Not again...

[CharonY]

There are now reports out there that claims that he may have struggled with his own homosexuality. But so far it does not seem to be well sourced.

[StringJunky]

There are now reports out there that claims that he may have struggled with his own homosexuality. But so far it does not seem to be well sourced.

An act of self-loathing by proxy, perhaps, if true?

[disarray]

I do think that there needs to be more follow up regarding the reasons that people commit these atrocities in order to try to understand the mentality behind the crimes. Often what manifests itself as an individual aberration is merely the manifestation of dysfunctional cultural attitudes and beliefs. In general, I don't think that the fight terrorism with terrorism or the wipe them all out approach are very viable in today's world, though when under direct attack and/or resources are scarce in any given situation, that sometimes is the only option.

 

But far too often, what is needed is a shift in attitudes...For example, not too many decades ago, it was seen as quite acceptable by mainstream society in many areas of the U.S. to kill disobedient, fleeing, or even sassy "Black" slaves in the most horrific ways. Owing largely to a paradigm shift in consciousness (aka attitude as to what is socially proper and acceptable and reasonable), slavery in general is now considered to be a barbarian and inhuman practice by the vast majority of Americans, and indeed, a few racist remarks from a comedian somewhere can create a firestorm of public protest on a national scale, as happened not too long ago.

 

Similarly, it was only a few years back that homosexuals could be imprisoned simply for being homosexual in some parts of the U.S., while now, even the slightest slur against them by a well-known public figure such as an actor or politician can spark national outrage.

 

But there is still much to be done in terms of changing attitudes...there are still far too many people being persecuted or even killed, directly or indirectly, for being homosexual, colored, or pagan (i.e., of a different religion) in a country which has written into its highest laws that one does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin (Title Vii). Perhaps we could export a little more of this sort of attitude, rather than to be so focused on exporting our commercial products, our political regime preferences, our religious creeds regarding the conditions for salvation, or our military bases.

 

Not to be flippant about a serious situation, but I think that far too often the knee jerk reaction is to try to beat um before you try to join them.

Edited June 14, 2016 by disarray

[DrP]

Going back to discussing punishment.... maybe the person who sold him the weapon should be held accountable for letting a mentally ill person buy an assault rifle. If this were the case then vendors might be a bit more choosey as to whom they sell guns too and they might not end up in the hands of total maniacs.

[StringJunky]

Going back to discussing punishment.... maybe the person who sold him the weapon should be held accountable for letting a mentally ill person buy an assault rifle. If this were the case then vendors might be a bit more choosey as to whom they sell guns too and they might not end up in the hands of total maniacs.

A commonsense suggestion but, sadly, such a concept is alien to the NRA and it's devotees.

[swansont]

Going back to discussing punishment.... maybe the person who sold him the weapon should be held accountable for letting a mentally ill person buy an assault rifle. If this were the case then vendors might be a bit more choosey as to whom they sell guns too and they might not end up in the hands of total maniacs.

 

 

Without background checks, how would you know if your customer is mentally ill?

[DrP]

Introduce background checks then - it isn't rocket science. Who cares what the NRA says? If the Government say you need background checks, which are clearly common sense, then the NRA will have to play ball or be replaced. Some of the more ignorant plebs in your population will be disgruntled, but fuck em, I can't believe ALL US citizens are ignorant gun toting monkeys.

 

Yours is a country that I am kinda proud of in a way - it is a great country... but you need to educate your masses away from the idiocy of the FOX news broadcasters. Cut the propaganda and continue the regime of introducing and defending proper education and distribution of decent information to the masses. I know you Americans have mixed opinions, but as an out side observer, this Obama guy is the best president you have had in a long while - I hope the progress to proper social care etc continues with whoever you choose to replace him. I am just a bit surprised he hasn't done anything about this gun debacle.

[MonDie]

There are two kinds of disorders, those problematic to the sufferer and those problematic to others. The latter folk are more likely to have a criminal record than a hospital admission record. Maybe we need a better system for reporting abusive partners or family.

Psychotic illnesses like bipolar have a gradual onset and progression, usually beginning in the early twenties at least for men, but I don't believe psychotic illness alone can cause such behavior.

[Delta1212]

There are background checks, though, which this guy passed. He had been on a watchlist at some point, but that doesn't turn up in a background check, and I'm more comfortable with the idea of a total gun ban than I am with the idea of selectively restricting people's rights based on their presence on a list that a person can be added to with no due process.

 

Edit: As far as Obama doing anything about the issue of gun control, well, he tried. The problem there is that the President doesn't really have the power to do anything about it unilaterally. Gun control measures need to come from Congress, and there has been a very hostile Congress to the President since 2010, and one very firmly against any sort of gun control efforts.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Delta1212

[MonDie]

A stupid joke

Edited June 14, 2016 by MonDie

[iNow]

How many of these are gang related, with the criminals getting the firearms illegally?

While there are sometimes temporary and localized spikes in firearm violence within highly concentrated and specific urban centers due to gang activity, there's not a shred of evidence to support the claim that gangs are the driving force behind firearm violence.

 

For some perspective, in 2011 there were a total 33,636 firearm deaths in the country.

That same year, there were only 1,824 gang related killings (and not all of those used a gun).

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

 

It's a common talking point we hear that gangs are to blame, but they're quite simply not.

 

See also: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm?s_cid=mm6103a2_w

Even when examining cities with the largest gang problems, gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of the total firearm deaths (and in every other part of the country that number is significantly lower still).

 

 

 

Cut the propaganda and continue the regime of introducing and defending proper education and distribution of decent information to the masses. I know you Americans have mixed opinions, but as an out side observer, this Obama guy is the best president you have had in a long while - I hope the progress to proper social care etc continues with whoever you choose to replace him. I am just a bit surprised he hasn't done anything about this gun debacle.

He has, but he's not a king or dictator with infinite power (despite what we keep hearing on the news sources you yourself lament). He needs help from a willing congress. Edited June 14, 2016 by iNow

[MigL]

I think DrP's is an excellent suggestion.

Here in Ontario, Canada, a merchant can be fined and/or lose his licence to sell tobacco products if selling to minors.

Similarly, bar owners can be charged if selling liquor to customers past the point of inebriation, and be held responsible for acts they commit while drunk.

I don't see why a gun-shop owner is absolved of responsibility when selling to a ( subsequent ) murderer.

 

Maybe background checks won't work by themselves, but may, in conjunction with other measures.

Seems that if the tobacco/firearms people had a database which collects info from various governmental groups, the shooter may have passed his psych screening, but would have failed his security screening because of past actions.

[Delta1212]

The problem is that the first two are things that you can tell at the time of sale. You can find out if someone is a minor before selling to them. You can tell how many drinks you have sold someone as well as how drunk they are acting before selling them another.

 

You cannot tell whether someone is going to eventually use a gun in a crime before selling to them. Sure, if they come in talking about how they're going to kill someone and the person sells them the gun and then they kill someone, I could see the seller having some culpability. But mostly that's not what happens.

 

Now, if there is a way to tell whether someone is going to, or is extremely likely to, use a gun illegally before selling it to them, then sure. But that is what background checks are for. Then you hold the seller liable if they don't conduct a proper background check.

 

But if they do, I'm not sure that there is any fair way to hold someone accountable for actions they had no control over and could not have reasonably foreseen at the point of sale without effectively outlawing the sale of guns all together.

[iNow]

I don't see why a gun-shop owner is absolved of responsibility when selling to a ( subsequent ) murderer.

Because they're not clairvoyant.

[MigL]

Maybe not, but they should do their due diligence and check into any requirements before allowing the purchase.

If they fail to do this and, subsequently, the unthinkable happens, they need to be charged with negligence.

[DrP]

@Delta and iNow - yes, thanks - I do know his hands were tied by congress, I was just saying if the government pass the law then the NRA will have to play by the rules as declared by the elected leaders (I would hope).

 

@MigL - Yes - it might make make them think twice before selling to just any old Tom Dick or Harry that walks in...

 

 

...maybe you should have to have a licence to own a gun? that way all the background checks are done during licence application and the shop owner just looks at the customer's certificate that shows he has gun privileges.... ex cons, people with mental health problems or histories of violence do not get licences. Simple. ;-)

[Delta1212]

Some states do have gun licensing. It varies a lot by region.

 

I would personally prefer if gun ownership worked more like car ownership. Get licensed, register them with the state and purchase insurance if you want to use them outside of your own private property.

 

There's a fair degree of resistance to most of that from various quarters, though.

[DrP]

Well it is up to you guys, if want this daily murder as part of your lives or not - it doesn't happen in any other civilised parts of the world. It will be easy to stop if you as a people accept licencing and control. Otherwise you'll continue to be tarred with the same brush as the other crazy nut case countries of the world.

[swansont]

Maybe not, but they should do their due diligence and check into any requirements before allowing the purchase.

If they fail to do this and, subsequently, the unthinkable happens, they need to be charged with negligence.

 

 

The problem is that there are no requirements to check (in many cases)

[imatfaal]

regarding sales of weapons - and this particular gun in particular

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/helen_ubinas/20160614_Ubinas__I_bought_an_AR-15_semi-automatic_rifle_in_Philly_in_7_minutes.html

SEVEN MINUTES.

 

That's how long it took me to buy an AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

 

Seven minutes. From the moment I handed the salesperson my driver's license to the moment I passed my background check.

[Elite Engineer]

Some states do have gun licensing. It varies a lot by region.

 

I would personally prefer if gun ownership worked more like car ownership. Get licensed, register them with the state and purchase insurance if you want to use them outside of your own private property.

 

There's a fair degree of resistance to most of that from various quarters, though.

I live in NY. One has to go through an extensive background check, classes and a permit to own a pistol. With rifles and shotguns it's not as difficult, but still consistent. However, 2 years ago, in West Chester, NY, some ex-criminal paid off his neighbor to buy him a shotgun, and then kill two firefighters after they ran into a house he had lit on fire.

While there are sometimes temporary and localized spikes in firearm violence within highly concentrated and specific urban centers due to gang activity, there's not a shred of evidence to support the claim that gangs are the driving force behind firearm violence.

 

For some perspective, in 2011 there were a total 33,636 firearm deaths in the country.

That same year, there were only 1,824 gang related killings (and not all of those used a gun).

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

 

It's a common talking point we hear that gangs are to blame, but they're quite simply not.

 

See also: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm?s_cid=mm6103a2_w

Even when examining cities with the largest gang problems, gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of the total firearm deaths (and in every other part of the country that number is significantly lower still).

 

 

 

He has, but he's not a king or dictator with infinite power (despite what we keep hearing on the news sources you yourself lament). He needs help from a willing congress.

Per year, how many firearms deaths are:

 

Murder w/ illegal means of obtaining the gun

 

Murder w/ legal means of obtaining the gun

 

Accidental death

 

Is this counting suicide too?

[Ten oz]

Carefully thought out policy proposals are frozen at the gate by the ad idem argument that guns equal freedom and it is tyranny to even ponder otherwise. Be simply refusing to even be party to a discussion about approaches that can be taken pro gun advocates win and no amount of mass shootings, dead children, or anything matters. Their motto is literally "from our cold dead hands". Which violent stubbornness ensure many cold dead hands will follow as their sense of personal freedom trumps the lives of others. Reason is being held hostage, at gun point, in the the U.S.. it is sad and frustrating that simply repeating key words constitution, tyranny, freedom, founding fathers, etc beats back any and all reasoned discussion. Doesn't matter the environmental changes or anything. Nothing that has happened or could happens matters. We simply must live with this and that is that.....pathetic.

[MigL]

I agree swansont, and that's the first thing that needs to change.

Country-wide rules for firearms purchases so you can't simply buy in another state.

And a picture licensing system so others can't buy for you.

 

This isn't the first time our freedoms have been eroded in the interest of safety, Ten oz.

And you remember the old saying

" your rights and freedoms stop when they start infringing on the rights of others "

Edited June 14, 2016 by MigL

[rangerx]

Statistically, terrorists rarely kill anyone. No less target children.

 

Accidental or intentionally, American gun ownership kills children, every day. A tolerable consequence of facilitating a well regulated militia, apparently.

 

Many Americans are indoctrinated to advocate that gun laws trump the liberty of those killed by them. Where ideologically shadowed threats are a greater priority than domestic carnage.

 

At the end of the day, it's tantamount to collateral damage and human shields to preposterous laws.

[MigL]

"statistically, terrorists rarely kill anyone' ???

 

Well here's some statistics which come up as a first hit on Google...

A UN report states that ISIS 'attacks deliberately and systematically target civilians', and in the first 8 months of 2014, more than 9000 people ( including women and children ) were killed, and more than 17000 were wounded.

 

Is that a tolerable consequence ?