Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[MatskiMonk]

Going to have to stop you on that one, because not only are you conflating two things - the weapon and the projectile - you're also smashing together the perceived end result with the design purpose.

I'm intentionally treating the weapon and the projectile as separate things, since (I assume) it's possible to fire "less"lethal rounds from a gun designed to fire lethal projectiles... but in my suggestion, the gun owner has loaded his weapon with bullets designed to be able to kill, as it's not a "perceived" end result, it's one that Joey discharging his weapon at centre mass or head, has to accept, because - as you say - you cannot discharge a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy... and I would suggest that Joey wouldn't have bought the gun/ammo if it turned out it couldn't render the assailant "preferably dead". The fact they're not used to kill people as regularly as they are able is a reflection of a fortunate lack of cause, but should the cause arise, the intention is to kill... when cars are used to their maximum potential the intention is still for them to not kill anybody.

It seems like a discussion of semantics. An effective gun is one that kills people, an effective car is one that (amongst other things) doesn't. Car manufacturers are different to gun manufacturers because they attempt to remove the casualties from what they do, by changing what they do. Maybe it's bad publicity when someone shoots a bunch of people with an AR-15, but at the end of the day, that's the AR-15 doing what the AR-15 is designed to do. Cars exploding, assistance systems failing to stop.. or whatever, is unintended, it isn't designed to do that. Engineers strive to get rid of those things... how many people designing automatic rifles are designing them not to kill? They're not designing guns so that innocent people don't die, car manufacturers are at least trying.

 

[baldgye]

Bringing this back to guns, the US requires (or it supposed to require) a certain amount of consensus to pass a law. We don't have that right now and we can't enact national change until we have that consensus.

Indeed, which is why it seems as though the vast majority and perhaps people here too, deem mass shootings as simply something that can’t be solved and thus, a fact of American life.

It’s worth noting, again, that these types of events have enacted change in other first world nations. Usually this change is a banning or serious restriction on gun access.

 

[Exorcet]

Indeed, which is why it seems as though the vast majority and perhaps people here too, deem mass shootings as simply something that can’t be solved and thus, a fact of American life.

It’s worth noting, again, that these types of events have enacted change in other first world nations. Usually this change is a banning or serious restriction on gun access.

I'm just not following your logic.

EDIT

Unless you mean that it looks like people accept it, but it may or may not actually be the case that they do. If so then we're on the same page.

Sorry for being dense if this is the case.

 

[baldgye]

I'm just not following your logic.

EDIT

Unless you mean that it looks like people accept it, but it may or may not actually be the case that they do. If so then we're on the same page.

Sorry for being dense.

I mean, nothing changes, people don’t care enough to back ANY solution and so it seems like people don’t actually care.

Which is fine, again if you’re happy for people to die for you to feel safe and have a hobby, then that’s ok... I just wish people would be honest

 

[Sander 001]

Do people actually want to do anything?

Last polling I saw showed 67% of Americans want more strict firearms legislation. But that number is meaningless outside a democracy.

 

[Exorcet]

Which is fine, again if you’re happy for people to die for you to feel safe and have a hobby, then that’s ok... I just wish people would be honest

Again though you're posing this as if it's the case. If it were all the points I raised about how to help solve the problem wouldn't make any sense. They might not actually make sense, but obviously they do to me unless I'm lying.

Also just to point out I don't own a gun and I'm willing to give up a hypothetical gun for other people's sake. I'm not willing to tell other people to give up guns for my sake, or anyone else's sake. If that to you is acceptable casualties, then yes I have acceptable casualties.

 

[BobK]

And that’s fine, but my argument would be that the cost of people dying as a result of hit and runs, is outweighed by the mobility, economic growth and prosperity cars have brought to the world.

So you're saying it's just fine if thousands of people get killed because the convenience of an automobile makes it worth it?

 

[baldgye]

So you're saying it's just fine if thousands of people get killed because the convenience of an automobile makes it worth it?

No, but thanks for your contribution.

 

[Wolfe]

I mean, nothing changes, people don’t care enough to back ANY solution and so it seems like people don’t actually care.

I don't think you're recognizing the political paralysis of the issue. A vocal portion of the population is screaming for change, or complaining that existing laws are not enforced like they should be, on the left and right. I don't have a fully formed opinion on what to do about it, but I hear both sides.

To the extent that nothing changes, it's not that citizens don't care, it's that politics and media don't care when it isn't useful to them. That's why certain kinds of gun violence are used predominantly for political gain. Others are left un-emphasized, or maybe swept under the rug.

I assure you, it's not as bleak as you're suggesting. It's just very difficult to wield politics on such an emotionally- and politically-charged issue. It's not the only thing waiting for the government to get its act together...

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Banning guns doesn't eliminate the kind of weaponry that enables them to do so. It more effectively minimizes the kind of weaponry that can be used to stop them. I've mentioned before, the body count would have been lower at Oklahoma City if we could have given McVeigh an automatic rifle instead of his weapon of choice.

Hmm. I see your point.

However, I also don't think your typical 8chan troll has the resourcefulness to assemble a successful 5,000lbs ammonium nitrate and nitromethane bomb.

-Mowing down civilians with an Assault rifle - Easy enough a child could do it
-Blowing up an entire building - Ridiculously hard, you pretty much have to be an expert in explosives and everything has to go according to plan.

My concern is that a McVeigh event is a 50-year event, to borrow natural disaster terminology. El Paso is quickly becoming a 1-month event. Know what I mean? Put another way...if access to firearms was completely restricted, I seriously doubt we would see a rapid increase of successful Oklahoma City scale bombings because it's too damn hard. The process takes too long and your exposure to law enforcement before the attack is exponentially larger. I really, really doubt McVeigh's attack would have been successful in post-2001 America. I think it's reasonable to speculate that bombing attempts may go up, but I would guess that the casualty rate would go down...bombs aren't as effective, particularly the DIY variety.

I don't think these FPS-rampage fantasy shooters are particularly intellectually gifted in fact I imagine most of them are roundly pathetic...I don't think they would have the resourcefulness to pull off a high-casualty attack without an easily accessible device tailor-made for that specific purpose...and again, without the gun, I don't even think they would have the motivation to carry out the attack. The gun is the best part for them!

Edit: I think we all, everyone, agrees that somebody like the El Paso shooter should not be able to access firearms. Why not require a license that subsequently requires a yearly psychological examination for firearm ownership? It's the same concept as Red Flag laws, but it's more inherently fail-safe! If the license lapses, you get an instant red flag. Hell it could even be done through the NRA!

-Only NRA members can purchase guns.
-All NRA members must submit to a yearly psych test, to be administered by NRA, paid for by membership dues.

That would put the onus on the NRA to ensure that their members (now the only legal gun owners in the US) are not terrorists!

Gun owners should honestly be welcoming such ideas, because it ultimately protects/enshrines their 2nd amendment rights. What is the alternative if things keep going this way? Repealing the 2nd amendment doesn't look so unrealistic as it once did. They should support something like this now, before its too late.

 

[zzz_pt]

-All NRA members must submit to a yearly psych test, to be administered by NRA, paid for by membership dues.

Kinda of agree with your post but not this sentence. I think NRA shouldn't be the ones responsible to check if citiznes are fit/able to get access/keep their license. It should be a governement agency. Why should the State put the burden on the NRA, or why should the NRA be trusted with it? I don't see it ever being approved. We're talking about a serious public issue, so the state should take care of it (maybe with help of the NRA and other organizations but definetly not puting it in the hands of the people who want to sell guns in the first place).

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Kinda of agree with your post but not this sentence. I think NRA shouldn't be the ones responsible to check if citiznes are fit/able to get access/keep their license. It should be a governement agency. Why should the State put the burden on the NRA, or why should the NRA be trusted with it? I don't see it ever being approved. We're talking about a serious public issue, so the state should take care of it (maybe with help of the NRA and other organizations but definetly not puting it in the hands of the people who want to sell guns in the first place).

My thinking was that it would be more attractive to Republicans/Conservatives who have an innate distrust of public institutions/Government. And, from my perspective, the NRA would probably care more about the conduct of it's members than a faceless bureaucratic body would.

 

[baldgye]

I don't think you're recognizing the political paralysis of the issue. A vocal portion of the population is screaming for change, or complaining that existing laws are not enforced like they should be, on the left and right. I don't have a fully formed opinion on what to do about it, but I hear both sides.

To the extent that nothing changes, it's not that citizens don't care, it's that politics and media don't care when it isn't useful to them. That's why certain kinds of gun violence are used predominantly for political gain. Others are left un-emphasized, or maybe swept under the rug.

I assure you, it's not as bleak as you're suggesting. It's just very difficult to wield politics on such an emotionally- and politically-charged issue. It's not the only thing waiting for the government to get its act together...

I mean, you guys are making it seem pretty damn bleak. Your saying that your country’s democratic systems don’t work and your powerless to change them.

EDIT: To be honest, blaming your political system for being broken just seems like another excuse to distance yourself from the problem, because you don't really care that much about it. It's the same as saying it needs any one of X solutions, yet not being convicted enough to then act or push for those solutions to be carried out.
All around the developed world, mass shootings are the tipping point for changes in laws and that society, yet in America they are a common place (there have been 248 this year already) and two as this thread was started. It seems as though people would rather wax lyrical about what they think and why removing guns isn't the solution, yet fail to actually take any action on what they feel is the correct solution... because they don't have the power, because it's a nation divided etc... etc... etc... if you guys don't care, just be honest about it.

 

[Novalee]

heres a list of mass shootings in America for 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

i stopped counting at 60

 

[Downhill Dino]

A lot of those aren't the 'mass shootings' as we know, I see some drug deals gone wrong and a home invasion and such in there that I personally would not qualify. I wonder how much shorter the list would be.

 

[McLaren]

A lot of those aren't the 'mass shootings' as we know, I see some drug deals gone wrong and a home evasion and such in there that I personally would not qualify. I wonder how much shorter the list would be.

The term “mass shooting” is broad so anything involving the required number of people get seen as one. It’s a bit ridiculous that a home invasion gets added to the number so people can harp it and act like America is a war zone.

Same thing happened when people were sharing “18 school shootings!”. A man ending his chase with police at a school or accidental discharges are not school shootings in the same vain as Sandy Hook.

Edit* Switching to my PC to see that list in full, here's some listed mass shootings involved in that 248 number.

Listed as possible home-invasion: man entered apartment and killed 3 children, wounding their mother.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/...fter-3-children-killed-in-shooting-police-say

Another listed as home-invasion: 1 dead, 3 injured. Interestingly though, 1 of the wounded has previous murder charges.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jan/03/teenager-killed-jonesboro-shooting-former-main-str/

Another home-invasion:
https://www.click2houston.com/news/homeowner-fatally-shoots-3-men-during-home-invasion-police-said

Listed as a mass-shooting, but involves 5 officers being shot while serving a warrant, resulting in 2 dead suspects.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/several-officers-shot-in-southeast-houston-chief-says

Listed as a mass-shooting, but more of a shooting spree. Male fired up on a bar injuring 2 and killing one before driving to a home where he broke in, killed the home owner, and then himself.
https://6abc.com/4th-person-dies-after-shooting-spree-near-penn-state/5105986/

Another home invasion.
https://www.ohio.com/news/20190626/one-dead-three-wounded-in-south-akron-home-invasion

Another home invasion.
https://kfor.com/2019/07/30/authorities-investigate-shooting-in-haskell/

Home invasion; man kicked in the door and fired inside.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/l...er-gunman-breaks-into-South-Side-13592758.php

The ones below were due to fighting beforehand.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local...-investigates-death-in-northwest-jacksonville
https://www.wbrc.com/2019/02/23/police-investigating-shooting-party-east-birmingham/
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...t-arrested-after-oakland-sports-bar-shooting/
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...critical-condition-in-overnight-lodo-shooting

Two groups with past disagreements ran into each other and led to a shooting.
https://m.cordeledispatch.com/2019/03/17/one-dead-three-injured-in-rochelle-shooting/

This fight led to a shooting that now involves an investigation into organized crime.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/3/3/18483644/6-shot-inside-private-bar-on-south-side-none-fatally

Mayor listed it as gang and drug-related.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/man-killed-in-mass-shooting-was-aspiring-jacksonville-rapper

That's 15 events listed and there's more in that list that of similar nature. I didn't even touch on the drive-bys which are usually gang affiliated.

The problem I have with these sort of instances being added to a mass shooting count is that when the media reports 248 mass shootings this year, they're not going to share specifics like this that contribute to that. It becomes misleading like the school shooting number. You see an event like Dayton/El Paso happen, 248 gets shared around social media, the idea gets perpetuated that America has 246 other shooting instances like Dayton/El Paso where a gun man just opened up on the public in the same method. Worse yet, people use that same 248 number when debating about rifles yet I have without a doubt, the majority of all the occasions listed used handguns. Out of the 248 listed, only 10 accounted for 10 or more people involved which puts a cloud over the whole unnecessarily large magazine debate to prevent mass shootings; your standard handgun has enough ammunition to be responsible for 238 of these shootings.

In reality, many of these shootings are really home invasions, escalated fights, murder-suicides, unconfirmed gang-affiliated, etc.. This needs to be noted and sorted by the outlets who track this number to paint a much better understanding of the mass shootings in this country because they are not all the same. Otherwise, the media sharing Dayton and then reporting 247 other shootings this year comes across as potentially, fear-mongering by not pointing out just how many of those shootings had other factors involved than just an angry, entitled alt-right consumed white man....

 

[TenEightyOne]

The term “mass shooting” is broad so anything involving the required number of people get seen as one. It’s a bit ridiculous that a home invasion gets added to the number so people can harp it and act like America is a war zone.

Same thing happened when people were sharing “18 school shootings!”. A man ending his chase with police at a school or accidental discharges are not school shootings in the same vain as Sandy Hook.

Edit* Switching to my PC to see that list in full, here's some listed mass shootings involved in that 248 number.

Listed as possible home-invasion: man entered apartment and killed 3 children, wounding their mother.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/...fter-3-children-killed-in-shooting-police-say

Another listed as home-invasion: 1 dead, 3 injured. Interestingly though, 1 of the wounded has previous murder charges.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/jan/03/teenager-killed-jonesboro-shooting-former-main-str/

Another home-invasion:
https://www.click2houston.com/news/homeowner-fatally-shoots-3-men-during-home-invasion-police-said

Listed as a mass-shooting, but involves 5 officers being shot while serving a warrant, resulting in 2 dead suspects.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/several-officers-shot-in-southeast-houston-chief-says

Listed as a mass-shooting, but more of a shooting spree. Male fired up on a bar injuring 2 and killing one before driving to a home where he broke in, killed the home owner, and then himself.
https://6abc.com/4th-person-dies-after-shooting-spree-near-penn-state/5105986/

Another home invasion.
https://www.ohio.com/news/20190626/one-dead-three-wounded-in-south-akron-home-invasion

Another home invasion.
https://kfor.com/2019/07/30/authorities-investigate-shooting-in-haskell/

Home invasion; man kicked in the door and fired inside.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/l...er-gunman-breaks-into-South-Side-13592758.php

The ones below were due to fighting beforehand.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local...-investigates-death-in-northwest-jacksonville
https://www.wbrc.com/2019/02/23/police-investigating-shooting-party-east-birmingham/
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...t-arrested-after-oakland-sports-bar-shooting/
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...critical-condition-in-overnight-lodo-shooting

Two groups with past disagreements ran into each other and led to a shooting.
https://m.cordeledispatch.com/2019/03/17/one-dead-three-injured-in-rochelle-shooting/

This fight led to a shooting that now involves an investigation into organized crime.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/3/3/18483644/6-shot-inside-private-bar-on-south-side-none-fatally

Mayor listed it as gang and drug-related.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/man-killed-in-mass-shooting-was-aspiring-jacksonville-rapper

That's 15 events listed and there's more in that list that of similar nature. I didn't even touch on the drive-bys which are usually gang affiliated.

The problem I have with these sort of instances being added to a mass shooting count is that when the media reports 248 mass shootings this year, they're not going to share specifics like this that contribute to that. It becomes misleading like the school shooting number. You see an event like Dayton/El Paso happen, 248 gets shared around social media, the idea gets perpetuated that America has 246 other shooting instances like Dayton/El Paso where a gun man just opened up on the public in the same method. Worse yet, people use that same 248 number when debating about rifles yet I have without a doubt, the majority of all the occasions listed used handguns. Out of the 248 listed, only 10 accounted for 10 or more people involved which puts a cloud over the whole unnecessarily large magazine debate to prevent mass shootings; your standard handgun has enough ammunition to be responsible for 238 of these shootings.

In reality, many of these shootings are really home invasions, escalated fights, murder-suicides, unconfirmed gang-affiliated, etc.. This needs to be noted and sorted by the outlets who track this number to paint a much better understanding of the mass shootings in this country because they are not all the same. Otherwise, the media sharing Dayton and then reporting 247 other shootings this year comes across as potentially, fear-mongering by not pointing out just how many of those shootings had other factors involved than just an angry, entitled alt-right consumed white man....

It seems like you're saying that some mass shootings don't count as they're secondary to other criminal intent? Surely you're not saying that?

It also seems like you might be more worried about ensuring that white alt-right men take a controlled share of the blame rather than examine the culture and circumstances that lead to such high rates of death by violent crime?

 

[MaxAttack]

It seems like you're saying that some mass shootings don't count as they're secondary to other criminal intent? Surely you're not saying that?

It also seems like you might be more worried about ensuring that white alt-right men take a controlled share of the blame rather than examine the culture and circumstances that lead to such high rates of death by violent crime?

Quite, and perhaps murder is murder by any name and arbitrarily categorising the specific circumstances under which your populace murder each other with lethal weapons doesn't actually achieve anything and misses the point somewhat.

 

[McLaren]

Quite, and perhaps murder is murder by any name and arbitrarily categorising the specific circumstances under which your populace murder each other with lethal weapons doesn't actually achieve anything and misses the point somewhat.

It's not that some mass shootings don't count, it's that clarification is needed within' the media to designate that a man opening fire into a Wal Mart is not the same as a mass shooting involving drugs & gang affiliation or home invasions because when the mass shooting number is presented, it is only presented when an event like Dayton/El Paso happens and leads perception that all the other events are of similar nature; a shooter opened fire on the general public. There's really no reason to group a gang-affiliated shooting into the same statistic. As mentioned, it has been done in regards to school shootings; CNN reported 22 school shootings this year in July, but assessed that a BB gun wounding is attributed to the same category as something like Parkland. There's enough concern over school shootings than being told a BB gun incident is one of them.

The point is that the number is inflated a little more than it needs to be with certain shootings. You report on them all as group and it's clearly concerning, but some of these events would never be reported individually as mass shootings; you can see in the home invasion articles that they are simply seen as just invasions. They're not really seen in the same light as public shootings. They don't spark debates on gun reform & rifle bans. They only end up serving as a tally count, otherwise our society just forgets them, unfortunately.

I'm not saying none of these events don't deserve to be dived into, I'd just rather the media focus remain on the reporting the event itself and similar ones if needed. The political debates & laws discussed following an event are going to be after preventing El Paso, not an event involving 5 officers serving a warrant were thankfully, none of the general public was involved. Most people would probably not see that as a mass shooting. You can claim it's missing the point, but I see it as needlessly fear-mongering the public with a number than includes shootings they wouldn't actually be fearful of....

The remark on the white male was a reference to a member who said how crazy, entitled white males contribute to most mass shootings & the Alt-Right is given support to commit them. I don't think most of these mass shootings have anything to do with Trump's rhetoric, but the ignored member seems to only want to focus on 1 specific phrase.

 

[Touring Mars]

@baldgye One thing worth remembering is that the US is already awash with guns and has a long history of legal gun ownership that other countries have not had. Those facts make passing new gun laws in the US a very different prospect to passing a similar law in a country with a completely different history. Gun laws that may well be very effective in low gun ownership countries very well may have the opposite effect in the US, hence it is not possible to make direct comparisons.

I don't believe for a second that anyone thinks that mass shootings (or any other shootings for that matter) are 'a price worth paying', but rather that gun casualties are an inevitable consequence of living in a society/nation where a right to gun ownership is enshrined in law. This latter point is the main issue - you simply cannot have a situation where gun ownership is a Constitution right and expect people to vote for politicians who would strip them of that right.

My previous posts, however, have sought to establish that this right to gun ownership isn't absolute and thus does not (indeed it cannot) apply to everyone - and that being the case, there will always be scope for introducing new legislation designed to curb gun violence. But the question is, in a society that is already awash with guns, and where the vast majority of people do possess a legal (and even a moral) right to possess guns, and the vast majority of those people are law-abiding, is it sensible to pass laws that limit the power of the law-abiding more than they might limit the ambitions of criminals?

 

[baldgye]

@baldgye One thing worth remembering is that the US is already awash with guns and has a long history of legal gun ownership that other countries have not had. Those facts make passing new gun laws in the US a very different prospect to passing a similar law in a country with a completely different history. Gun laws that may well be very effective in low gun ownership countries very well may have the opposite effect in the US, hence it is not possible to make direct comparisons.

I don't believe for a second that anyone thinks that mass shootings (or any other shootings for that matter) are 'a price worth paying', but rather that gun casualties are an inevitable consequence of living in a society/nation where a right to gun ownership is enshrined in law. This latter point is the main issue - you simply cannot have a situation where gun ownership is a Constitution right and expect people to vote for politicians who would strip them of that right.

My previous posts, however, have sought to establish that this right to gun ownership isn't absolute and thus does not (indeed it cannot) apply to everyone - and that being the case, there will always be scope for introducing new legislation designed to curb gun violence. But the question is, in a society that is already awash with guns, and where the vast majority of people do possess a legal (and even a moral) right to possess guns, and the vast majority of those people are law-abiding, is it sensible to pass laws that limit the power of the law-abiding more than they might limit the ambitions of criminals?

I can see your point , which is why I kept trying to make reference to suggestions other than gun restrictions (mental health for example).
Ok, so you are of the opinion that you have a moral right to own a gun and that the problem is some people need more mental health support than they are getting (that is a logical and fair conclusion to makes)... so why aren't people in that situation/of that opinion campaigning for better mental health solutions?

The reason (it seems) is people simply don't care enough about these mass shootings to do anything about them.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ok, so you are of the opinion that you have a moral right to own a gun and that the problem is some people need more mental health support than they are getting (that is a logical and fair conclusion to makes)...

No, I'm saying that anyone capable of observing the rights of others possesses rights themselves, including the right to defend oneself with lethal force. But those who are not capable (for example infants or people with certain mental disorders) do not have the same rights because of their incapacity for observing the rights of others.

The US Constitution doesn't make any distinction between people, but there are plenty of US laws that do (fortunately) - these laws are sometimes denounced as unconstitutional because they can appear to be at odds with the Second Amendment, but the reason for this is that the Second Amendment (appears to) ascribe rights arbitrarily, whereas one's actual rights derive from a proper consideration of what rights are, thus it would be incorrect to say that any law that restricts gun ownership in the US infringes a person's rights if that person doesn't have the right in the first place.

The US Constitution protects citizens' rights but it doesn't create them or grant rights to people, and that seems to be a pretty common misconception. Put a different way, the US Constitution cannot create or protect rights that cannot exist, and gun laws that restrict certain people from gun ownership can be constitutional on the basis that the Constitution can only protects rights that can actually exist.

 

[baldgye]

No, I'm saying that anyone capable of observing the rights of others possesses rights themselves, including the right to defend oneself with lethal force. But those who are not capable (for example infants or people with certain mental disorders) do not have the same rights because of their incapacity for observing the rights of others.

The US Constitution doesn't make any distinction between people, but there are plenty of US laws that do (fortunately) - these laws are sometimes denounced as unconstitutional because they can appear to be at odds with the Second Amendment, but the reason for this is that the Second Amendment (appears to) ascribe rights arbitrarily, whereas one's actual rights derive from a proper consideration of what rights are, thus it would be incorrect to say that any law that restricts gun ownership in the US infringes a person's rights if that person doesn't have the right in the first place.

The US Constitution protects citizens' rights but it doesn't create them or grant rights to people, and that seems to be a pretty common misconception. Put a different way, the US Constitution cannot create or protect rights that cannot exist, and gun laws that restrict certain people from gun ownership can be constitutional on the basis that the Constitution can only protects rights that can actually exist.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear, I when I said 'you' I meant a more nebulous 'you' ...sorry I didn't make that clear! Again I'm just trying to find out why if gun control, isn't an option, why has no other 'solution' been tried or done?

I am all for gun control, but when ever it's mentioned we get into silly arguments/comparisons about cars blah blah... it's a dead end, one side refuses to acknowledge guns might be the issue and the other refuses to acknowledge their right to own guns etc... which is why instead of asking; "why not gun control", I'm now asking; "why not anything else?"

I don't know the intricacies of US law and the constitution, though as I said, seems like a poor system if amendments made hundreds of years ago, cannot be changed!

I don't believe for a second that anyone thinks that mass shootings (or any other shootings for that matter) are 'a price worth paying', but rather that gun casualties are an inevitable consequence of living in a society/nation where a right to gun ownership is enshrined in law.

To me, these are one in the same. Law's can be changed, constitutions amended but its up to the people and it seems as though the people, don't care.

 

[Touring Mars]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear, I when I said 'you' I meant a more nebulous 'you' ...sorry I didn't make that clear! Again I'm just trying to find out why if gun control, isn't an option, why has no other 'solution' been tried or done?

I am all for gun control, but when ever it's mentioned we get into silly arguments/comparisons about cars blah blah... it's a dead end, one side refuses to acknowledge guns might be the issue and the other refuses to acknowledge their right to own guns etc... which is why instead of asking; "why not gun control", I'm now asking; "why not anything else?"

I don't know the intricacies of US law and the constitution, though as I said, seems like a poor system if amendments made hundreds of years ago, cannot be changed!

To me, these are one in the same. Law's can be changed, constitutions amended but its up to the people and it seems as though the people, don't care.

The main problem is that, Constitution or not, it is a question of rights.

Laws and even the Constitution can be changed, but rights are rights. My argument (not accepted by most hardcore gun rights advocates) is that not everyone has the same rights as everyone else, and that is a route to creating morally justifiable gun laws. But - the vast majority of people in the US do have a legally protected right to own a gun, and repealing that right or imposing laws that appear to infringe on that right is extremely problematic.

It's not that people don't care about the damage that guns do, but that the federal government does not have the right to infringe the rights of its citizens. Conversely, if an individual or an entity (such as the US government) were to attempt to infringe one's rights, one has a moral right to counteract that action - which is precisely why most people who legally possess guns in America are fundamentally opposed to the idea of being forced to give them up.

 

[baldgye]

The main problem is that, Constitution or not, it is a question of rights.

Laws and even the Constitution can be changed, but rights are rights. My argument (not accepted by most hardcore gun rights advocates) is that not everyone has the same rights as everyone else, and that is a route to creating morally justifiable gun laws. But - the vast majority of people in the US do have a legally protected right to own a gun, and repealing that right or imposing laws that appear to infringe on that right is extremely problematic.

It's not that people don't care about the damage that guns do, but that the federal government does not have the right to infringe the rights of its citizens. Conversely, if an individual or an entity (such as the US government) were to attempt to infringe one's rights, one has a moral right to counteract that action - which is precisely why most people who legally possess guns in America are fundamentally opposed to the idea of being forced to give them up.

Ok, so gun law and legislation is a no go, so why aren't the other contributing factors worked on?
Like I've said, mental health is a recurring theme among supposed contributing factors, so why isn't anything actually done?
Why don't pro-gun people fight and campaign for better mental health support?

IMO they don't the same reason so few other American's don't, they don't care.

 

[Dotini]

I don't believe for a second that anyone thinks that mass shootings (or any other shootings for that matter) are 'a price worth paying', but rather that gun casualties are an inevitable consequence of living in a society/nation where a right to gun ownership is enshrined in law.

True, but when you say inevitable, how do you explain the fact that these atrocities starting happening only in recent decades and not before? Could it have been social and economic evolution from raw and primitive to advanced and engineered that precipitated the atrocities?

 

[Sander 001]

Law's can be changed, constitutions amended but its up to the people and it seems as though the people, don't care.

Of course people care. But people don't have much power in a plutocracy.

 

[Dotini]

Of course people care. But people don't have much power in a plutocracy.

In Seattle, people care. But the politicians don't.

 

[Wolfe]

@baldgye -- You continue making it out like people don't care. People obviously do. It's why there is so much noise whenever this comes up.

The political system isn't just gridlocked -- it also doesn't pivot on a dime. This is a very large country, with diverse state cultures and needs. It is easier for a state to pass its own gun legislation, and legislation already varies between states (and municipalities). Some places are relatively strict. Other places have practical uses for guns, such as rural areas where natural predators or species overpopulation/invasion can be a costly nuisance.

Something like what you saw in New Zealand following the Christchurch shooting is unrealistic to expect on a national scale in the United States. New Zealand is roughly the size of California.

Why don't pro-gun people fight and campaign for better mental health support?

I reckon hardly anyone is opposed to better mental health support in this country. However, if you ask me, the roots of problem run deeper than any one surface-level proposal can help.

It is rooted in all levels of public education (teenaged daycare-prison), higher education (culture of fragility), medical care and research (insufficient funding/support), the pharmaceutical industry (incentives to just throw pills at a problem), law enforcement policy (not following procedure on individuals who need help), drug enforcement policy (criminalizing relief from mental illness), housing availability (costs, and pressure to live in expensive cities), food industry and agricultural subsidies (diets filled with subsidized junk we don't adequately understand, correlated to illnesses and inflammation), current media norms (fear-mongering and namecalling), parental education and oversight (variety of problems), and probably more.

Setting aside guns entirely, I think mental health is a gigantic and all-encompassing problem in this country. As a first-world disease, many of the privileges or modern developments we enjoy in this country feed into it. Again, it's not that people don't care or aren't advocating for it, but it's not an easy solution, nor is it a problem that the media or politicians understand very well.

 

[baldgye]

Of course people care. But people don't have much power in a plutocracy.

Again, I don't really accept that. Seems like another way to shift blame from your own inaction onto others. If America is really as bad as you and others who don't seem to care suggest, then it sounds like you need to enact a revolution to help change your seemingly broken country.

So either your country is totally and systemically broken and you need revolution. Or you don't care enough to actually push for real change in regards to mental health.

@baldgye -- You continue making it out like people don't care. People obviously do. It's why there is so much noise whenever this comes up.

The political system isn't just gridlocked -- it also doesn't pivot on a dime. This is a very large country, with diverse state cultures and needs. It is easier for a state to pass its own gun legislation, and legislation already varies between states (and municipalities). Some places are relatively strict. Other places have practical uses for guns, such as rural areas where natural predators or species overpopulation/invasion can be a costly nuisance.

Something like what you saw in New Zealand following the Christchurch shooting is unrealistic to expect on a national scale in the United States. New Zealand is roughly the size of California.

I reckon hardly anyone is opposed to better mental health support in this country. However, if you ask me, the roots of problem run deeper than any one surface-level proposal can help.

It is rooted in all levels of public education (teenaged daycare-prison), higher education (culture of fragility), medical care and research (insufficient funding/support), the pharmaceutical industry (incentives to just throw pills at a problem), law enforcement policy (not following procedure on individuals who need help), drug enforcement policy (criminalizing relief from mental illness), housing availability (costs, and pressure to live in expensive cities), food industry and agricultural subsidies (diets filled with subsidized junk we don't adequately understand, correlated to illnesses and inflammation), current media norms (fear-mongering and namecalling), parental education and oversight (variety of problems), and probably more.

Setting aside guns entirely, I think mental health is a gigantic and all-encompassing problem in this country. As a first-world disease, many of the privileges or modern developments we enjoy in this country feed into it. Again, it's not that people don't care or aren't advocating for it, but it's not an easy solution, nor is it a problem that the media or politicians understand very well.

Because I don't think American's really do care.
If mental heath is as big a problem as you are suggesting, then why isn't it better funded and supported, why does it remain so out of reach for these clearly troubled people?

To roll this back to the rest of the world, mass shootings are usually the spark that lights the fire of big legal and social change. Yet America does little and seems content to accept these attacks.
Simply making noise about something isn't evidence that people care, I can shout and scream about all kinds of things, but it's what I do that counts.

The political system isn't just gridlocked -- it also doesn't pivot on a dime.

This year alone, statistically the government has had almost two dollars.