It's a sad state of affairs when 17 people get killed in a school (again, with another AR-15 from the looks of it) and everyone knows there isn't even a point in talking about it, because we've had this same discussion half a dozen times just in this thread. I've never seen a country so totally paralyzed to respond to a problem as this one is by it's gun violence.
Just saw a stat that in there have been 18 school shootings in the rest of the world the last 20 years. We have had 18 school shootings in the last 35 days. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us.
I have to say that I'm moderating my views on gun control. I'm not sure the problem can be fixed any time soon, but background checks and psychiatric evaluations are starting to look like a good start to me. What to do with the guns already out there is a huge issue though.
@jjstraka34 any ideas on how to deal with that barring outright confiscation (which would be a huge infringement on individual rights imho)? Yes, I'm actually serious and if I can change my views I'm sure many other conservatives can also...
Yes, actually. For starters, I think we need to bring back the assault weapons ban of the 90s. Almost every single mass shooting lately has been done with an AR-15. People don't need this type of weapon. I'm NOT in favor of taking people's pistols or shotguns or handguns or hunting rifles. But no one needs an AR-15 anymore than they need a rocket launcher or suitcase bomb.
Beyond that, we need to require liability insurance to purchase a gun. The amount of time in advance you have to have proof of to be eligible to buy one could range from possibly 6 months to a year, but if we can do it for cars, we can do it for guns. Insurers are not going to hand out policies to people they think are irresponsible or dangerous. The cost alone would put the weapons out of the reach of most people. If you want them, you will act accordingly in your personal life and do what is necessary to bring down your rates. As you mention, a psychiatric evaluation (whether this is a personal doctor or government mandated one is up for debate). Finally, a mandatory safety course, on completion of which you get an ID card that is also necessary to purchase the weapons. This is all on par with what we require of people who want to drive a car. Is it really asking too much that we treat guns the same way?? I don't think so.
Mind you, none of this is going to take place. We won't even have a discussion about it. The NRA has totally bought the Republican Party AND a significant number of Blue Dog Democrats in rural areas (but, let's also be honest, orthodoxy on gun rights is mainly a Republican issue).
Basically, let's do SOMETHING. Anything at this point. The Second Amendment doesn't need to be a suicide pact. And that is what it is turning into at this rate. Columbine was 19 years ago. How many times are we going to watch this movie and stare blankly into space??
It's a sad state of affairs when 17 people get killed in a school (again, with another AR-15 from the looks of it) and everyone knows there isn't even a point in talking about it, because we've had this same discussion half a dozen times just in this thread. I've never seen a country so totally paralyzed to respond to a problem as this one is by it's gun violence.
Just saw a stat that in there have been 18 school shootings in the rest of the world the last 20 years. We have had 18 school shootings in the last 35 days. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us.
I have to say that I'm moderating my views on gun control. I'm not sure the problem can be fixed any time soon, but background checks and psychiatric evaluations are starting to look like a good start to me. What to do with the guns already out there is a huge issue though.
jjstraka34 any ideas on how to deal with that barring outright confiscation (which would be a huge infringement on individual rights imho)? Yes, I'm actually serious and if I can change my views I'm sure many other conservatives can also...
I always liked the idea of restricting the sale of ammunition, beautiful loophole that.
It's a sad state of affairs when 17 people get killed in a school (again, with another AR-15 from the looks of it) and everyone knows there isn't even a point in talking about it, because we've had this same discussion half a dozen times just in this thread. I've never seen a country so totally paralyzed to respond to a problem as this one is by it's gun violence.
Just saw a stat that in there have been 18 school shootings in the rest of the world the last 20 years. We have had 18 school shootings in the last 35 days. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us.
I have to say that I'm moderating my views on gun control. I'm not sure the problem can be fixed any time soon, but background checks and psychiatric evaluations are starting to look like a good start to me. What to do with the guns already out there is a huge issue though.
jjstraka34 any ideas on how to deal with that barring outright confiscation (which would be a huge infringement on individual rights imho)? Yes, I'm actually serious and if I can change my views I'm sure many other conservatives can also...
I always liked the idea of restricting the sale of ammunition, beautiful loophole that.
It really is, and one of Chris Rock's best comedy bits is on that subject:
So the people shot in Florida. Just thoughts and prayers or will anybody actually do something?
Also Trump suggests a 25cent gas tax to pay the 1.5 Trillion dollar infrastructure plan (not clear to me if that is to raise the $200BN or the whole $1.5 Trillion.
This is after they cut the corporate tax rate in half, doubled the estate tax exemptions to tens of millions of dollars, and added a $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the budget. So instead of rich people paying taxes, Trump wants to tax working people with a gas tax.
I always liked the idea of restricting the sale of ammunition, beautiful loophole that.
What about the people who have the means to manufacture their own rounds?
What about the cartels getting into the business of smuggling guns and ammunition into the country alongside the drugs and people they already smuggle in?
Psychiatric evaluations as part of a background check to purchase a gun might violate HIPPA. They probably should take place, yes, but the other law would have to be amended.
Yes, actually. For starters, I think we need to bring back the assault weapons ban of the 90s. Almost every single mass shooting lately has been done with an AR-15. People don't need this type of weapon. I'm NOT in favor of taking people's pistols or shotguns or handguns or hunting rifles. But no one needs an AR-15 anymore than they need a rocket launcher or suitcase bomb.
Beyond that, we need to require liability insurance to purchase a gun. The amount of time in advance you have to have proof of to be eligible to buy one could range from possibly 6 months to a year, but if we can do it for cars, we can do it for guns. Insurers are not going to hand out policies to people they think are irresponsible or dangerous. The cost alone would put the weapons out of the reach of most people. If you want them, you will act accordingly in your personal life and do what is necessary to bring down your rates. As you mention, a psychiatric evaluation (whether this is a personal doctor or government mandated one is up for debate). Finally, a mandatory safety course, on completion of which you get an ID card that is also necessary to purchase the weapons. This is all on par with what we require of people who want to drive a car. Is it really asking too much that we treat guns the same way?? I don't think so.
How about criminal record checks? I believe they already exist in the US in some form in some states, but it seems odd to me that, for instance, someone with a history of armed violence is able to buy a gun.
In the UK gun controls have existed for a long time (though they have developed over time), so it's hard to imagine a situation without them. It may be worth thinking about a couple of other issues that offer some parallels, however.
Child safety When I first started work in education 30 odd years ago, the only check required on applicants to schools was against a list kept by the government of people that should not be employed. As a result of various scandals this requirement has hugely increased, so that now checks run by the Disclosure & Barring Service are mandatory for any employment associated with children. The enhanced checks not only look for criminal convictions, but cautions, warnings and other notes from local police. More basic checks can be required by employers for any form of employment.
The bureaucracy involved in this system is considerable and I'm not particularly happy about the implications for privacy either. However, I've seen over and over again that changes in the law don't just follow social attitudes, but lead them as well - and that's true in this area. There have been continuing revelations over how some children are treated in this country. In many cases the DBS checks would make no difference to actions (for instance due to lack of previous convictions), but what they have done is drive a culture where people are far more aware of potential problems and no longer prepared to overlook those for the sake of protecting individuals or institutions. I think that's a healthy development for society.
Drink driving I'm not old enough to have been in the heyday of drink driving - the first law relating to levels of alcohol in the blood came in in 1967. However, even in the 1980s the culture around drink driving was still very different to now - perhaps some of you remember the idea of "one for the road." The law doesn't stop all drink driving of course, but by now you can be pretty sure that anyone caught drink driving knows that's a bad thing and they probably feel guilty about it - that wasn't always the case by any means.
I would not expect the introduction of far stricter gun control to have much immediate impact on gun violence. However, I would expect over time that it would change the culture around guns - and that would be likely in turn to have a major impact on gun violence. At present the ownership and use of guns in the US is glorified and seen as a way to demonstrate power. It's therefore no great surprise when people who have felt harshly treated for some reason turn to the use of guns - as in this latest school shooting in Florida. Even if guns are in fact still widely available, if they were in future not seen as the answer to all your problems, they would be much less likely to be used in this sort of 'I'll show them' scenario.
I always liked the idea of restricting the sale of ammunition, beautiful loophole that.
What about the people who have the means to manufacture their own rounds?
What about the cartels getting into the business of smuggling guns and ammunition into the country alongside the drugs and people they already smuggle in?
Psychiatric evaluations as part of a background check to purchase a gun might violate HIPPA. They probably should take place, yes, but the other law would have to be amended.
As I have stated previously, people like the shooter in Florida wouldn't even know how to contact the cartel to purchase bullets and will probably end up talking to an undercover cop instead much like when people go looking for hitmen.
Same thing with a person with means of manufacturing their own ammunition. Let them. They just can't sell it and if it is deemed to be used in a crime, charge them with accessory to murder. Chances are it's slim to none people who know how to make ammunition will also go shoot up a school.
These types of excuses have always been weak, and leads to nothing being done instead of something. It's like saying "Why have a lock on your door when someone with a crowbar can pry it open?" It's a deterrent not a perfect solution and usually deterring an individual from committing a crime is net positive.
@deltago I wasn't offering excuses; instead, I was noting that saying "let's restrict ammunition sales" won't be sufficient, especially since plenty of people have been stockpiling rounds. Outlawing those sales will only expand the already-existing back-alley secondary market.
Speaking of undercover police and deterring people from committing a crime...sometimes the undercover officers *encourage* people to advance their plot to do something awful up until they point they try to commit the offense. I once had to leave work because a building one block away had a guy who tried to set off a bomb in the parking garage. The undercover FBI agents helped the guy buy the materials, helped him put it together, then gave him a dummy detonator so the device wouldn't fire. That makes no sense--why didn't they arrest him before that?
Anyway...this guy's social media was full of comments about how he was going to be a professional school shooter, that he wanted to do what Charles Whitman (the UT shooter from back in 1966) did, and posting pictures of himself holding guns online should have been red flags. Sane, rational people do not normally post pictures of themselves holding guns online...or, at least, they *shouldn't* do that--never advertise what you have. He was reported as a potential threat to the FBI last September but they didn't do anything about it.
Don't forget--Congress is expressly *forbidden* from enacting legislation which restricts our right to own guns. States, on the other hand, may enact whatever legislation they wish. Anyone wishing for gun control legislation needs to look to their State Legislature, not Washington, D. C.
I feel like I should call in @BelleSorciere from the bullpen here, because she speaks with far more authority on the fact that there really is no tie with mental illness and these kind of violent acts. I still fall victim to the rhetoric as well. We've turned mental illness into a scapegoat for our own inaction. And besides, even if there WAS a connection, exactly what are we doing about mental illness?? Last I checked, Trump's budget calls for draconian cuts to Medicare and Mediciad.
“I’m so glad they kept that dress,” Trump said of Monica Lewinsky’s semen-stained blue dress that she wore during an oral sex encounter with Bill Clinton.
Now there is an outlet reporting that Stormy Daniels says she has a dress with DNA too.
The Blast reports the porn star has a “Monica Lewinsky dress,” a shimmering gold mini dress she wore during the alleged tryst in a Lake Tahoe hotel with the man who would become president, sources close to Daniels told the gossip site.
She’s kept the dress, with its plunging neckline, “in pristine condition” and plans to have it forensically tested for samples of hair, skin or “anything else” that would contain DNA, the Blast said.
Not sure how legit "The Blast" is but it would be funny karma if this comes around on him, the guy who always is mean spirited and revels in others getting taken down a peg or two.
Other than the hush money payout to Ms. Daniels, her story is pretty irrelevant--Trump was a private citizen at the time of their affair so anything they did is none of our business. Melania may feel differently about it, though....
@jjstraka34 Like I said, in order to do anything about mental illness and the interactions with guns by requiring a psychiatric evaluation as part of the purchase process would necessitate amending HIPPA. I suppose a waiver form could be set up so that the agency conducting the evaluation can release the results to the gun vendor but potential violations may still exist if the gun vendor doesn't have a HIPPA privacy officer on staff with the usual precautions regarding documents and their privacy.
I thought we were supposed to operate under the principle of "if you see something, say something". Well, people saw this guy's online profile, brought it to the FBI's attention, and they did...nothing. What was the point of saying something?
Other than the hush money payout to Ms. Daniels, her story is pretty irrelevant--Trump was a private citizen at the time of their affair so anything they did is none of our business. Melania may feel differently about it, though....
@jjstraka34 Like I said, in order to do anything about mental illness and the interactions with guns by requiring a psychiatric evaluation as part of the purchase process would necessitate amending HIPPA. I suppose a waiver form could be set up so that the agency conducting the evaluation can release the results to the gun vendor but potential violations may still exist if the gun vendor doesn't have a HIPPA privacy officer on staff with the usual precautions regarding documents and their privacy.
I thought we were supposed to operate under the principle of "if you see something, say something". Well, people saw this guy's online profile, brought it to the FBI's attention, and they did...nothing. What was the point of saying something?
It sounds like the school was alerted and the shooter was not allowed to carry a backpack to school. The police said they had no credible information. Like the police didn't hear that he was going to shoot up the school tomorrow. They probably knew he was a crazy bad kid who had posted on youtube that he was going to be a school shooter, but since he didn't say the exact time and date he planned to do it they didn't do anything.
The school also had TWO armed guards, so this was not a "gun-free zone", nor were the "good guys with guns" able to do a thing to stop it. This kid, at the age of 18, was able to buy a machine of mass slaughter, with no effort. Things he couldn't have bought?? A twelve-pack of Bud Light, or more than single pack of cold medicine that contains Sudafed.
Beyond that, let's take a very simple example of how much harder is is to acquire something illegally, which is alcohol. I acquired alcohol illegally on a weekly basis for almost 5 years. The idea that it was ever less than a hassle or just as easy as it is now is absurd. If we hadn't have had a Wooderson-esque good friend on call much of the time, it would have been even harder. Point being, multiple steps and effort were required to get our hands on alcohol while underage. Sometimes, those efforts fell through. Making something hard to acquire absolutely effects the effort and ease it takes to get your hands on it.
Other than the hush money payout to Ms. Daniels, her story is pretty irrelevant--Trump was a private citizen at the time of their affair so anything they did is none of our business.
I personally don't view a politician's personal life as very noteworthy, especially when it comes to events from before they took office. But I think this sort of thing demonstrates that Trump doesn't live up to conservative ideals any more than he lives up to liberal ideals.
"I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us. "
Oh absolutely. I suspect that even stopping all sales of guns within the next 10 years would do NOTHING to reduce the number of shootings. We aren't the only country where one can legally own "assault rifles", yet we are still magnitudes worse in gun violence. Its gonna require a culture change change for ANYTHING to change. Look at how the police, military, and just guns in general are fetishized in America.
The school also had TWO armed guards, so this was not a "gun-free zone", nor were the "good guys with guns" able to do a thing to stop it. This kid, at the age of 18, was able to buy a machine of mass slaughter, with no effort. Things he couldn't have bought?? A twelve-pack of Bud Light, or more than single pack of cold medicine that contains Sudafed.
Beyond that, let's take a very simple example of how much harder is is to acquire something illegally, which is alcohol. I acquired alcohol illegally on a weekly basis for almost 5 years. The idea that it was ever less than a hassle or just as easy as it is now is absurd. If we hadn't have had a Wooderson-esque good friend on call much of the time, it would have been even harder. Point being, multiple steps and effort were required to get our hands on alcohol while underage. Sometimes, those efforts fell through. Making something hard to acquire absolutely effects the effort and ease it takes to get your hands on it.
It was effortless for me to obtain alcohol before I could legally purchase it for myself. All we had to do was add our item to the shopping list, hand over the money, then wait for the adult who did the buying to get back from the store.
Anyway...we will probably see a push to restrict gun sales to those 21 and older, just like for alcohol. That won't stop straw purchases, of course, and it won't prevent gifting a gun to a younger person but at least they can't buy it directly from a store. Buying one online...I am not going to address how easy that is so they will probably need to try and close that door, as well.
"I'm willing to go out on a limb and say the problem is us. "
Oh absolutely. I suspect that even stopping all sales of guns within the next 10 years would do NOTHING to reduce the number of shootings. We aren't the only country where one can legally own "assault rifles", yet we are still magnitudes worse in gun violence. Its gonna require a culture change change for ANYTHING to change. Look at how the police, military, and just guns in general are fetishized in America.
I think it's more than that. We are all Americans, on the same team. We should have each other's backs. Instead politics has divided us. Black and white. Republicans and Democrats. Illegal immigrants. No go zones. And plenty more. Spending time in other countries in Europe there's much less mistrust of your fellow man. Walking down the street in Holland you will get hello and good days. In the US, you either don't get that or I'd you do you become immediately suspicious of what's that person want? Is he trying to kill me or sell me something?
The gun laws in Florida are almost non-existent. Almost ANYONE can get their hands on one of these weapons. Also, that Alt-Right body count has apparently gone up again:
@smeagolheart Oh absolutely. Its not just political lines either. America's motto is basically "F***k everyone else, I got mine." Sociopathic behaviour is ENCOURAGED in our society.
@smeagolheart Oh absolutely. Its not just political lines either. America's motto is basically "F***k everyone else, I got mine." Sociopathic behaviour is ENCOURAGED in our society.
This. So it will take some major adjustment in our attitudes towards one another - society must change. Might take a war or a disaster to bring us together.
Apparently mass shootings aren't enough nor this embarrassing anti-middle class Presidency and government.
Gun laws will NEVER work. Compare Switzerland with UK in Europe. Compare tows with almost no gun laws in USA with Chicago/Detroit. In South America, Brazil have a insane strict gun control and 60.000 homicides/year, while Uruguay had only 289 homicides and Paraguay(more poor than Brazil) have 617 homicides and the gun laws in PY are almost nonexistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Guns aren't hard to make. Anyone with internet and a lathe machine can make a gun. Everything is easy to make except the rifling and the bolt.
Gun laws will NEVER work. Compare Switzerland with UK in Europe. Compare tows with almost no gun laws in USA with Chicago/Detroit. In South America, Brazil have a insane strict gun control and 60.000 homicides/year, while Uruguay had only 289 homicides and Paraguay(more poor than Brazil) have 617 homicides and the gun laws in PY are almost nonexistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Guns aren't hard to make. Anyone with internet and a lathe machine can make a gun. Everything is easy to make except the rifling and the bolt.
@deltago I wasn't offering excuses; instead, I was noting that saying "let's restrict ammunition sales" won't be sufficient, especially since plenty of people have been stockpiling rounds. Outlawing those sales will only expand the already-existing back-alley secondary market.
The people stockpiling, aren't the ones looking to go shoot up a school, or workplace or any other area. Very rarely (and I am only thinking of the Las Vegas shooter here) these individuals have that ammunition now to start a crime spree.
Restricting the sale of ammunition now, and I am not saying stop selling it altogether, just restrict it sales so someone can't walk into a Walmart with signs like this:
And buy a box of ammunition before heading to a school.
And to say that everyone knew this kid was going to shoot up a school means nothing. He never committed a crime until he went to the school with a automatic rifle and opened fire. Police cannot watch every troubled kid 24/7. The school did everything in its power (which as you could see was limited to telling the kid to not have a backpack and eventually expelling him from school property) to prevent him from committing this act. It wasn't enough.
The one thing that can probably be done is to restrict the media (either voluntarily or by law) from reporting these incidents. Now that may seem counterproductive, but regardless of how many times its reported, nothing changes. What can change, is taking away these individuals way of m aking a name for themselves. Everyone knows the name Dylann Roof, but can anyone name one of his victims without looking it up?
This is what is done for suicides. Very rarely, and only in extreme circumstances when the family comes forward does the media report suicides. The reasoning is reporting it gives motivation to others with the same thoughts to commit suicide instead of seeking help. Doing a publication ban on just the shooters name would be a deterrent to those who are looking to just make a name for themselves.
But might as well just wring your hands and say "there's nothing you can do, it's part of our culture. The Russian influenced NRA is too powerful to do anything any way." Rinse and repeat until the next Gina Montalto or Scott Beige comes and fades away from memory.
Gun laws will NEVER work. Compare Switzerland with UK in Europe. Compare tows with almost no gun laws in USA with Chicago/Detroit. In South America, Brazil have a insane strict gun control and 60.000 homicides/year, while Uruguay had only 289 homicides and Paraguay(more poor than Brazil) have 617 homicides and the gun laws in PY are almost nonexistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Guns aren't hard to make. Anyone with internet and a lathe machine can make a gun. Everything is easy to make except the rifling and the bolt.
Gun laws will NEVER work. Compare Switzerland with UK in Europe. Compare tows with almost no gun laws in USA with Chicago/Detroit. In South America, Brazil have a insane strict gun control and 60.000 homicides/year, while Uruguay had only 289 homicides and Paraguay(more poor than Brazil) have 617 homicides and the gun laws in PY are almost nonexistent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Guns aren't hard to make. Anyone with internet and a lathe machine can make a gun. Everything is easy to make except the rifling and the bolt.
All USA will become like Detroit... Also, if you don't like guns, you can simple move to a state/city with a strict gun control and enjoy the high criminality. About compare UK with US, why not compare UK with Switzerland? Switzerland have some gun control laws, but nothing like UK.
And there it is again. Nothing works perfectly, so do nothing.
Rinse repeat rinse repeat.
The problem is not that gun control don't "works perfectly" is that gun control simple INCREASE VIOLENCE in every country. In America, you have freedom do choose where to live. If you like gun control, you are free to move to Detroit. In the majority of world you don't have that freedom.
Even if guns increase violence(as i've posted statistics, knifes kill more than assault guns), if a comunity wanna have guns, why should the federal government force this community to disarm? Other question. What you will gonna do with the gun production? Will start wars? Let every gun company fail? And the unemployment?
I was born in a country that is the leftist dream. Guns are insane strict, whites are minority and there are affirmative actions to 'protect' the majority(blacks/mixed race) from the minority(white/asian), despite the fact that was a blonde, blue eyed princess who ended slavery here. Taxes are insane, the government is ultra centralized.... I simple don't wanna this hell to any other country.
The one thing that can probably be done is to restrict the media (either voluntarily or by law) from reporting these incidents. Now that may seem counterproductive, but regardless of how many times its reported, nothing changes. What can change, is taking away these individuals way of m aking a name for themselves. Everyone knows the name Dylann Roof, but can anyone name one of his victims without looking it up?
I never use the actual names of high-profile shooters, referring to them only in generic terms such as "the shooter" or "this person", etc. In this particular case the shooter was not also killed, so he is going to have a public trial--he gets publicity for months.
Comments
Beyond that, we need to require liability insurance to purchase a gun. The amount of time in advance you have to have proof of to be eligible to buy one could range from possibly 6 months to a year, but if we can do it for cars, we can do it for guns. Insurers are not going to hand out policies to people they think are irresponsible or dangerous. The cost alone would put the weapons out of the reach of most people. If you want them, you will act accordingly in your personal life and do what is necessary to bring down your rates. As you mention, a psychiatric evaluation (whether this is a personal doctor or government mandated one is up for debate). Finally, a mandatory safety course, on completion of which you get an ID card that is also necessary to purchase the weapons. This is all on par with what we require of people who want to drive a car. Is it really asking too much that we treat guns the same way?? I don't think so.
Mind you, none of this is going to take place. We won't even have a discussion about it. The NRA has totally bought the Republican Party AND a significant number of Blue Dog Democrats in rural areas (but, let's also be honest, orthodoxy on gun rights is mainly a Republican issue).
Basically, let's do SOMETHING. Anything at this point. The Second Amendment doesn't need to be a suicide pact. And that is what it is turning into at this rate. Columbine was 19 years ago. How many times are we going to watch this movie and stare blankly into space??
Also Trump suggests a 25cent gas tax to pay the 1.5 Trillion dollar infrastructure plan (not clear to me if that is to raise the $200BN or the whole $1.5 Trillion.
This is after they cut the corporate tax rate in half, doubled the estate tax exemptions to tens of millions of dollars, and added a $1.5 trillion dollar hole in the budget. So instead of rich people paying taxes, Trump wants to tax working people with a gas tax.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/politics/trump-gas-tax/index.html
What about the cartels getting into the business of smuggling guns and ammunition into the country alongside the drugs and people they already smuggle in?
Psychiatric evaluations as part of a background check to purchase a gun might violate HIPPA. They probably should take place, yes, but the other law would have to be amended.
In the UK gun controls have existed for a long time (though they have developed over time), so it's hard to imagine a situation without them. It may be worth thinking about a couple of other issues that offer some parallels, however.
Child safety
When I first started work in education 30 odd years ago, the only check required on applicants to schools was against a list kept by the government of people that should not be employed. As a result of various scandals this requirement has hugely increased, so that now checks run by the Disclosure & Barring Service are mandatory for any employment associated with children. The enhanced checks not only look for criminal convictions, but cautions, warnings and other notes from local police. More basic checks can be required by employers for any form of employment.
The bureaucracy involved in this system is considerable and I'm not particularly happy about the implications for privacy either. However, I've seen over and over again that changes in the law don't just follow social attitudes, but lead them as well - and that's true in this area. There have been continuing revelations over how some children are treated in this country. In many cases the DBS checks would make no difference to actions (for instance due to lack of previous convictions), but what they have done is drive a culture where people are far more aware of potential problems and no longer prepared to overlook those for the sake of protecting individuals or institutions. I think that's a healthy development for society.
Drink driving
I'm not old enough to have been in the heyday of drink driving - the first law relating to levels of alcohol in the blood came in in 1967. However, even in the 1980s the culture around drink driving was still very different to now - perhaps some of you remember the idea of "one for the road." The law doesn't stop all drink driving of course, but by now you can be pretty sure that anyone caught drink driving knows that's a bad thing and they probably feel guilty about it - that wasn't always the case by any means.
I would not expect the introduction of far stricter gun control to have much immediate impact on gun violence. However, I would expect over time that it would change the culture around guns - and that would be likely in turn to have a major impact on gun violence. At present the ownership and use of guns in the US is glorified and seen as a way to demonstrate power. It's therefore no great surprise when people who have felt harshly treated for some reason turn to the use of guns - as in this latest school shooting in Florida. Even if guns are in fact still widely available, if they were in future not seen as the answer to all your problems, they would be much less likely to be used in this sort of 'I'll show them' scenario.
Same thing with a person with means of manufacturing their own ammunition. Let them. They just can't sell it and if it is deemed to be used in a crime, charge them with accessory to murder. Chances are it's slim to none people who know how to make ammunition will also go shoot up a school.
These types of excuses have always been weak, and leads to nothing being done instead of something. It's like saying "Why have a lock on your door when someone with a crowbar can pry it open?" It's a deterrent not a perfect solution and usually deterring an individual from committing a crime is net positive.
http://www.howtogetagun.ca/
Speaking of undercover police and deterring people from committing a crime...sometimes the undercover officers *encourage* people to advance their plot to do something awful up until they point they try to commit the offense. I once had to leave work because a building one block away had a guy who tried to set off a bomb in the parking garage. The undercover FBI agents helped the guy buy the materials, helped him put it together, then gave him a dummy detonator so the device wouldn't fire. That makes no sense--why didn't they arrest him before that?
Anyway...this guy's social media was full of comments about how he was going to be a professional school shooter, that he wanted to do what Charles Whitman (the UT shooter from back in 1966) did, and posting pictures of himself holding guns online should have been red flags. Sane, rational people do not normally post pictures of themselves holding guns online...or, at least, they *shouldn't* do that--never advertise what you have. He was reported as a potential threat to the FBI last September but they didn't do anything about it.
Don't forget--Congress is expressly *forbidden* from enacting legislation which restricts our right to own guns. States, on the other hand, may enact whatever legislation they wish. Anyone wishing for gun control legislation needs to look to their State Legislature, not Washington, D. C.
Now there is an outlet reporting that Stormy Daniels says she has a dress with DNA too.
The Blast reports the porn star has a “Monica Lewinsky dress,” a shimmering gold mini dress she wore during the alleged tryst in a Lake Tahoe hotel with the man who would become president, sources close to Daniels told the gossip site.
She’s kept the dress, with its plunging neckline, “in pristine condition” and plans to have it forensically tested for samples of hair, skin or “anything else” that would contain DNA, the Blast said.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/stormy-daniels-has-a-monica-lewinsky-dress-to-test-for-trumps-dna-report-says/
Not sure how legit "The Blast" is but it would be funny karma if this comes around on him, the guy who always is mean spirited and revels in others getting taken down a peg or two.
@jjstraka34 Like I said, in order to do anything about mental illness and the interactions with guns by requiring a psychiatric evaluation as part of the purchase process would necessitate amending HIPPA. I suppose a waiver form could be set up so that the agency conducting the evaluation can release the results to the gun vendor but potential violations may still exist if the gun vendor doesn't have a HIPPA privacy officer on staff with the usual precautions regarding documents and their privacy.
I thought we were supposed to operate under the principle of "if you see something, say something". Well, people saw this guy's online profile, brought it to the FBI's attention, and they did...nothing. What was the point of saying something?
Beyond that, let's take a very simple example of how much harder is is to acquire something illegally, which is alcohol. I acquired alcohol illegally on a weekly basis for almost 5 years. The idea that it was ever less than a hassle or just as easy as it is now is absurd. If we hadn't have had a Wooderson-esque good friend on call much of the time, it would have been even harder. Point being, multiple steps and effort were required to get our hands on alcohol while underage. Sometimes, those efforts fell through. Making something hard to acquire absolutely effects the effort and ease it takes to get your hands on it.
Oh absolutely. I suspect that even stopping all sales of guns within the next 10 years would do NOTHING to reduce the number of shootings. We aren't the only country where one can legally own "assault rifles", yet we are still magnitudes worse in gun violence. Its gonna require a culture change change for ANYTHING to change. Look at how the police, military, and just guns in general are fetishized in America.
Anyway...we will probably see a push to restrict gun sales to those 21 and older, just like for alcohol. That won't stop straw purchases, of course, and it won't prevent gifting a gun to a younger person but at least they can't buy it directly from a store. Buying one online...I am not going to address how easy that is so they will probably need to try and close that door, as well.
How Republicans Have Been Making Gun Laws Worse Under Trump
Highlights from what they've done to make things worse either through failure to act or making it easier for "bad guys" to get guns
- Trump Blocked a Rule That Made It Harder for the Mentally Ill to Obtain Guns
- Trump Made It Easier for Fugitives to Buy Guns
- GOP Moved to Loosen Gun Restrictions on Federal Lands
- Republicans Advanced a Bill to Make It Easier to Buy Gun Silencers
- Congress Discussed Banning Bump Stocks then didn't after the Las Vegas Massacre
- Paul Ryan Ignored Calls to Form a Select Committee on Gun Violence
- House Passed Bill Allowing Concealed Carry Across State Lines
- Trump's Budget proposal would cut the budget for background-check system by 16%
What Republicans have allowed to be done:Thoughts and Prayers.
And here's some victim blaming.... No blame to the White Nationalist or the support system of NRA funded Republican politicians he was able to use.
Let that sink in for a minute.
Apparently mass shootings aren't enough nor this embarrassing anti-middle class Presidency and government.
Guns aren't hard to make. Anyone with internet and a lathe machine can make a gun. Everything is easy to make except the rifling and the bolt.
Note that Knifes kill more guns than "assault guns" http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/knives-kill-more-people-each-year-than-rifles-time-for-knife-control/
Restricting the sale of ammunition now, and I am not saying stop selling it altogether, just restrict it sales so someone can't walk into a Walmart with signs like this:
And buy a box of ammunition before heading to a school.
And to say that everyone knew this kid was going to shoot up a school means nothing. He never committed a crime until he went to the school with a automatic rifle and opened fire. Police cannot watch every troubled kid 24/7. The school did everything in its power (which as you could see was limited to telling the kid to not have a backpack and eventually expelling him from school property) to prevent him from committing this act. It wasn't enough.
The one thing that can probably be done is to restrict the media (either voluntarily or by law) from reporting these incidents. Now that may seem counterproductive, but regardless of how many times its reported, nothing changes. What can change, is taking away these individuals way of m aking a name for themselves. Everyone knows the name Dylann Roof, but can anyone name one of his victims without looking it up?
This is what is done for suicides. Very rarely, and only in extreme circumstances when the family comes forward does the media report suicides. The reasoning is reporting it gives motivation to others with the same thoughts to commit suicide instead of seeking help. Doing a publication ban on just the shooters name would be a deterrent to those who are looking to just make a name for themselves.
But might as well just wring your hands and say "there's nothing you can do, it's part of our culture. The Russian influenced NRA is too powerful to do anything any way." Rinse and repeat until the next Gina Montalto or Scott Beige comes and fades away from memory. And there it is again. Nothing works perfectly, so do nothing.
Rinse repeat rinse repeat.
Rinse repeat rinse repeat.
The problem is not that gun control don't "works perfectly" is that gun control simple INCREASE VIOLENCE in every country. In America, you have freedom do choose where to live. If you like gun control, you are free to move to Detroit. In the majority of world you don't have that freedom.
Even if guns increase violence(as i've posted statistics, knifes kill more than assault guns), if a comunity wanna have guns, why should the federal government force this community to disarm? Other question. What you will gonna do with the gun production? Will start wars? Let every gun company fail? And the unemployment?
Now USA
Source https://www.ammoland.com/2016/01/gun-control-and-rape-facts/#axzz57Ce89Cbp