[BKsBimmer]

Any thoughts?

[Mr Tonka]

I don't know, but i doubt the answer will be found here, and if by some miracle it is found here, there is little hope that the solution will be implemented.

I do know the answer isn't to take rights away from millions of law abiding citizens because of a hand full of nut jobs who are clearly mentally unfit to be a part of a society full or or without guns.

People are very quick to say don't judge all muslims by the extremists. Same goes here; don't judge me by what a mere fraction of a fraction of what the gun owning population does.

[xbook]

Not sure what can be done, but certainly this needs to be addressed. We have had 3 mass shootings since the end of October. This needs to stop. The US as a nation needs to address this issue. We can't keep doing nothing after these event, then expect things to magically change.

Here's a little anecdote I would like to share. On my way back from the USGP, I stopped in Yuma, AZ to pick up some fuel. It was 10am on a tues morning, go into a very packed Chevron station. One of the customers inside the "store" area has a pistol on his hip. Obviously a citizen, not a law enforcement. Here is my question about the situation, as someone who comes from a state where we don't have open carry laws. Why does that individual need to bring a pistol into the gas station @ 10am? Is Yuma such a bad city that one needs to be armed at all times to be safe?

When I lived in Vancouver BC, a friend who owned a gun wasn't allowed to even stop for gas if his firearms were in his vehicle. Very different to what I experienced in AZ.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by xbook

Not sure what can be done, but certainly this needs to be addressed. We have had 3 mass shootings since the end of October. This needs to stop. The US as a nation needs to address this issue. We can't keep doing nothing after these event, then expect things to magically change.

Here's a little anecdote I would like to share. On my way back from the USGP, I stopped in Yuma, AZ to pick up some fuel. It was 10am on a tues morning, go into a very packed Chevron station. One of the customers inside the "store" area has a pistol on his hip. Obviously a citizen, not a law enforcement. Here is my question about the situation, as someone who comes from a state where we don't have open carry laws. Why does that individual need to bring a pistol into the gas station @ 10am? Is Yuma such a bad city that one needs to be armed at all times to be safe?

When I lived in Vancouver BC, a friend who owned a gun wasn't allowed to even stop for gas if his firearms were in his vehicle. Very different to what I experienced in AZ.

He doesn't need to. But he has a right to. Just like we don't need cars, but by our right we own and drive them. Yes i realize that the sprawling culture we live it nearly makes it necessary to own a car but i see plenty of people out there getting by with out them. The point is that there are many things people don't need to do, but by our constitutional rights we do them anyway.

There was a video posted somewhere in this forum recently. Some idiot was exercising his right to open carry his firearm and record any incidents with law enforcement. The LEO in the video said he wished more citizens would exercise those rights because there would be much less crime.

From my point of view, i find it hard to argue with him.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Perhaps lessons can be taken from other places around the world which dont seem to have this problem with the same horrific regularity you see here. (I'm talking modern 1st world democracies here, not 3rd world, perpetually-war-torn shitholes. That would be comparing apples to oranges.)

Maybe it's worth swallowing some pride, taking a long hard look at why nobody in Australia or Canada or England, etc. is calling for their teachers to be armed to protect their students, under the premise that it is simply a matter of time before an armed wacko inevitably enters their campus and shoots at people. These places all have more strict gun laws. Maybe something can be learned from them ?

Some suggest that stricter gun laws leads to only the "bad guys" having guns, thus worsening the situation, since the crazies would know there is no threat of return fire, so would be emboldened to commit such acts even more frequently, and with more devastating outcomes. And yet, as logically sound as that premise admittedly is, their predicted scenario does not seem to actually manifest itself elsewhere.

If you could prove the premise that mass shootings (or attempts at such mass shootings) are truly inevitable/unavoidable, then giving the innocent law-abiding people some method to mitigate the "almost-certain" future damage seems to make some sense, so you'd want to loosen, not tighten, the gun laws. It would deter would-be shooters, if they thought Miss Jones in grade 3 had a 9mm in her desk and knew how to use it, or so goes the logic.

However, nutjobs in Sydney, or Toronto, or London dont seem to be storming their campuses every couple years, and it certainly cant be due to any deterrent created by armed teachers, because those places dont have armed teachers. Many times I've seen on this board the expression, "an armed society is a polite society". Look around, other places are polite, peaceful societies too, and nobody there is armed.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, these are just some thoughts and observations...

[xbook]

Well put Al.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

He doesn't need to. But he has a right to. Just like we don't need cars, but by our right we own and drive them. Yes i realize that the sprawling culture we live it nearly makes it necessary to own a car but i see plenty of people out there getting by with out them. The point is that there are many things people don't need to do, but by our constitutional rights we do them anyway.

There was a video posted somewhere in this forum recently. Some idiot was exercising his right to open carry his firearm and record any incidents with law enforcement. The LEO in the video said he wished more citizens would exercise those rights because there would be much less crime.

From my point of view, i find it hard to argue with him.

Personally I don't think guns and cars are an equal comparison. But even if we take them as such surely you know it's much harder to get a drivers license than it is to buy a gun.

In most states before you can apply for a drivers license you must first get a learners permit. You're then required to wait a 2 week period before applying for a permanent license. In order to complete the application you must take a written and test followed by a driving test accompanied by an instructor to demonstrate your basic ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. There are no such requirements to buy a gun. Currently not every state requires everyone who want's to buy a gun to pass a background check. Current gun laws don't even restrict individuals on the Terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

We have to have gun laws that make sense in today's world. I'm not suggesting that all guns be banned or outlawed. But there is clearly no justifiable reason for an average citizen to be able to own military assault weapons in civil society. I believe these are all areas where we can start to make changes in our current gun laws.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Perhaps lessons can be taken from other places around the world which dont seem to have this problem with the same horrific regularity you see here. (I'm talking modern 1st world democracies here, not 3rd world, perpetually-war-torn shitholes. That would be comparing apples to oranges.)

Maybe it's worth swallowing some pride, taking a long hard look at why nobody in Australia or Canada or England, etc. is calling for their teachers to be armed to protect their students, under the premise that it is simply a matter of time before an armed wacko inevitably enters their campus and shoots at people. These places all have more strict gun laws. Maybe something can be learned from them ?

Some suggest that stricter gun laws leads to only the "bad guys" having guns, thus worsening the situation, since the crazies would know there is no threat of return fire, so would be emboldened to commit such acts even more frequently, and with more devastating outcomes. And yet, as logically sound as that premise admittedly is, their predicted scenario does not seem to actually manifest itself elsewhere.

If you could prove the premise that mass shootings (or attempts at such mass shootings) are truly inevitable/unavoidable, then giving the innocent law-abiding people some method to mitigate the "almost-certain" future damage seems to make some sense, so you'd want to loosen, not tighten, the gun laws. It would deter would-be shooters, if they thought Miss Jones in grade 3 had a 9mm in her desk and knew how to use it, or so goes the logic.

However, nutjobs in Sydney, or Toronto, or London dont seem to be storming their campuses every couple years, and it certainly cant be due to any deterrent created by armed teachers, because those places dont have armed teachers. Many times I've seen on this board the expression, "an armed society is a polite society". Look around, other places are polite, peaceful societies too, and nobody there is armed.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, these are just some thoughts and observations...

You and I don't often agree, but I must say you are spot on here.

[Fox128i]

Thank you, Al. Well said.

I work with children (young athletes) aged 5 - 14 on a daily basis and my heart is broken at the moment. I don't know what to say.

[TACA A320]

MiddleAgedAl put it very nicely. Although I feel that we cannot rid innocent citizens of their rights, the truth has to lie somewhere in between left and right. There has to be a way to filter out the crazies from owning M16's but allowing a law-abiding citizen to keep a weapon in his house in case it is broken into while his five year old twins are inside.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Perhaps lessons can be taken from other places around the world which dont seem to have this problem with the same horrific regularity you see here. (I'm talking modern 1st world democracies here, not 3rd world, perpetually-war-torn shitholes. That would be comparing apples to oranges.)

Maybe it's worth swallowing some pride, taking a long hard look at why nobody in Australia or Canada or England, etc. is calling for their teachers to be armed to protect their students, under the premise that it is simply a matter of time before an armed wacko inevitably enters their campus and shoots at people. These places all have more strict gun laws. Maybe something can be learned from them ?

Some suggest that stricter gun laws leads to only the "bad guys" having guns, thus worsening the situation, since the crazies would know there is no threat of return fire, so would be emboldened to commit such acts even more frequently, and with more devastating outcomes. And yet, as logically sound as that premise admittedly is, their predicted scenario does not seem to actually manifest itself elsewhere.

If you could prove the premise that mass shootings (or attempts at such mass shootings) are truly inevitable/unavoidable, then giving the innocent law-abiding people some method to mitigate the "almost-certain" future damage seems to make some sense, so you'd want to loosen, not tighten, the gun laws. It would deter would-be shooters, if they thought Miss Jones in grade 3 had a 9mm in her desk and knew how to use it, or so goes the logic.

However, nutjobs in Sydney, or Toronto, or London dont seem to be storming their campuses every couple years, and it certainly cant be due to any deterrent created by armed teachers, because those places dont have armed teachers. Many times I've seen on this board the expression, "an armed society is a polite society". Look around, other places are polite, peaceful societies too, and nobody there is armed.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, these are just some thoughts and observations...

These mass shootings aren't committed by "bad guys". They seem to committed by mentally unstable college age KIDS.

Yes. if all guns were to magically disappear from this country it would be a safer place. How plausible is that though? Other countries, like Canada and Australia didn't start out with having to rid themselves of over 230,000,000 "known" firearms. That's quite a task. Is it possible?

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

These mass shootings aren't committed by "bad guys". They seem to committed by mentally unstable college age KIDS.

Yes. if all guns were to magically disappear from this country it would be a safer place. How plausible is that though? Other countries, like Canada and Australia didn't start out with having to rid themselves of over 230,000,000 "known" firearms. That's quite a task. Is it possible?

True an Canada has Tons of firearms!!! So do the Swiss and israelis. They don have they same problems as the USA so it's not just gun control there are many other other factors that need to be considered as well.

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by M3Denver

True an Canada has Tons of firearms!!! So do the Swiss and israelis. They don have they same problems as the USA so it's not just gun control there are many other other factors that need to be considered as well.

more food for thought... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...bings/1770395/

[OldArmy]

Here's a scenario where we can define this generalized wish to do something.

I own multiple weapons, always have. I'm well and truly trained and experienced (retired Army) on how to use a weapon and when and I can hit what I aim at. I have a concealed carry permit which I choose to exercise sometimes, sometimes not. I'm prepared to use a personal weapon in defense of life and limb (yours too) but have not had to ever even display a weapon in civilian life, much less shoot someone. My weapons are "secure" from casual pilfering or unauthorized use.

So, what do you want me to do that is different and how will that action keep a horrible incident like this one from happening? Just curious as how this generalized wish to do something will impact me and to what end. What exactly would you gun law, gun control advocates want done that is different?

[Built My Way]

I don't speak to God much but today I'm saying a little prayer for the victim's families and for those young survivors whose lives will forever be affected. It's a difficult question to answer when it's a constitutional right to bear arms. Obviously gun registry won't solve the problem as the weapons used in the shooting were all registered. Here in Canada hunting is second nature to many but gun owners are limited to certain types of weapons. Most here grow up without guns in the household. Out of sight, out of mind I guess and if someone really wanted to do some damage, it would be difficult but it wouldn't be impossible. As OldArmy said above, "What do you want me to do that is different..." Christmas will now just be a sad reminder for many. What a damn waste.

[DieselDiner]

Perhaps the difference between the U.S. and those other countries lies in the way they deal with the mentally ill? I'm beginning to wonder about our mental health "professionals" and the system that identifies and deals with these individuals.

A quick review of the past tragedies at VT, Tuscon, and Aurora reveals that the individuals were deranged and no one said anything about it to the proper authorities, or dealt with them in an appropriate way. The VT shooter had mental issues since high school or before, and had been evaluated by doctors but it was never put into the system, had it been he would have been denied the right to purchase the gun. Same with the Tuscon shooting, he was deranged, kicked out of college and teachers feared him, but no one reported it, just wanted to get rid of him. He was to go through a mental evaluation prior to returning to school.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by DieselDiner

Perhaps the difference between the U.S. and those other countries lies in the way they deal with the mentally ill? I'm beginning to wonder about our mental health "professionals" and the system that identifies and deals with these individuals.

A quick review of the past tragedies at VT, Tuscon, and Aurora reveals that the individuals were deranged and no one said anything about it to the proper authorities, or dealt with them in an appropriate way. The VT shooter had mental issues since high school or before, and had been evaluated by doctors but it was never put into the system, had it been he would have been denied the right to purchase the gun. Same with the Tuscon shooting, he was deranged, kicked out of college and teachers feared him, but no one reported it, just wanted to get rid of him. He was to go through a mental evaluation prior to returning to school.

And yet all these mentally deranged individuals had easy access to guns ... not just pistols, but semi automatic guns and assault weapons and plenty of amo. I agree there are multiple levels to the problem including the mental health aspect. But clearly easy access to these types of weapons is a central aspect of the problem. We can't keep ignoring this.

[DieselDiner]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

And yet all these mentally deranged individuals had easy access to guns ... not just pistols, but semi automatic guns and assault weapons and plenty of amo. I agree there are multiple levels to the problem including the mental health aspect. But clearly easy access to these types of weapons is a central aspect of the problem. We can't keep ignoring this.

No, that is part of my point. These people should not have access - to guns, perhaps society in general. If these individuals were identified and dealt with in a proper manner, they would not have access to guns, or society, for that matter.

[BKsBimmer]

I want to be clear I'm not in favor of responsible gun owners being restricted from owning guns. I would like everyone including gun owners to recognize and acknowledge we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country and to try to figure out solutions.

[DieselDiner]

My point is that the restriction should begin at the individual level, which is the point from which the violence emanates. These mentally ill individuals should never have been able to gain access to guns - and perhaps that starts with restricing their access to society in general.

Thinking of places like Chicago, which has very restrictive gun laws, and yet is a poster child for criminal gun violence (which also catches innocents in the crossfire on a regular basis): perhaps we need to more aggressively criminalize the use of a gun in committing a crime, and put these felons away for a long time.

Chicago also demonstrates that restrictive gun laws do not stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes.

[Pontrelli]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

These mass shootings aren't committed by "bad guys". They seem to committed by mentally unstable college age KIDS.

Yes. if all guns were to magically disappear from this country it would be a safer place. How plausible is that though? Other countries, like Canada and Australia didn't start out with having to rid themselves of over 230,000,000 "known" firearms. That's quite a task. Is it possible?

So if you did decided to throw the 2nd Amendment out the window and ban guns...these mentally unstable people would just resort to using other "types" of weapons....anyone remember Timothy McVey?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Yes. if all guns were to magically disappear from this country it would be a safer place. How plausible is that though? Other countries, like Canada and Australia didn't start out with having to rid themselves of over 230,000,000 "known" firearms. That's quite a task. Is it possible?

Is it possible ? Probably not, realistically. Is the sheer number of firearms the differentiating factor? I dunno. There's a chart on another thread with some interesting stats, and 1 thing that stood out to me is that Australia has 15 guns per 100 people, the exact same number as Mexico. However, their intentional gun homicide rates are a million miles apart, so that might suggest that it's more complicated than just the number of guns per person. Considering those 2 numbers, maybe you dont need to go a remove all of those 230 million extra firearms in order to stop the insanity. After all, if Australians dont find the presence of those extra guns lying around to be an irresistable temptation, and can control themselves from behaving like savages despite having them available on their soil, then surely there MUST be hope for Americans, right??

There's no easy answer obviously, but the fact that other countries manage to conduct elementary classes without their teachers having to worry about some sicko coming in and shooting their students tells us that it is possible, it's not some theoretical pipe dream. Given what is at stake, isn't it worth trying to figure out how to copy that success ? Looking inward (ie: forget other places, what laws should we adjust or not) doesnt seem to be working.

If someone else has figured out something you have not, there's no shame in asking them, hey, how did you do it?