[steve2005]

 The_Badger, on 2017-October-03, 00:45, said:

Just read the headline that the gunman had amassed 40+ weapons. Sickening. The United States have only themselves to blame for allowing carte blanche gun ownership.

Maybe the Second Amendment needs serious amending. There's not even a fine line between having one gun for self-defence in your home, and stockpiling your own personal militia.

There have been so many cases each more horrible than the last. I am a Canadian so can have no effect on US politics or the law.

But I think it is clear the anti-gun lobby has lost the political battle.

There are several legal scholars that think the last case on 2nd amendment could be overturned. I think ACLU or someone should make top priority to challenge the 2nd amendment in the supreme court.

p.s. getting any amendment ratified in US is nearly impossible, getting an amendment ratified under the current political situation is impossible!

[Al_U_Card]

LV is not the price of freedom, it is one of the costs of American society. Canada has had mass murderers (Robert Pickton and the 60 some women he killed) so it seems that our liberties and freedom of movement can allow the so-inclined to act in such ways. Determining ways of diagnosing such cases or even how to intercept and interrupt such nascent behavior would be preferable to altering our satisfactory way of life.

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-October-03, 20:14, said:

LV is not the price of freedom, it is one of the costs of American society. Canada has had mass murderers (Robert Pickton and the 60 some women he killed) so it seems that our liberties and freedom of movement can allow the so-inclined to act in such ways. Determining ways of diagnosing such cases or even how to intercept and interrupt such nascent behavior would be preferable to altering our satisfactory way of life.

Taking the (biggest) guns away doesn't reduce the chance of such incidents, it simply reduces the magnitude. It's a lot more difficult to kill 60 and injure 600 without automatic weapons (which effectively with a bump stock is what he had).

[barmar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-October-03, 20:14, said:

LV is not the price of freedom, it is one of the costs of American society. Canada has had mass murderers (Robert Pickton and the 60 some women he killed) so it seems that our liberties and freedom of movement can allow the so-inclined to act in such ways. Determining ways of diagnosing such cases or even how to intercept and interrupt such nascent behavior would be preferable to altering our satisfactory way of life.

Other societies have mass murders, but not to the same extent we do. From http://www.marketwat...-us-2017-10-02:

Quote

Mass shootings also took place in 25 other wealthy nations between 1983 and 2013, but the number of mass shootings in the United States far surpasses that of any other country included in the study during the same period of time.

The U.S. had 78 mass shootings during that 30-year period.

The highest number of mass shootings experienced outside the United States was in Germany — where seven shootings occurred.

In the other 24 industrialized countries taken together, 41 mass shootings took place.

In other words, the U.S. had nearly double the number of mass shootings than all other 24 countries combined in the same 30-year period.

[steve2005]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-October-04, 03:24, said:

Taking the (biggest) guns away doesn't reduce the chance of such incidents, it simply reduces the magnitude. It's a lot more difficult to kill 60 and injure 600 without automatic weapons (which effectively with a bump stock is what he had).

The second amendment was written in 1791.
The infantry tactic then was to line 15-30 guys in a row and shoot at the other 15-30 guys. With any luck might hit something. One person in 1791 couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. Is there a legit reason for owning an Ak-47 or similar gun. The will say for target practise, then the range should lock it up there and they can use for target practise.

There are murders everywhere that is true. However, USA has by far the highest rate of gun deaths and in may cases it is the gun owner who gets killed or injured. British constables didn't even carry a pistol for the longest time.

[Cyberyeti]

 steve2005, on 2017-October-04, 11:15, said:

There are murders everywhere that is true. However, USA has by far the highest rate of gun deaths and in may cases it is the gun owner who gets killed or injured. British constables didn't even carry a pistol for the longest time.

British police still don't routinely carry firearms.

[kenberg]

Most people, on this forum and generally, realize something needs to be done. Maybe a different approach would work People, not me but some, feel that they need a gun for protection. We could make the use of a gun in defense very restrictive. The person should be able to show that he in no way whatsoever provoked the confrontation. Take the Trevor Martin case in Florida. Basically, Zimmerman was stalking him. What the hell did he expect would come from that? A sensible person without a gun would not be doing this stalking,. If the act of stalking automatically revoked his right to use a gun, then maybe a sensible person with a gun would also think at least twice before doing the stalking. Exact details would need some thought, but the idea would be that you are not allowed to act in a way that can reasonably be expected to lead to a physical confrontation, and then shoot the guy because you are getting the worst of the confrontation. Possibly those who support the 2nd amendment could come to see the point of something like this.

It might be a start anyway.

But target practice with these high powered rifles? Really? Only if you are in the military. I did target practice when I was a kid. Not like that.

Ok, thinking this over, I can see a lot of practical problems with this suggestion. But it is very frustrating. Some idiot gets a gun and then thinks he can be hyper-aggressive because, well, because he has a gun. And we see the results of that

I am not under the impression that we can stop a psychopath from acting psychopathically. But my guess is that far more gun deaths are from belligerence and this belligerence comes about because someone feels he is safe from the consequences of belligerence because he has a gun.You put two people who think this way together and you have a problem.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2017-October-04, 09:10, said:

Other societies have mass murders, but not to the same extent we do. From http://www.marketwat...-us-2017-10-02:

They must use some "interesting" definitions, and the number of mass shootings does not jibe with other reports. And most mass shootings do not fall into the definition of "mass murders", let alone, "public mass murders".

https://www.reddit.c...16massshootings

In 2016, there were 371 mass shootings in the USA. More than 1 per day.

As far as total gun deaths in the US, there have been 25% more gun related deaths of Americans in the past 50 years than American deaths from all the wars in US history (1.5 million versus 1.2 million).

http://www.msn.com/e...age=AAsUIda_1|1

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2017-October-04, 14:06, said:

They must use some "interesting" definitions, and the number of mass shootings does not jibe with other reports. And most mass shootings do not fall into the definition of "mass murders", let alone, "public mass murders".

https://www.reddit.c...16massshootings

In 2016, there were 371 mass shootings in the USA. More than 1 per day.

As far as total gun deaths in the US, there have been 25% more gun related deaths of Americans in the past 50 years than American deaths from all the wars in US history (1.5 million versus 1.2 million).

http://www.msn.com/e...age=AAsUIda_1|1

Some of the mass shooting statistics, like the one that reports more than 1/day, consider any incident with more than something like 3 or 4 victims to be a mass shooting. I suspect the article I linked to was using a more conservative definition.

But by any measure, we're the world leader in gun deaths. We're #1, we're #1!!!

[barmar]

Hey Congress. If you don't want to pass reasonable gun control, how about real universal health care so the victims can get treatment?

[shyams]

Really surprised (in the manner of a "pleasant surprise") to read in the BBC that the NRA has called for "regulations" on semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons.

I don't know if that is the first step to an eventual ban of such weapons across the US, but at the very least, the Senators and Congressmen will now have an opportunity to create meaningful legislation without fear of serious backlash.

Perhaps one day the courts might eventually rule that the second amendment exclusively refers to handguns, rifles and other type of (non-automatic) weapons.

[jjbrr]

na, "without serious backlash" is out of touch with reality. i don't think you understand how many Joe Farmers across America NEED AR15s to protect themselves from wild hogs out in the fields, and anyway if legislature were passed to take the guns away, they'd simply keep them undocumented as if this were some profound statement.

[Winstonm]

The Second Day Amenmendmatists are an American religious body of about 5 million who believe in holding the other 295 million hostage to their reading of the holy constitution.

[kenberg]

I apologize if this link has already been posted, it's from a Scientific American article.

https://www.scientif...ngs-in-america/


Item #4 addresses the changing definitions and lack of clarity in definitions. It was not completely clear to me that the author took these changing definitions into account in some of his other items.

I post this for whatever use it might be, I can't say that I think it is all that carefully written.

I'm not sure that a tabulation and comparison with other countries gets us very far.

We have something of a gun culture. If you talk with people who buy guns it becomes clear that it really isn't that they are living in great fear and so they get a gun for protection. They just like having a gun. It seems right to them. Most people that I am likely to meet and chat with are very unlikely to actually need a gun for protection. At least not if they act with any common sense at all. And unless they keep a gun constantly within reach, then in the unlikely event that they need it it is apt to be locked in a safe. The person ringing the door might be a crazed killer. Well yes. Or maybe a dragon. But do they really get their pistol , load it, and carry it with them as they answer the door?

I once mentioned that long ago, in the 1940s, we took in a woman and her two daughters who had left her abusive husband. Art, the estranged husband, came around drunk, banging on the door, and demanding to come in to see Marie, the mother. My father wasn't home but my mother got my father's 12 gauge, pointed it at the door, and explained clearly that he would not be coming in. Knowing my mother, my guess is that she had not forgotten to load it. He left. I was maybe 9 or so, but I can tell you where everyone was standing. It was a memorable experience.

So I acknowledge there can be a use for guns for protection. These were very special circumstances. And even there, a cop lived directly across the street. A quick phone call might have been better.

Anyway, circumstances can vary so I am not making any blanket statements. . But most of the people I encounter are in no danger that I see. Lighting might strike, of course. So wear a protective helmet. No, they just want a gun. Or so I see it.


We need to change attitudes. If we can.

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2017-October-05, 20:55, said:

I apologize if this link has already been posted, it's from a Scientific American article.
https://www.scientif...ngs-in-america/

What a terrible bar chart, this blue-red "The number of gun owned vs. the number of mass shootings". The left chart is per 100 inhabitants, the right chart is absolute numbers so big countries like France, UK and Germany show up with high numbers.

[steve2005]

 Winstonm, on 2017-October-05, 20:37, said:

The Second Day Amenmendmatists are an American religious body of about 5 million who believe in holding the other 295 million hostage to their reading of the holy constitution.

The US supreme court only needs 5 justices to agree on what's right according to the constitution. Don't need 5 million.
If the 295 million had their way on all issues the US would be a much different country rightly or wrongly.

[barmar]

 helene_t, on 2017-October-05, 21:25, said:

What a terrible bar chart, this blue-red "The number of gun owned vs. the number of mass shootings". The left chart is per 100 inhabitants, the right chart is absolute numbers so big countries like France, UK and Germany show up with high numbers.

6 and 7 are "high numbers"? They're less than 10% of the US total. The point of this chart is to show that every other country is incredibly low compared to the US. When all the numbers on the right are in single digits, except the US, I'm not sure the scale really matters. The US total is more than twice the all the other totals combined.

If you used a comparable scale, the numbers for all the other countries would be nearly infinitessimal.

[kenberg]

Still, having a per capita column next to an absolute column does not give me confidence in either the objectivity or the expository skill of the author.

We see, for example, that the US has almost twice as many guns per person as is the case in Switzerland. If we then look to the right we see that the US had 78 mass shootings to Switzerland's 2, so that's a factor of 39..

But then Switzerland has a population of about 8 million, the US has a population of about 320 million. That's a factor of about 40. So it would seem that, according to his research, Switzerland has about 1/40 of our population and 1/40 of our mass shootings.

That's if I believe his statistics at all, which I am not sure that I do.

As I say, the part that interested me the most was his #4, cautioning against historical comparisons because of the vagaries of the notion of "mass shooting". I think caution in using data is a very good idea. He could at least put up a third table, showing relative population sizes . That way people could look at the mass killing numbers and look at the population numbers side by side.

Maybe we should all eat more chocolate or spend more time skiing [A fine idea, now that I think of it], but I doubt we will learn much that is useful be comparing the statistics.

[Winstonm]

 steve2005, on 2017-October-05, 23:55, said:

The US supreme court only needs 5 justices to agree on what's right according to the constitution. Don't need 5 million.
If the 295 million had their way on all issues the US would be a much different country rightly or wrongly.

Modern SC is politicized.

[steve2005]

 Winstonm, on 2017-October-06, 14:42, said:

Modern SC is politicized.

and SC was non-political when?