So gun control, mental health care, and mass shootings

[Supreme]

Haha, I heard on the news that the bells rang 26 times for the 26 children but not for the mother, isnt that something.

Besides, it's something much more difficult to control, if anybody can recall the movie where it was the future, everyone was drinkign energy drink X and everyone was stupid im gonna go ahead and watch it. It was a good movie.

[Crescent Seal]

According to a FBI informant who follows these kind of things has said that he didn't have a mental illness and had this all planned out (from destroying his computer of any incriminating files, patiently amassing ammunition, etc).

A mentally insane person would just grab the nearest gun and start shooting.

Not sure what the official standing on his mental health is but I read that he had Aspergers and a personality disorder.

Also this is pretty interesting:
"According to anonymous reports, authorities were investigating whether Lanza attempted to buy a rifle at a sporting goods store in Danbury, Connecticut, two days before the massacre. Anonymous sources claimed Lanza was turned down because he did not want to undergo a background check or abide by the state's waiting period for gun sales."

[gran guerrero]

Would eliminate a plethora of issues facing our country from idiots spawning idiots at a crazy rate.

[gran guerrero]

That I totally agree with!

You need a license to have kids!

[Ephemeral]

One of the key things in this fiasco that is getting overlooked is the mothers role. The guy clearly had mental issues and still the mother found it appropriate to have him trained in shooting and using assault rifles. Shooting can be a great hobby but why didn't she use discretion in this matter? She must of had SOME idea of her son possibly doing something like this and she didn't report it. Mental health needs to be focused on more in our country.

Good question, especially since she also told one person to 'never turn your back on him'. Yet she felt it ok to allow him to get his jollies with high powered rifles. You need a license to own a gun. You need a license to drive a car. You even need a license to clip the toe nails of other people. But anyone can drop their pants and have kids.
eph

[gran guerrero]

According to a FBI informant who follows these kind of things has said that he didn't have a mental illness and had this all planned out (from destroying his computer of any incriminating files, patiently amassing ammunition, etc).

A mentally insane person would just grab the nearest gun and start shooting.

[Crescent Seal]

One of the key things in this fiasco that is getting overlooked is the mothers role. The guy clearly had mental issues and still the mother found it appropriate to have him trained in shooting and using assault rifles. Shooting can be a great hobby but why didn't she use discretion in this matter? She must of had SOME idea of her son possibly doing something like this and she didn't report it. Mental health needs to be focused on more in our country.

[Crescent Seal]

I think you're wrong. Simply writing a URL without hotlinking it is enough to discourage people from going to that web page. Sure, some one who is going to be dead set on finding an assault rifle will eventually find a way, but if these incidents can be reduced by any amount, that's a good thing.

I agree it would probably lower these incidents, but if you notice that the common trend in all of these high level shootings is that the gunman kills himself in the end. If a person is willing to go to that end then he would make sure to purchase the most efficient weapon capable of taking out as many as possible no matter what the laws were. It would definitely lower the "smaller" scale incidents, but we are talking about another breed of shooter here.

[project dragon]

Look at all those good public citizens with guns that stopped the bad guy with the gun

[Supreme]

Honestly I agree with Eph and it was hard to read the replies. A summary of what I agree with: It's obviously impossible to outlaw guns in the USA and there is no need for it however (semi)automatic guns have no purpose outside of killing people rapidly unlike hunting guns (duh) and handgunds (protection). Therefor it might be an idea to outlaw these specific types of guns to disable any individual to cause a wide array of damage in a short time, just like grenades are outlawed (I assume).

The only argument against this brought up is protection against the state but as Eph stated the history showed the state will get you easily regardless.

Im just curious if there really are any arguments left.

[Bioture]

After reading up on the NRA comments, I'm pretty sure that there's nothing they could've said to mitigate the problem with everyone wanting something to blame - so they said fuck it, we're just going to say what we always say.

[Soup du Jour]

I am curious about those statistics. What percentage of those homicides by guns are gang/drug related?

Where I live, I have no fear of being shot, partly because gun control in Canada restricts many people from owning fire arms, but mostly because I am not a part of the drug trade. I think what scares the average person is the randomness. The fact that some person can go to a school, movie theater, or otherwise and empty clips into a crowd is what your typical citizen is trying to avoid and I think the easiest way to prevent that is to reduce accessibility of automatic fire arms.

If we wanted to reduce gun violence as a whole, I'd guess the vast majority of the problem is drug related shooting with small arms so solutions should be focused there.

[Soup du Jour]

If some lunatic really wanted to carry out a mass shooting then I doubt stricter gun laws would stop him. It would just make it a bit tougher.

I think you're wrong. Simply writing a URL without hotlinking it is enough to discourage people from going to that web page. Sure, some one who is going to be dead set on finding an assault rifle will eventually find a way, but if these incidents can be reduced by any amount, that's a good thing.

I can see someone owning a handgun. I can see someone owning a hunting rifle. I cannot see the justification for private citizens owning assault rifles, high capacity clips, or certain ammunition.

I had to quote because I think this is the most sensible thing said in this thread.

[Ephemeral]

This is a retarded argument, something tragic happens and every liberal, and politician decided to take it upon themselves to demonize something. .

So the logic is that anytime a mass killing occurs we should avoid any discussions about possible root causes? Am I missing something, that makes little sense to me.

I think you should all read the history of gun control and the countries whose civilians lost the ability to own weapons, and what happened to those people. .

I do know the history of gun control just as i know the history of guns themselves. You cannot have an intelligent discussion about one without the other. The guns that were around in the 1700’s are obviously not the same thing as they are today. What makes things difficult is not a ‘gun vs. no gun’ situation, it is that guns have evolved into something far more capable of mass killing.

Guns are very useful for things besides killing other humans, they can be used to kill other humans but really the main point of guns isn't the gun itself, it is the knowledge that a population is armed, that is the point of the second amendment. Never will another country, or our own country truly be able to subjugate our citizenry due to the fact that we are able to protect ourselves and that very possible fear is always in the minds of countries foreign and domestic. .

A armed population, even with automatic assault rifles, is no match for any decent army or government in the world. The days of being able to counter-balance the armed forces of any government passed well over a century ago. You know about the attempts that private citizens have tried to make against the US government. Going back centuries; the Indians had guns and we pushed them around with no problems. Even in modern history, lessons in Oklahoma and Montana clearly demonstrated that if the government wants you, no matter how big your stash of guns are, they will get you.

But seriously, read up about countries who passed strict gun control laws in the past and the genocides it has caused. .

I’ve read about these countries and their homicide rates are about 15 times lower than that of US, which has some of the least amount of gun control laws. You can download these stats here Homicides by firearms. If you don’t trust the UN and want a the 30 second sound bite, consider Wikipedia stats for just the homicide numbers, you can clearly see that those countries with stricter gun control laws have much lower rates.

Simply put, the justification for allowing private citizens to arm themselves as some kind of means to fight their own government or invading forces only applies to 5-10 of the smallest third world countries in this day and age. In the US we lost this justification about 150 years ago and truth is that we are not allowed to own any kinds of arms that would give us any kind of fighting chance at even holding out against the government for a few days.

I do agree that if the world declines into zombie chaos that having high powered weapons such as assault rifles would be a good thing. But in the mean time government power has long ago evolved past being able to be influences by private citizens gun ownership. And guns themselves have evolve far past the need to shoot some food, shoot some targets, or shoot some guy coming in through the window of your house.

In my opinion it are these evolutions that gun control laws need to address.
eph

[kthx]

The real tragedy here is your lack of reading comprehension and that very pathetic attempt to troll the thread.