Can America be fixed?

[Binaural]

The restrictions listed in the articles have everything to do with increased vetting processes reducing homicide rates, and nothing to with access to type of firearm. If you vet against criminals, if you vet against the mentally ill, and if you vet against people with restraining orders you will have an actual tangible impact on saving lives. But nobody actually seems interested in saving lives, you seem interested in banning guns and pretending it makes a difference.

Come on, now. Nobody here is advocating for banning guns altogether. At most, people are advocating for bracketing military-style rifles with other categories of firearms banned or heavily restricted . You correctly state their involvement in crimes overall is proportional to their numbers, but they are disproportionately involved in the most high-volume massacres. While overall it seems mass shooters seem to choose their weapons according to what's available (often a handgun), the specific capabilities of assault-style weapons is a significant multiplier.

There's nothing wrong with your other suggestions, so why not apply both approaches? The potential downside is low, these weapons were previously banned for 10 years in 1994 without a successful legal challenge, and there are plenty of alternative long rifles that a gun owner can buy instead with less high-volume shooting potential for hunting and home defence. I know this feels unfair to you to single out these weapons without an overall plan, but a lot of legislative movements start with small, achievable goals.

(An interesting side note: I wanted to use mortars and artillery as my example here, but it turns out those are legal so long as you don't try and export them and licence any explosive ammunition. You can even buy drive a civilian tank with a 120mm main gun and act out your GTA fantasies. Merica!)

You ask for goals of those questioning current US gun policies, so I will state them: to reduce the number and severity of mass shootings in the USA by changing currently ineffective policies. Lax gun control is bright line of difference to other wealthy societies (that and healthcare), so it's not that surprising to see people want to start there.

 

[Tubbsy]

Yep, that's exactly what I and others are saying.

 

[Nambra]

Thanks for clarifying things Zaf - makes a lot more sense now. Apologies if you feel you've already said what you've just summarised, I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.

Binaural's beaten me to it, but I'll say it anyway...

Wouldn't all the vetting of criminals, mentally unstable, etc. combined with reduced access to weapons be more effective? I agree that you're never going to be able to disarm civilian society completely, but by the same token, I can't see how you can have a 100% foolproof vetting/mental health checking regime either. The vetting process identifies intent, restricting availability of guns reduces the means. If a person is identified as a result of a successful vetting program as a potential risk with a gun, how can you really stop them from obtaining a gun if they're determined to get one and they exist in abundance? Can a vetting process reliably identify someone with no history of mental illness or suspect behaviour, who just decides one day to go postal? Reducing accessibility to guns of all types has to be a legitimate part of an overall strategy that addresses both motivation and means.

At any rate, I won't tire you any longer and I don't think we're in disagreement anyway. I think the more bizarre aspect to this whole conversation is the American gun culture; how do people defend their right to possess guns in fairly unrestricted fashion, when their kids are more likely to die as a consequence? That's where the change really has to start - seeing that video of the guy on FB cutting up his rifle is something, but suspect he is in a minority.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[Skydome]

Um... no?

I said the reason people are so upset about these events is because children are being shot in schools. Children of various races.

By that logic I could say that you don't care about children being shot.

Yet more people in poor communities die every night across the U.S than this shooting and I don't ever people getting up in arms about it.

You are setting the bar so high as to be literally unachievable (alls we need to do is eradicate inequality, poverty, mental illness... seriously?) while having no problem with a disturbed teenager being able to amass however many automatic weapons he can afford with minimal if any oversight.

Not really, setting the bar high is expecting to get significant firearm law reform through in the united states, that won't ever happen, period, deal with it.

It is more realistic to tackle the actual root causes of violence in America, tough, sure, I never said it would be easy but if people were really serious about easing the violence that the U.S gets it would be more logical to tackle the root causes of the violence.

I'll say it again: it's not an either/or - you can work to improve society AND limit access to this type of weapon.

Dream on, won't ever happen because second amendment.

Did you see the picture of the dude? Only reason he was able to do what he did was because he could do it from a distance without much risk of someone taking him down.

And if the FBI acted on the information that was given to them this would not have happened.

So lets tackle the real issues here instead of applying a few band aid "Fixes"

 

[Tubbsy]

Yet more people in poor communities die every night across the U.S than this shooting and I don't ever people getting up in arms about it.

Insinuating that people concerned about school shootings (me included, presumably) are a bunch of elitist racists is not going to influence my thoughts on the matter, no matter how many times you try.

It's fun little straw man you've built there, though.

Not really, setting the bar high is expecting to get significant firearm law reform through in the united states, that won't ever happen, period, deal with it.

It is more realistic to tackle the actual root causes of violence in America, tough, sure, I never said it would be easy but if people were really serious about easing the violence that the U.S gets it would be more logical to tackle the root causes of the violence.

Dream on, won't ever happen because second amendment.

We've discussed this - try addressing both.

Gun laws vary from state to state already, do they not? Presumably "because second amendment" has not stopped incremental change in the past?

And if the FBI acted on the information that was given to them this would not have happened.

It's all the FBI's fault. And they're trying to incriminate the bestest, most popular and totally innocent of everything President ever.

 

[Binaural]

Dream on, won't ever happen because second amendment.

As I pointed out in earlier posts, US law limit even strongly expressed rights such as the right to a free press. A relevant example here is that assault rifles were banned for 10 years by the Clinton administration in 1994, and this ban survived several legal challenges. The issues surrounding gun control are driven by political considerations more so than questions of constitutionality.

What you can't do when writing gun control laws in the US is deny a personal right to possess firearms without very robust reasoning - for example, you can't ban all guns or place unreasonable barriers to ownership. If a significant public safety interest can be articulated, it is very likely a legal challenge on the ground of infringement of constitutional rights would fail.

 

[Skydome]

Insinuating that people concerned about school shootings (me included, presumably) are a bunch of elitist racists is not going to influence my thoughts on the matter, no matter how many times you try.

Well it does seem that way. I don't see them constantly protesting about all the nightly bloodshed in the poor communities and I'm not trying to influence your thoughts.

It's fun little straw man you've built there, though.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

We've discussed this - try addressing both.

Agree.. Address both mental health issues, governmental communication issues, racial inequality issues, inequality in general and gang warfare and we'll be getting on the right track.

Gun laws vary from state to state already, do they not? Presumably "because second amendment" has not stopped incremental change in the past?

They do but in many of the most strictest laws you can still own AR's.

A relevant example here is that assault rifles were banned for 10 years by the Clinton administration in 1994, and this ban survived several legal challenges. The issues surrounding gun control are driven by political considerations more so than questions of constitutionality.

Interesting. So even having the assault rifle ban didn't stop school shootings either.

this only tells me that indeed they need to deal better with background checks, agency communication acting on tip offs, inequality and etc.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[Nambra]

If your vetting procedures are up to task, there's no need limit access based on type. You either trust someone or you don't, and by and large, legal gun owners have proven themselves to be trustworthy people.

...

Over the years of 2005-2014 an average of 3500 people drowned each year in non-boating accidents (and 330/per year for boating related); 20% of which are children below the age of 14. That's 700 kids, each year, unnecessarily dying because you won't ban private ownership high capacity assault pools, when you could just go and use a public pool instead, where they're monitored and kept safe. If you actually cared about the lives of children, why aren't you outraged by the ability to still house these killing pits in their yards?

Stephen Paddock was a legal gun owner, although arguably as a result of Nevada's permissive gun laws? I'm not sure of the relevance of drownings in pools to the discussion, other than kids drowning in pools is also tragic because it is entirely preventable. There's no inherent violence or intent to kill in backyard drownings; a pool doesn't have mental health problems, it can't pick up a gun and shoot someone. A kid can also drown in two inches of water in a bath, so by your parallel we should ban baths too.

I've never singled out "scary assault rifles" either, but view the restriction of access to all weapons as a valid consideration in reducing gross numbers of shooting deaths. If what I read is correct, people haven't been able to purchase a new fully automatic weapon in the US since 1986, although existing weapons can be bought and sold, but ownership is highly regulated. Has the under-representation of machine guns in shooting homicides been as a result of regulation, responsible (properly vetted) ownership or just that there are lots of other guns still available to kill with? That's not meant as a loaded [no pun intended] question, I ask it genuinely. Is this an example of how restricting access reduces related crime, is it an example of how effective regulation ensures that the wrong people don't end up with these weapons, or is it both?

Here's an article that supports your assertion that banning assault rifles won't do squat - and I agree that singling out such weapons is folly. The outrageous nature of the killing of innocents in schools and cinemas using such weapons causes a disproportionately large media response on a purely per capita measure - the life of a child is that much more precious it would seem. The thousands of individuals killed with handguns each year doesn't make the news; it's just accepted as the societal norm.

 

[flamin'trek]

Further, every time you try and make a demand that infringes a guaranteed right by the founding document of the country (I'm not interested in discussing how you interpret it, the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise), it puts any worthwhile legislation its submitted with into the trash with it.

It seems a lot of people have forgotten that changing the constitution is quite possible. After the 2nd amendment is exactly that. A change, as are several more amendments - of which some have been further amended over the years. It is not a guaranteed right, it is an amendment.

 

[Binaural]

It's almost as if ownership rates bear no correlation on crime rates (see attached).

That's only as you'd expect if there are minimal barriers between states for illegal weapons.

It is not a guaranteed right, it is an amendment

By virtue of being an amendment, it has become a guaranteed right. There are even rights where the constitution forbids itself to change, for example suffrage in the senate.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[madstace]

In my opinion, even within Australia where we're getting FAR better at removing the stigma surrounding mental health and increasing access to it, we're woefully undergunned to deal with mental health issue. Healthcare in USA is an entirely other beast to try and overcome, but I would say with a great deal of conviction that if you want to save lives in general, that's where you need to focus.

So I've been reading through this, and was ready to write the thread off largely on your input Zaf, but then the above caught my eye. To be honest, not only is this easily the most reasoned and forward thinking argument you've put forward here (by a long way), but it's also an excellent argument that both the pro and anti-gun lobbies should be espousing. At least this way, there would be a middle ground between the otherwise polar opposites in the argument.

As for the Australia vs 'Murica comparisons, I think they're pretty pointless. As others have stated, the cowboys and indians/2nd amendment sentiment over there is so ingrained that it would be nigh on impossible to apply a similar solution as was done here (the only good thing Johnny ever did btw). You be hard pressed to find many anti-gun lobbyists over there going for a total ban anyway as they'd realise what a pipe dream that is. Instead, many are simply trying to get better processes for vetting gun owners, so that the otherwise normal gun owners (which admittedly don't make the news) are the only ones with access to weapons of any sort.

I do get the sense that with all the facts and figures you've added to the debate here that you're ultimately on the side of the "my rights at any cost" brigade. That's not to simply be antagonistic (even though, if correct, puts us on opposite sides of the debate), just an observation. I've had arguments with similar types before where the accuracy and applicability of facts presented are seen as more important than the overall issue. Given the issue here is innocent people dying (including kids at school no less) due to effectively unregulated access to highly dangerous weapons designed for one purpose, there's little relevance to whether someone can correctly identify an AR-15, or what the exact numbers on gun violence are, when much more reasonable and sane measures to this access could easily be put in place without infringing on anyone's legitimate rights.

 

[flamin'trek]

Anyway while we all posture this, a mate in America let me know that they are considering putting armed guards at his kid’s ‘already fortified’ primary school. It is sad that it has got this far, especially so long after Sandy Hook. I guess that they’ve been thinking all this time that it was a one off, or that they’ll sort out gun control or something else. Now it seems as if they have given up.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[stirk]

News sites reporting 18 gun incidents in the US this year.

Not all incidents are 'shootings' involving a mentally damaged individual but it's still alarming.

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/

 

[schred]

Anyway while we all posture this, a mate in America let me know that they are considering putting armed guards at his kid’s ‘already fortified’ primary school. It is sad that it has got this far, especially so long after Sandy Hook. I guess that they’ve been thinking all this time that it was a one off, or that they’ll sort out gun control or something else. Now it seems as if they have given up.

I'm on a few US-based forums, admittedly a bunch of redneck motorsport peeps, but this is/was their solution as well. As a few pointed out however, unless you harden the schools and restrict access, you are going to need a LOT of security forces to cover each access point most schools have.

They are beyond even listening to the disbelief of the outside world, they don't GAF what anyone else thinks, not a jot, and seem determined it can be solved by themselves even if they don't know what 'it' is. And they acknowledge whatever 'it' is, it's getting worse and more frequent. But they can fix it.
Hmm.

As an insight into their psyche, there was solid support for how the current public school system is a liberal social experiment gone wrong, males have had their nuts cut off and if you take the guns away there will be mass stabbing with scissors or baseball bat attacks instead. Gonna be a case of stand back and watch it unfold.

Your honour, they may look and sound similar, but I contend the only thing we have in common with these folk is their attempted use of the english language.

 

[flamin'trek]

And I think the only reason we really care about it is that their culture is so invasive of ours.

 

[slowmick]

This seemed like an interesting set of ideas. https://secondnexus.com/news/politics/white-males-guns-empowerment-economic-uncertainty/
not suggesting it is a glorious and rigorously tested piece of research (given the small population).
Recently I provided a personal reference for a friend to have the defense security clearance level increased. So many probing questions and hurdles to jump over. It made me think that perhaps they could take similar line with gun licencing for heavy duty stuff. Do you have people who will vouch for you?