Oh, wait . . .