America's Gun Violence

JimmyV

tempo_n_groove

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

This is clearly a major problem and there should absolutely be legislation to stop it. A big issue now though is medical records privacy etc. Our society has really moved to a place where we try not to label people with mental health issues in a negative way. I believe the pendulum has swung to far in that direction and there has to be a reasonable way to prevent gun sales to this population.

Hello Patriot act part Deux!!!

mickeyrat

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

California has pretty strict gun laws. France even stricter. They did not prevent these attacks. Confront the ideology.

It doesn't matter how strict their laws are...there is no border check when you enter California to make sure your weapons adhere to CA laws. Until there is national law your argument is weak.

France had national law. So did Belgium yet it didn't stop the Paris Attacks. Also we don't know yet where the San Bernadino guns came from. Were they purchased in California? If that's the case then a Federal law would not have made a difference. Again most of you are speaking as if their is some mythical loophole that is currently not being enforced. If new laws are your agenda then someone somewhere please list one that would actually have an impact!

You do get the fact the EU citizens have little to no checks on cross border travel within the EU? So really its a similar set up to the across state lines travel we enjoy here.

mickeyrat

Highlights a significant issue involving weapons does it not?

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/iduskbn0tm2lu20151204?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=56611f7d04d30133e7275186&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

BS44325

mickeyrat said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

California has pretty strict gun laws. France even stricter. They did not prevent these attacks. Confront the ideology.

It doesn't matter how strict their laws are...there is no border check when you enter California to make sure your weapons adhere to CA laws. Until there is national law your argument is weak.

France had national law. So did Belgium yet it didn't stop the Paris Attacks. Also we don't know yet where the San Bernadino guns came from. Were they purchased in California? If that's the case then a Federal law would not have made a difference. Again most of you are speaking as if their is some mythical loophole that is currently not being enforced. If new laws are your agenda then someone somewhere please list one that would actually have an impact!

You do get the fact the EU citizens have little to no checks on cross border travel within the EU? So really its a similar set up to the across state lines travel we enjoy here.

I do get that but I am pretty sure the gun laws of the two countries are relatively the same. I have assumed (but actually don't know) that all of those guns were purchased illegally.

BS44325

tempo_n_groove said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

This is clearly a major problem and there should absolutely be legislation to stop it. A big issue now though is medical records privacy etc. Our society has really moved to a place where we try not to label people with mental health issues in a negative way. I believe the pendulum has swung to far in that direction and there has to be a reasonable way to prevent gun sales to this population.

Hello Patriot act part Deux!!!

That is exactly the problem! Always a civil liberties trade off and I guarantee physicians will not like any "must report" criteria for good reason.

dignin

https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/672602115253080065/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

dignin

tempo_n_groove said:

BS44325 said:

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

This is clearly a major problem and there should absolutely be legislation to stop it. A big issue now though is medical records privacy etc. Our society has really moved to a place where we try not to label people with mental health issues in a negative way. I believe the pendulum has swung to far in that direction and there has to be a reasonable way to prevent gun sales to this population.

Hello Patriot act part Deux!!!

Not the same thing at all. Mass surveillance of Americans vs. background checks to buy a dangerous product.

PJPOWER

So now they are saying that these guns were bought legally in the state of California, a state with some of the most strict of gun laws... They were not shipped in from another state, sold at a gun show, they passed background checks, did not buy them online, etc... People with a motive will find a means, how do you prevent a motive??? Maybe social media is perpetuating this violence, should we do a background check before people create a Facebook account?

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

So now they are saying that these guns were bought legally in the state of California, a state with some of the most strict of gun laws... They were not shipped in from another state, sold at a gun show, they passed background checks, did not buy them online, etc... People with a motive will find a means, how do you prevent a motive??? Maybe social media is perpetuating this violence, should we do a background check before people create a Facebook account?

yes, bought legally as the laws are now. people are wanting more stringent background checks, mental health checks, etc etc.

you should have to get a referral from your doctor before you can get one.

PJ_Soul

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Yeah, that's a problem!

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Yeah, that's a problem!

freedom before life!

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

So now they are saying that these guns were bought legally in the state of California, a state with some of the most strict of gun laws... They were not shipped in from another state, sold at a gun show, they passed background checks, did not buy them online, etc... People with a motive will find a means, how do you prevent a motive??? Maybe social media is perpetuating this violence, should we do a background check before people create a Facebook account?

yes, bought legally as the laws are now. people are wanting more stringent background checks, mental health checks, etc etc.

you should have to get a referral from your doctor before you can get one.

So then people will stop getting the mental health treatment they need to avoid getting put on a "list" or just go to a doctor that will sign off. I don't like the idea of a doctor deciding what I can or cannot do because he or she may have an agenda of their own. Would any of those things stopped this from happening? Maybe polygraphs for people entering the country would have stopped this one??? But again, motives are so different... I just don't agree with creating "more laws, more laws" that have shown little to no evidence of stopping this stuff. Vigilance and personal situational awareness training (not fear) would do more good...should we make it a law that people take counterterrorism training in the core curriculum (sarcasm)? Again, how do you prevent motives?

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Yeah, that's a problem!

freedom before life!

Apparently! I'm under that impression that, in Canada at least, public safety comes before individual freedoms (this is idea in a place where freedom is valued is handled with *gasp!* common sense!). This seems like a necessary concept to me. Is this not the thinking in the US???

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

So now they are saying that these guns were bought legally in the state of California, a state with some of the most strict of gun laws... They were not shipped in from another state, sold at a gun show, they passed background checks, did not buy them online, etc... People with a motive will find a means, how do you prevent a motive??? Maybe social media is perpetuating this violence, should we do a background check before people create a Facebook account?

yes, bought legally as the laws are now. people are wanting more stringent background checks, mental health checks, etc etc.

you should have to get a referral from your doctor before you can get one.

So then people will stop getting the mental health treatment they need to avoid getting put on a "list" or just go to a doctor that will sign off. I don't like the idea of a doctor deciding what I can or cannot do because he or she may have an agenda of their own. Would any of those things stopped this from happening? Maybe polygraphs for people entering the country would have stopped this one??? But again, motives are so different... I just don't agree with creating "more laws, more laws" that have shown little to no evidence of stopping this stuff. Vigilance and personal situational awareness training (not fear) would do more good...should we make it a law that people take counterterrorism training in the core curriculum (sarcasm)? Again, how do you prevent motives?

good points. I'm really not sure what the answer is.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Yeah, that's a problem!

freedom before life!

Apparently! I'm under that impression that, in Canada at least, public safety comes before individual freedoms (this is idea in a place where freedom is valued is handled with *gasp!* common sense!). This seems like a necessary concept to me. Is this not the thinking in the US???

we don't have the all-powerful lobbies that they have in the US. the richest companies make/block the laws down there. I'm sure there's backroom shit here in CA, but not to any shred of the degree of the US.

but also, we don't have the same culture. I don't know anyone that owns any type of gun other than a rifle for hunting.

ldent42

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

So now they are saying that these guns were bought legally in the state of California, a state with some of the most strict of gun laws... They were not shipped in from another state, sold at a gun show, they passed background checks, did not buy them online, etc... People with a motive will find a means, how do you prevent a motive??? Maybe social media is perpetuating this violence, should we do a background check before people create a Facebook account?

yes, bought legally as the laws are now. people are wanting more stringent background checks, mental health checks, etc etc.

you should have to get a referral from your doctor before you can get one.

So then people will stop getting the mental health treatment they need to avoid getting put on a "list" or just go to a doctor that will sign off. I don't like the idea of a doctor deciding what I can or cannot do because he or she may have an agenda of their own. Would any of those things stopped this from happening? Maybe polygraphs for people entering the country would have stopped this one??? But again, motives are so different... I just don't agree with creating "more laws, more laws" that have shown little to no evidence of stopping this stuff. Vigilance and personal situational awareness training (not fear) would do more good...should we make it a law that people take counterterrorism training in the core curriculum (sarcasm)? Again, how do you prevent motives?

Not even just that but two problems here - A) remember, we don't have universal healthcare here so lot's of people CAN'T go to a doctor. I realize that only makes it seem even better cuz then those people can't get guns even if they want to, if a doctor's order were required. HOWEVER. That part aside there's still two sides to it. First the DMV requires you to get an eye exam and you have to bring in the paper from that doctor before you can get a license. Thing is eye exams aren't that expensive to pay out of pocket cuz any eyeglass store has a doc in the backroom that will do it for like $40 cash. So in a way it isn't that unthinkable. On the OTHER hand you need to see a doctor to get prescription drugs like oxy and adderall and vicodin and whatever else the kids are on these days, and there are plenty of doctors who hand that shit out like candy. So the medical clearance to buy a weapon has problems on both sides.
The next issue is the "list" of mentally unstable people. There's a couple problems here. First, 'lists" of this kind are always problematic. Remember, we've got a list here called the "sex offenders registry" and to call it "imperfect" would be an understatement. Our criminal Justice system is pretty fucked. So the same way an 18 year old can get put on this list for boning his 16 year old gf, a housewife with depression can get put on the 'mental health' list alongside the dishonourably discharged cop with paranoid schizophrenia and knowledge of weapons and a history of violence.

Plus lists/registries in general are a dangerous line.

PP193448

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

dignin said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1

How They Got Their Guns

The guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including the attack in San Bernardino, were bought legally. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Yeah, that's a problem!

freedom before life!

Apparently! I'm under that impression that, in Canada at least, public safety comes before individual freedoms (this is idea in a place where freedom is valued is handled with *gasp!* common sense!). This seems like a necessary concept to me. Is this not the thinking in the US???

ldent42 said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

So now they are saying that these guns were bought legally in the state of California, a state with some of the most strict of gun laws... They were not shipped in from another state, sold at a gun show, they passed background checks, did not buy them online, etc... People with a motive will find a means, how do you prevent a motive??? Maybe social media is perpetuating this violence, should we do a background check before people create a Facebook account?

yes, bought legally as the laws are now. people are wanting more stringent background checks, mental health checks, etc etc.

you should have to get a referral from your doctor before you can get one.

So then people will stop getting the mental health treatment they need to avoid getting put on a "list" or just go to a doctor that will sign off. I don't like the idea of a doctor deciding what I can or cannot do because he or she may have an agenda of their own. Would any of those things stopped this from happening? Maybe polygraphs for people entering the country would have stopped this one??? But again, motives are so different... I just don't agree with creating "more laws, more laws" that have shown little to no evidence of stopping this stuff. Vigilance and personal situational awareness training (not fear) would do more good...should we make it a law that people take counterterrorism training in the core curriculum (sarcasm)? Again, how do you prevent motives?

Not even just that but two problems here - A) remember, we don't have universal healthcare here so lot's of people CAN'T go to a doctor. I realize that only makes it seem even better cuz then those people can't get guns even if they want to, if a doctor's order were required. HOWEVER. That part aside there's still two sides to it. First the DMV requires you to get an eye exam and you have to bring in the paper from that doctor before you can get a license. Thing is eye exams aren't that expensive to pay out of pocket cuz any eyeglass store has a doc in the backroom that will do it for like $40 cash. So in a way it isn't that unthinkable. On the OTHER hand you need to see a doctor to get prescription drugs like oxy and adderall and vicodin and whatever else the kids are on these days, and there are plenty of doctors who hand that shit out like candy. So the medical clearance to buy a weapon has problems on both sides.
The next issue is the "list" of mentally unstable people. There's a couple problems here. First, 'lists" of this kind are always problematic. Remember, we've got a list here called the "sex offenders registry" and to call it "imperfect" would be an understatement. Our criminal Justice system is pretty fucked. So the same way an 18 year old can get put on this list for boning his 16 year old gf, a housewife with depression can get put on the 'mental health' list alongside the dishonourably discharged cop with paranoid schizophrenia and knowledge of weapons and a history of violence.

Plus lists/registries in general are a dangerous line.

Too many lawyers to argue that individual rights matter more. Too many lawyers, too much corporate lobbying, too many corrupt politicians, too much greed, etc, etc. Common sense is lacking in government, medicine, you name it.

PJPOWER

My concern is that there is literally millions of not billions of guns out there. A vast majority of them are in the hands of people that wish to do no harm to others, but I am willing to bet that if there are truly ISIS "terror cells" in the US, they have a stockpile of their own, probably enough to last centuries. Not only that, but technology is at a point where all the components to make them are readily available to those with even the lowest level of engineering knowledge. It seems to me that any kind of "ban" is not real logical and only a "feel good", bury your head in the sand type rhetoric. I fear that at this point, awareness is the only thing that is going to prevent loss of life in these situations. Awareness across the board, people need to be aware of where their firearms are, where their children are, what the crazy person standing next to them is doing, who is profiting from the media. A solid protest would be to cancel subscriptions when someone paints a picture of these assholes on the front page of their magazine. That is definitely one way of degrading a motive...

dudeman

PJPOWER said:

My concern is that there is literally millions of not billions of guns out there. A vast majority of them are in the hands of people that wish to do no harm to others, but I am willing to bet that if there are truly ISIS "terror cells" in the US, they have a stockpile of their own, probably enough to last centuries. Not only that, but technology is at a point where all the components to make them are readily available to those with even the lowest level of engineering knowledge. It seems to me that any kind of "ban" is not real logical and only a "feel good", bury your head in the sand type rhetoric. I fear that at this point, awareness is the only thing that is going to prevent loss of life in these situations. Awareness across the board, people need to be aware of where their firearms are, where their children are, what the crazy person standing next to them is doing, who is profiting from the media. A solid protest would be to cancel subscriptions when someone paints a picture of these assholes on the front page of their magazine. That is definitely one way of degrading a motive...

Agreed on all counts.