General News Another day, another mass shooting in the USA

Actually, I'm getting to the point that I could support gun control legislation. I could only support it though if it came with tougher hate crimes statutes and non-discrimination protections. I can see how a reduction in the lethal weapons in circulation can help, but not without laws that protect the most targeted in our society.

By the way, that's us. Is there a roadmap to addressing the level of hatred that doesn't simply reduce to "education" and asking people nicely to stop?

 

Just another day in the good ol' USA...

I'm so done. If any of you guys in Canada have some free time kidnap me okay? Thanks.

 

Even in the case of armed civilians, in crisis situation, a person untrained to handle it will likely to cause more harm by misindentify threats and shoot at other armed civilians. This can be a serious problem if everyone is armed, brandishing a gun, and in a situation where the identity of the shooter is still unknown.

 

this disgusts me so intensely
yaaayy america

 

What I don't understand is why this seems to be happening every day, when that didn't seem to be the case before. Is it making good news? Is it because I'm older and more aware? Or is it happening more often?

 

Depends on where you're talking about. Israel has allowed armed civilians, and causalities from mass killings have been decreased in places where an armed citizen has been present. In one case a woman with a handgun in her purse even stopped a suicide bomber. If you're talking about the US then no, but the US has a different situation with citizens and guns.

In the USA, if you define armed civilians as legally carrying concealed carry holders, none of them that I've heard of are breaking the law by carrying in the places where most mass shootings occur. The anti gun group calls these areas gun free zones. The pro gun group calls these areas CPZ's or criminal protection zones, because the No guns signs don't really stop someone taking a gun in who is going to commit a crime. They only stop the people who are concerned with obeying the law.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying a legally armed citizen or citizens would make a positive difference or they wouldn't. Thankfully I've never been in that situation. I know a cop who is a member and trainer for SWAT teams, and who has actual experience with real life shooting situations. I also know someone who was until recently in a special forces unit, and has real life experience with terrorist and hostage situations. They have both told me that a regular citizen, if they are at a mass shooting situation, and who is properly trained is very likely to reduce the number of dead or injured compared to not having anyone there who is armed.

You can guess or speculate that an armed citizen would do no good or even make things worse, but unless the situation exists you can't prove anything one way or the other. In science you can't prove or disprove anything without trying the experiment.

 

I'll be down in 2 weeks, message me where you want to meet up

---------- Post added 3rd Dec 2015 at 08:30 AM ----------

Or we could just do a revolution, that's worked in the past.

 

The problem isn't guns. semi automatic handguns have been available since the early 1900s, the AR-15 went on sale to civilians in 1963, the two rifles used in yesterday's shooting were clones of the AR-15, and the design hasn't changed much since 1963. Shootings like this were rare though until about 15-20 years ago, these guns had been available for 30 years already at that time.

Too early to know about yesterday, but in all the televised shootings in the last 20 years the shooter has been prescribed drugs for a mental health problem. Mental health issues should be reported when the gun dealer does the FBI instant background check. That would have also prevented most (though not all) the shootings in the last 20 years.

The other big change that I can see is the 24 hour news cycle. During the first gulf war, CNN was the only 24 hour news station. They didn't become popular even until they covered that war. Now we have at least 6 24 hour news stations that need to fill air time. They sensationalize each shooting giving the shooter their 15 min of fame, even if posthumously.

The one thing that remains true for me is, I will NEVER vote for a politician that either does not support LGBT equality, or supports gun control.

 

DMark, what possible use does a civilian American have for an AR-15? You just want one for the fun of it? I see where you're from and that explains a lot. In my opinion, those who want the right to own an AR-15 have been radicalized just like a Muslim is radicalized, only for a different cause. Brainwashed.

Keep your hunting rifle, and if you feel safer with a gun in your house, fine. You can even keep your old gun collection, but other than that No. No need for weapons which can take out so many of your fellow citizens in a few seconds.

Does anyone inside the USA see this?

Good luck Mark finding a US politician who supports LGBT equality and your right to own AR-15's.

 

Actually I did vote last presidential election for a candidate that supported both LGTB equality and the 2nd amendment.

The AR-15 is just a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle. People are scared of it because it is black and scary looking. It fires one round per trigger pull, that is it. Yes, it will take a NATO standard 20 or 30 round magazine, and the very unreliable larger ones like the 80 round one that jammed on the Aurora Theater shooter, but it still only fires one round per trigger pull. It is a very accurate rifle for competition shooting, easily able to hit a target at 300 Meters for a trained shooter. That is it.

The 2nd amendment was also created to give the people a recourse to remove/replace their government should it become necessary. For a reference read the federalist papers. Due to that being a reason, yes the people should have access to weapons similar to those owned by the government (read military). They did this because when it was written in 1787, the revolution against England was still fresh in their memory.

 

Well I thought you were a democracy and could remove and replace your government by voting.

You sound like a real expert on weapons. I get it; it's your hobby, and you are unlikely to go out and kill anyone. Question: How many people can that .223 semi-automatic kill in 5 minutes if the shooter is trained in shooting that weapon? I'm sure a lot more than the old 22 rifle my Dad had on the farm to kill coyotes trying to raid our chicken coop on the farm.

This week, close to where I live, a young man about to be arrested for arson pulled a knife on the arresting police officer. His brother had pepper spray, but did not use it. The officer did not pull his gun. He was stabbed four times in the leg and chest. Back-up arrived. The officer was stitched up and released in a few hours. No one was otherwise hurt. Had a gun been involved, the likelihood of a death would have been a lot higher. I'm very glad I live in a country where this is the norm, rather than a big shootout.

It's not that easy to get a gun here, and I feel very safe here because of it. I'm sure Australians and UK people are also happy for their strict gun controls.

 

Actually, it's not that hard to buy a Machine gun. You do need to first get an FFL, then pay a $200 tax on each weapon you purchase. If you can pass the background check, and pay the fees it's not that hard.

These guns have been widely available to the public since 1963, when Colt first marketed the AR-15 to civilians.

For the Record AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not assault rifle. Eugene Stoner developed it for ArmaLite, and it was sold to Colt.

 

Actually, it's not that hard to buy a Machine gun. You do need to first get an FFL, then pay a $200 tax on each weapon you purchase. If you can pass the background check, and pay the fees it's not that hard.

These guns have been widely available to the public since 1963, when Colt first marketed the AR-15 to civilians.

For the Record AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not assault rifle. Eugene Stoner developed it for ArmaLite, and it was sold to Colt.

 

As far as having fired them, yes I have. As a soldier in the US Army I was issued the M-16, which is the same rifle with either a full auto selection (on the older M-16, and M-16A1) or 3 round burst (on the M-16A2 and newer).

You are correct that full auto is useless. After the 3rd round you will not hit your target anyway. The US Army was taught to fire in 3 round bursts even when it was full auto.

That is not a recent view of the 2nd amendment. If you read the federalist papers, you can see that is what the founders were thinking when they drafted the amendment in 1787. It was just never challenged up to the supreme court until 2005.

 

Why not have the requirement of owning a gun include some serving time in any kind of armed force? The police, military, etc. They have been trained with disciplines of using weapons, and at least know what to do when things goes wrong. The Swiss allow their soldiers to keep their guns after they finish military duty, and it seems to work well for them despite the amount of guns in that country being comparable to the US(ratio-wise).