(CNN)Police in Lafayette, Louisiana, say they responded Thursday night to a report of a shooting at the Grand 16 Theatre.

"We think the shooter is deceased," Police Chief Jim Craft said, according to CNN affiliate KATC. "Right now we're in the middle of sorting this out."

The shooting involved "multiple victims," the police department tweeted. Police said they received the call about 7:30 p.m. CT.

Todd Moffatt, manager of a Mellow Mushroom pizza restaurant in the area, said 20 to 30 emergency vehicles had arrived on the scene. The area was locked down, he said.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tweeted, "I'm on my way to Lafayette right now. Please say a prayer for the victims at Grand Theatre and their families."

CNN's Tony Marco contributed to this report.

 cincydooley wrote:
It makes me sad though, that my immediate reaction after all of these types of things in enclosed spaces, is, "I'm really glad they didn't make a bomb..."

Spetulhu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It makes me sad though, that my immediate reaction after all of these types of things in enclosed spaces, is, "I'm really glad they didn't make a bomb..."

Which goes double for US airports. Everyone's so focused on making sure nothing gets on a plane that someone who just wants to kill could blow up half the terminal with hundreds of people waiting in line for security checks...

 Ustrello wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It makes me sad though, that my immediate reaction after all of these types of things in enclosed spaces, is, "I'm really glad they didn't make a bomb..."

Which goes double for US airports. Everyone's so focused on making sure nothing gets on a plane that someone who just wants to kill could blow up half the terminal with hundreds of people waiting in line for security checks...

Hell any airport when you think about it. I am surprised that it hasn't happened in France or somewhere else yet.

 Jihadin wrote:


Waiting on a mall to go boom somewhere

 juraigamer wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


Waiting on a mall to go boom somewhere

Nah, a subway during rush hour would basically cripple a city for days, if not weeks and is a far easier target.

But we don't really have to worry about these things, we have to worry about guns. Prayers don't keep people from getting killed.

 cincydooley wrote:
Don't have to worry about those things?

Get the feth out of here.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Don't have to worry about those things?

Get the feth out of here.

He has a point. I feel awful for the people who lost their lives when they were just trying to enjoy a movie, but there is a perspective that gets lost in these things. You have to remember that the things that get the most coverage on the news aren't often the things that are actually hurting the most people week in week out.

I mean, you're one of the people who's pretty quick to point out that mass shootings are actually a pretty small thing in the scheme of things.

 snurl wrote:
<< hopes there are no confederate flags in the shooter's house >>

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 snurl wrote:
<< hopes there are no confederate flags in the shooter's house >>

Was this necessary?

The Lafayette, Louisiana, movie theater shooter was 59-year-old John Russel Houser, Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said Friday.

Craft described Houser as "kind of a drifter" who was from Alabama and had been in Lafayette since early July, staying at a local hotel. Authorities have found various "disguises, basically" at the hotel room where he'd been staying.

Houser fired at least 13 rounds, according to the police chief.

"It appears he was intent on shooting and escaping," Clark said of the shooter. "The quick law enforcement response pushed him back into the theater."

As to his motive, Col. Michael Edmonson of the Louisiana State Police said, "Why did he come here? Why did he do that? We don't know that."

Mayci Breaux, 21, died at the scene, and Jillian Johnson, 33, died later at a nearby hospital, according to Craft.

"He was a guy that was a drifter ... that just happened to be in this theater and took two beautiful lives," Edmonson said of Houser. "Don't lose sight of the fact that these 2 individuals had a vision, had a name, had a future. It wasn't to die as they did horribly in this theater here."

[Original story published at 8:05 a.m. ET]

As the previews ended and the lights dimmed for the screening of the comedy "Trainwreck," a man stood up inside a Louisiana movie theater, pulled out a handgun and began firing indiscriminately.

The shooter, a 58-year-old man, killed two people and wounded nine others at the Lafayette multiplex Thursday night before he turned his gun on himself and took his own life, police said.

The shooting comes within days of the guilty verdict in the Aurora, Colorado, theater massacre.

"There's nothing to believe that there was any kind of motive," said Col. Michael Edmonson of the Louisiana State Police.

"We want to talk to the (victims') families first and let them know what happened," Edmonson said. "We owe them that respect."


The witnesses: 'Gunshots after gunshots'

About 100 people had sat down to watch the 7:10 p.m. screening of "Trainwreck" at the Grand Theater 16 in Lafayette, a city of about 120,000 people about 60 miles west of Baton Rouge, when the bullets flew.

Jalen Fernell was in a theater next door.

"I almost thought it was part of the movie at first," Fernell said of the gunshots.

An alarm went off, followed by an overhead intercom message asking patrons to get out.

Jordan Broussard first thought a fire had broken out when the alarm went off, lights came on and message rang out overhead. It wasn't until he got outside, heard sirens blaring and saw a woman lying with a gunshot wound to her leg that he realized it was much more than that.

The gravity of the situation dawned on him a few minutes later, when he heard an officer say, "'Get to Theater 14, we have some men down at Theater 14, we need an ambulance.'"

"That was when we were like, wow, this is crazy," the 19-year-old Lafayette native told CNN's "New Day." "...Coming to a movie on a Thursday night, we never expected that we would see a crime scene and a gunman (in our) theater. It's a very sad night."

Authorities have uncovered that Lafayette theater shooting John Houser apparently had mental issues and was evicted from his Alabama home in 2013 or 2014.

Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor told The Advocate that his office also denied Houser a pistol permit in 2006.

"It appears he had some mental health issues," Taylor said.

Senior law enforcement officials are also trying to locate Houser's family members.

"He was known to us," Phenix City Police Chief Ray Smith told The Advocate, citing number of civil disputes and "strange behavior."

Houser, the gunman authorities say fatally shot two people and wounded nine others before killing himself Thursday in a Lafayette movie theater, was a 59-year-old drifter living in a motel, where investigators have found wigs and disguises.

Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said Friday morning in announcing Houser's identity that authorities still have no motive in the killings. His car, found in the parking lot near a theater exit after the shootings, had a switched license plate.

Craft said Houser clearly intended to escape after opening fire by blending in with the fleeing crowd, but turned back when police arrived and shot himself.

Houser had several addresses across several Southern states, Craft said, including Phenix City, Alabama.

An investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch found that the man who killed two people and himself in a Louisiana movie theater Thursday night was an active member of online forums that praised white supremacist and anti-gay organizations and espoused right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.
The online trail of 59-year-old John Russell Houser, who police publicly identified in a press conference on Friday morning, included comments such as, “Decent people can retake the entire world, as Hitler proved,” and diatribes against “the Black” and “the Jew.” He also expressed admiration for Greece’s neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn as well as the Westboro Baptist Church, which the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as an anti-gay hate group.
Most tellingly, before committing a so-called “lone wolf” act of violence, Houser wrote extensively about being a “lone wolf”: “I do not want to discourage the last hope for the best, but you must realize the power of the lone wolf, is the power that come forth in ALL situations,” Houser wrote on a forum dedicated to the New York chapter of Golden Dawn. “Look within yourselves.”

 cincydooley wrote:
Don't have to worry about those things?

Get the feth out of here.

Speaking at the late-night news conference, Jindal told stories of the heroism of those in the theater.

He said one teacher jumped on top of a fellow teacher to protect her from the bullets. Both were wounded, but the second woman said that her friend’s act had probably saved her life.

The second teacher then dragged herself to a fire alarm and pulled it, likely saving still more lives.

“A lot of folks in that situation would just be thinking about themselves,” he said. “She had the presence of mind to think, alright, even though she was shot in the leg, she saved other people.”

Cammie Maturin, the president of the Iberia Association of Educators, knew those women. They were her two friends, Jena Meaux and Ali Martin, who once taught alongside her at Jeanerette High School, in Jeanerette, southeast of Lafayette.

As soon as she heard the governor describe them on television, Maturin shook her head and smiled.

“That’s them, that’s who they are,” she said of the women’s bravery. “They did exactly who they are as people; saving each other, saving a whole lot of other people.”

Maturin described the two women as close friends and beloved teachers. Thursday night, their Facebook pages were brimming with comments and well wishes from their students.

Both women were injured and taken to the hospital but are in good spirits, Maturin said. She and her colleagues have set up a GoFundMe page for their fellow teachers to help raise money for their medical bills.

“There’s not a kid who went to Jeanerette High who wouldn’t say they were touched by one of these ladies,” Maturin said. “And our community has really come together to say, ‘What can we do?'”

 reds8n wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/24/3684254/report-lousiana-theater-shooters-online-presence-suggested-admiration-white-supremacy/

An investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch found that the man who killed two people and himself in a Louisiana movie theater Thursday night was an active member of online forums that praised white supremacist and anti-gay organizations and espoused right-wing, anti-government conspiracy theories.
The online trail of 59-year-old John Russell Houser, who police publicly identified in a press conference on Friday morning, included comments such as, “Decent people can retake the entire world, as Hitler proved,” and diatribes against “the Black” and “the Jew.” He also expressed admiration for Greece’s neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn as well as the Westboro Baptist Church, which the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as an anti-gay hate group.
Most tellingly, before committing a so-called “lone wolf” act of violence, Houser wrote extensively about being a “lone wolf”: “I do not want to discourage the last hope for the best, but you must realize the power of the lone wolf, is the power that come forth in ALL situations,” Houser wrote on a forum dedicated to the New York chapter of Golden Dawn. “Look within yourselves.”

..... guess we can rule out checking with MENSA for further info then.

 kronk wrote:
Sounds like a nutter.

The gunman who killed two people and injured several others at a Louisiana cinema had a history of mental health issues, according to court documents.

John Houser, 59, fired a dozen rounds from a handgun at a film screening in Lafayette before shooting himself.

Documents seen by the AP news agency show his family won a protective order against him in 2008 due to "various acts of violence" towards them.

His wife, who filed for divorce in March, said he had become "volatile".

Hours before the latest US shooting, President Barack Obama told the BBC that gun law reform had been his "greatest frustration".

Lafayette police described Houser as a "drifter" from Alabama who had been staying at nearby motel since the beginning of July. Wigs and other disguises were found inside his room.

Police chief Jim Craft said investigators believe he intended to flee rather than take his own life, but the quick police response forced him back into the building.

His motive is unclear but police said they were looking into online posts appearing to have been made by Houser in which he criticised the government and US media.

He did have a criminal history but it was "pretty old", Mr Craft added. It is unclear how he obtained his the semi-automatic .40-caliber handgun.

On Friday, an Alabama sheriff said Houser was denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon in 2006 because of a domestic violence complaint and a previous arrest for arson in nearby Columbus, Georgia.

Court documents from 2008 say Houser's family petitioned a court to have him involuntarily committed "because he was a danger to himself and others".

The files said Houser's wife, Kellie Maddox Houser, had removed all guns from their marital residence after he "exhibited extreme erratic behaviour" and made "disturbing statements".

The judge issued the order and Houser was taken to a hospital in Columbus, Georgia. It is unclear how long he stayed at the institute.

A former local television host in Georgia says Houser was a regular guest on his show in the 1990s, describing him as an "angry man" who made "wild accusations".

Calvin Floyd, who hosted a show on WLTZ-TV in Columbus, Georgia, said Houser rallied against women in the workplace and advocated violence against people involved in abortions.

"He was very entertaining. He made for good TV and when it was over, you would leave shaking your head," Mr Floyd told NBC News.

What we know about John Russell Houser
The 59-year-old is from Phenix City, Alabama, but police said he was a "drifter"
He was married with at least one child but his wife recently divorced him
Had been arrested and ticketed for past offences, ranging from arson to speeding
Spent some time being treated for mental health issues in 2008/2009
Once ran for office but withdrew after stealing an opponent's yard signs
Went on TV shows as a radical pundit and voiced anti-women feelings
Wrote angry posts on online forums about the government and the media

Witnesses said Houser opened fire on cinema-goers about 20 minutes into advertisements before a screening of Trainwreck at the Grand Theatre.

The victims were identified by police as 21-year-old Mayci Breaux and 31-year-old Jillian Johnson.

Colleagues said Ms Breaux was "an amazing young woman" while Ms Johnson's husband described her as a "once-in-a-lifetime gal".

Nine people were taken to a local hospital with injuries ranging from critical to non-life-threatening. One person remains in critical condition.

About 300 people are thought to have been in the cinema building at the time of the shooting.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who arrived at the scene late on Thursday night, praised the "selfless heroism" of two wounded teachers.

He told reporters that the first teacher threw herself in front of the second to shield her from the bullets.

The second, who was shot in the leg, had the presence of mind to pull the fire alarm to warn others of the danger, Mr Jindal said.

Mr Jindal, who is also vying for the Republican presidential nomination, said it was not the right time to discuss gun control and that the focus should remain on the victims.

US comedian and actress Amy Schumer, who stars in Trainwreck, tweeted: "My heart is broken and all my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Louisiana."

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Just a nutjob. Would be interesting to know if he got the gun legally or not. Seeing as how he couldn't get a concealed carry permit, I'm guessing it wasn't legally.

 djones520 wrote:
I read somewhere that the theater was a no gun zone. I'm curious if that was publicized or not, and if that had anything to do with his decision making process. Obviously we'll never know on the second half of that part, but I still am curious.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Just a nutjob. Would be interesting to know if he got the gun legally or not. Seeing as how he couldn't get a concealed carry permit, I'm guessing it wasn't legally.

Illegally seems the most plausible way. He would not have passed an NICS background check as he was;
- a domestic abuser
- previously involuntarily committed
- a felon on account of his arson charge
- subject to a restraining order

 Psienesis wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I read somewhere that the theater was a no gun zone. I'm curious if that was publicized or not, and if that had anything to do with his decision making process. Obviously we'll never know on the second half of that part, but I still am curious.

I don't believe such things exist in the state of Louisiana.

Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law? YES!

From the Louisiana DPS Concealed Handgun Unit
Web Page.
The provisions of R.S. 40:1379.3 (N) shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person

 djones520 wrote:
A charge does not make you a felon. A conviction does. But the involuntary commission would be enough to stop the purchase, I believe.

 djones520 wrote:
I read somewhere that the theater was a no gun zone. I'm curious if that was publicized or not, and if that had anything to do with his decision making process. Obviously we'll never know on the second half of that part, but I still am curious.

 Asherian Command wrote:
My question is how the feth did he get a weapon?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
My question is how the feth did he get a weapon?

Short answer; not legally

It will be interesting to see if the weapon can be traced

The gunman who opened fire in a Louisiana movie theater, killing two people and wounding nine others, legally bought the handgun he used, officials said Friday.

John Russell Houser, 59, bought the Hi-Point .40-caliber handgun at a pawn shop in Phenix City, Alabama, in February of 2014, Lafayette Police Chief Jim Craft said at a news conference.

Ouze wrote:
I don't see how the pawn shop could have broken the law, assuming they submitted the 4473. They're not responsible for proving the veracity of the information on the form, simply for submitting it through NICS and then keeping the records on file. I know the information entered into NICS, or more accurately, that doesn't make it into NICS, is a problem, but that's not on the pawn shop.

What made him prohibited from owning a firearm? Maybe I missed it, I haven't followed this super closely.

I saw he once had a restraining order taken out on him, but that's not a domestic violence conviction. As far as his mental issues, I think it's pretty rare for someone to actually be adjudicated mentally defective. If you're super depressed or manic or whatever and check into an inpatient facility willingly, get treated, and leave, I don't think that would count (for example). It's really, really hard to get someone committed, or even just held for a mental evaluation. My mother-in-law had brain damage (not yet diagnosed at the time) and our family tried hard as hell to have her held because we knew something was wrong, but we had no success - she was fairly coherent if confused - until she started screaming gibberish at and shoving a cop. So to be committed... it's not a thing that happens lightly. Obviously YMMV but that's my experience.

 d-usa wrote:
. And none of that is counting voluntary admissions, which would still count as "committed to a mental institution".

Ouze wrote:
I don't see how the pawn shop could have broken the law, assuming they submitted the 4473.

Ouze wrote:
What made him prohibited from owning a firearm? Maybe I missed it, I haven't followed this super closely.

 d-usa wrote:
Or it could b legal because NICS still, after how many shootings, doesn't have the information to actually do what it is supposed to do. Courts and mental health treatment facilities not talking to the states, states not talking to NICS, information hat would disqualify you never actually making it to the body that checks if you are disqualified.

This is the exact same song and dance that we have played for a decade now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Or it could b legal because NICS still, after how many shootings, doesn't have the information to actually do what it is supposed to do. Courts and mental health treatment facilities not talking to the states, states not talking to NICS, information hat would disqualify you never actually making it to the body that checks if you are disqualified.

This is the exact same song and dance that we have played for a decade now.

I apologize if I'm being obtuse but I'm having trouble reconciling it being legal because NICS was incorrect. Is it still not unlawful for a disqualified person to purchase/own a firearm?

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if it is being obtuse, but the whole point of having a centralized database that checks the information is because most reasonable people expect that some people will lie and that is why we have the NCIS system instead of just keeping post it notes with "it's totes legal for me to buy a gun" that are kept in a shoe box underneath the register.

It was a legal purchase in that his information was given to NICS and the system was not aware of any of his huge background that everybody else was able to pull together in less than 24 hours and NICS saying "he can legally purchase this firearm". This was not a shadowy gun show purchase, this was not a gun he stole from a family member, this was not a gun that he picked up from a drug dealer down the street. This was a gun that he was able to purchase at a gun store, pass the background check for, and walk out of the store with.

If the only answer to that is "well, he lied" then there is no point to doing background checks of any kind since that is the point of them: to catch people who are trying to buy a gun and who are lying about being able to purchase it.

Ouze wrote:
I wonder what it would take to actually make the American voting populace care enough to give government the political capital it takes to push reforms that actually make a difference.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Ouze wrote:
I wonder what it would take to actually make the American voting populace care enough to give government the political capital it takes to push reforms that actually make a difference.

What reforms do you think could have a difference in this case?

 d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

They system in place, hailed as "good enough" for quite a while, simply wasn't. We have spend the last decade agreeing that mental health records need to be integrated better into the system, but nothing has been done about it.

Ouze wrote:
People falling through the cracks and then going on spree killings is pretty much the dictionary definition of the system failing.

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Ouze wrote:
People falling through the cracks and then going on spree killings is pretty much the dictionary definition of the system failing.

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Spree killings are responsible for an insanely tiny portion of murders that they really can be ignored. And certainly you shouldn't base any legislation on them.

And its certainly no basis for infringing on the constitutional rights of everyone, just because an insanely tiny portion of murders have certain characteristics.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Even a working system will have flaws. You can't make a perfect system, at least without infringing on everyones rights.

Ouze wrote:
In this specific case, presuming that NICS failed: If proper flags had been raised, this person wouldn't have been able to lawfully buy a gun. Why did NICS fail in this case, and in the previous case with Dylann Roof? Was it a technical failure? Is it a funding issue? Is it poorly written legislation? Is it understaffing? Is there a hole, legally speaking, regarding mental health reporting? I don't know the answers to those questions, but assuming that NICS did fail, that seems like a good place to start.

Ouze wrote:
I read a news article the other day about SSA drafting a plan to, when approproate, report people to NICS when they are on Social Security Disability for reasons of mental impairment; i.e. people who are eligible to receive disability because of mental issues so severe they cannot work (or fully work). By any RAW interpretation, this would count as a mentally deficient adjudication... right?

So of course, the right-wing lie-o-sphere is reporting it as "Obama's secret plan to block seniors from owning guns", and the people who actually read Brietbart aren't inclined to read to deeply, and old people vote, so this will surely get shut down even though it has sweet fethall to do with senior citizens on Social Security.

And the wheel keeps on turning.

 Jihadin wrote:
Well, enforcing existing gun laws would help
Streamlining the system be huge factor

Seems 20 of 22 Gun Laws are not enforced
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/10/AGS_Report_-_The_Enforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf

 d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

They system in place, hailed as "good enough" for quite a while, simply wasn't. We have spend the last decade agreeing that mental health records need to be integrated better into the system, but nothing has been done about it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

They system in place, hailed as "good enough" for quite a while, simply wasn't. We have spend the last decade agreeing that mental health records need to be integrated better into the system, but nothing has been done about it.

Blame lthe lefties who freak if you say anything about the mental nutjobs in our society. But they have rights!

Legislation to stop those with mental health issues from purchasing or possessing firearms was introduced Thursday.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced the Safer Communities Act, which would temporarily prohibit people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from purchasing or possessing a gun, The Hill reports. Democratic Reps. Mike Thompson of California and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, the leaders of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, have also backed the bill.

The legislation would also provide improvements to the mental health system in America.

"By simultaneously improving mental health care and keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm themselves or others, this legislation takes an holistic approach to this serious issue,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

Under the proposed legislation, police could temporarily take away guns from people who were recently released from a mental health facility if there is “probable cause to believe [they] pose an imminent risk of harm to self or others.”

It would also temporarily prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing new guns upon release from a facility. After one year following the release, the individual would be able to petition to get their gun rights back.

"It's important to keep guns away from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others and instead provide them with the mental health tools and services they need,” Perlmutter said in a statement.

Calls for stricter gun control have made headlines recently in the wake of the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting. The Safer Communities Act is believed to be in response to the tragedy that left nine people dead.

Removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill may not be a strong solution to gun violence in America, according to a recent study.

Findings published in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law conclude that to reduce gun injuries and deaths there should be less focus on diagnosed mental illness and more on gun owners with a history of violent behavior, The Los Angeles Times reported.

The research, which was published in April, found that of the 310 million firearms estimated to be owned by private individuals in the United States, a disproportionate amount are owned by people who are prone to angry, impulsive behavior, and have a potentially dangerous habit of keeping guns close at hand.

The study found that keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill will only make a small reduction in gun violence. Fewer than one in 10 people with anger issues that also have access to guns have ever been admitted for mental health treatment or a substance abuse problem.

“Gun violence and serious mental illness are two very important but distinct public health issues that intersect only at their edges,” said study leader Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine. “The traditional legal approach has been to prohibit firearms from involuntarily committed psychiatric patients.

"But now we have more evidence that current laws don’t necessarily keep firearms out of the hands of a lot of potentially dangerous individuals.”

Sources: The Hill, The Los Angeles Times

 Jihadin wrote:
You weren't there. You had to be there to know or understand it

Though on 11 July 15 (edit for date)

Legislation to stop those with mental health issues from purchasing or possessing firearms was introduced Thursday.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced the Safer Communities Act, which would temporarily prohibit people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from purchasing or possessing a gun, The Hill reports. Democratic Reps. Mike Thompson of California and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, the leaders of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, have also backed the bill.

The legislation would also provide improvements to the mental health system in America.

"By simultaneously improving mental health care and keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm themselves or others, this legislation takes an holistic approach to this serious issue,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

Under the proposed legislation, police could temporarily take away guns from people who were recently released from a mental health facility if there is “probable cause to believe [they] pose an imminent risk of harm to self or others.”

It would also temporarily prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing new guns upon release from a facility. After one year following the release, the individual would be able to petition to get their gun rights back.

"It's important to keep guns away from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others and instead provide them with the mental health tools and services they need,” Perlmutter said in a statement.

Calls for stricter gun control have made headlines recently in the wake of the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting. The Safer Communities Act is believed to be in response to the tragedy that left nine people dead.

Removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill may not be a strong solution to gun violence in America, according to a recent study.

Findings published in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law conclude that to reduce gun injuries and deaths there should be less focus on diagnosed mental illness and more on gun owners with a history of violent behavior, The Los Angeles Times reported.

The research, which was published in April, found that of the 310 million firearms estimated to be owned by private individuals in the United States, a disproportionate amount are owned by people who are prone to angry, impulsive behavior, and have a potentially dangerous habit of keeping guns close at hand.

The study found that keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill will only make a small reduction in gun violence. Fewer than one in 10 people with anger issues that also have access to guns have ever been admitted for mental health treatment or a substance abuse problem.

“Gun violence and serious mental illness are two very important but distinct public health issues that intersect only at their edges,” said study leader Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine. “The traditional legal approach has been to prohibit firearms from involuntarily committed psychiatric patients.

"But now we have more evidence that current laws don’t necessarily keep firearms out of the hands of a lot of potentially dangerous individuals.”

Sources: The Hill, The Los Angeles Times

So how would they know if the individual in question have unregistered fire arms already?

 d-usa wrote:
How many states are fully sharing their records with the federal database? How are the records stored by the states? Are counties sharing them properly with the state itself? How are they transmitted? Are there difference in definitions that might prevent state convictions from properly flagging the federal system?

Plenty of areas for reform and improvements.

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

Ouze wrote:
People falling through the cracks and then going on spree killings is pretty much the dictionary definition of the system failing.

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

 d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

 cincydooley wrote:

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Maybe I'm misreading?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Was this a systemic error, or was this human error (like Dylan Roof)? How many individuals pass the NICS when they should have been denied?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Ouze wrote:
People falling through the cracks and then going on spree killings is pretty much the dictionary definition of the system failing.

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Was this a systemic error, or was this human error (like Dylan Roof)?

How many individuals pass the NICS when they should have been denied?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

Not I. I was legitimately curious as to how someone with four methods of disqualification could pass a NICS check.

 cincydooley wrote:

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Maybe I'm misreading?

 Jihadin wrote:
Why are we still hand jamming forms?
I had to do all my paperwork on a PC.........
print to sign.
So one digital form in the data base and one physical record of me owning a weapon

 Smacks wrote:
"Human error" can still be systemic. If humans aren't dependable then it would makes sense to try and remove that capacity to make mistakes from the system. That's what made air-travel so safe.

 d-usa wrote:
I would hope that someone could find this out, but I also doubt that we are going to.
. . .

I honestly have no idea, and I don't know how we could even find out. It could be that he is the only case, it could be that the system is pretty screwed up and it happens pretty frequently. I imagine that in the near future both sides will argue their view on how frequently it occurs.

 d-usa wrote:
Fair enough.

It really shouldn't have happened, especially if all four really applied. The mental health one is the one that we are very aware about as being a long standing problem when it comes to background check, so I don't think that one is that surprising. The other ones, if they actually apply (we know how news are), make the system even more troubling. Of course on Monday the authorities could reveal that this was all a mistake and he didn't actually pass his background check, or used a fake ID, or whatever. But if he simply lied and the system with the sole function of catching people that lie about being able to own a gun failed, then we really need to figure out why and how to keep it from happening again.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
However the other three should not have enabled him to pass a background check. It will be interesting to see if anything else develops from this.

Ouze wrote:
I agree... but I doubt anything will come of it. We'll forget by tomorrow most likely.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
"Human error" can still be systemic. If humans aren't dependable then it would make sense to try and remove that capacity to make mistakes from the system. That's what made air-travel so safe.

Human error typically means that the fault/error/failure was the result of a human's actions. Systemic failure is where the system itself is at fault, typically because it is poorly designed/concieved/executed. That was the distinction I was speaking of, and what I was attempting to ascertain.

 d-usa wrote:
We will see. I would hope that something gets done, and I think this is one of those areas where we can make some progress on improving safety (even if it is just a small area in the grand scheme of things) without really running into "pro/anti gun controll" issues. There is really nothing here that requires new restrictions, just find out where the current system is failing and fix those holes.

 Smacks wrote:
Oh okay, because it sounded like you might be trying to pass the buck.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd posit background checks are as unconstitutional as disenfranchising felons and parolees.

But if we're going to allow those breaches of the constitution, I think the argument could be made that requiring an ID to vote is justifiable. I mean, voter fraud is as occurs at a higher microscopic percentage than disqualified gun purchasers purchasing guns through legal means and then going on shooting sprees, no?

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

The chances of needing (and being able to use) a gun in self defence are also infinitesimal, but that doesn't stop you claiming that it's important.

With respect, dogmatically clinging to a 200 year old "right", to something that you shouldn't (and probably won't) ever need, in the face of quite widespread misuse, and people dying, is about the same amount of laughable. If you care to put the shoe on the other foot that is.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

The chances of needing (and being able to use) a gun in self defence are also infinitesimal, but that doesn't stop you claiming that it's important.

With respect, dogmatically clinging to a 200 year old "right", to something that you shouldn't (and probably won't) ever need, in the face of quite widespread misuse, and people dying, is about the same amount of laughable. If you care to put the shoe on the other foot that is.

Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works.

I'm sorry but that is just not a good argument at all as it can be used to support pretty much anything.

For example, "The fact that the government hasn't stolen my plans for world domination from inside my head is proof that my tinfoil hat blocks their mind-reading waves."

The lack of one thing occurring does not immediately mean that something intended to stop that thing has worked. It is possible that the thing just wasn't going to happen, anyway.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others.

It is a safeguard against tyranny.

and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others.

Frankly, that's a huge steaming pile of BS, no other developed country considers weapon ownership a human right, and we all have very similar rights and freedoms.

It is a safeguard against tyranny.

That's also laughable. The idea that a bunch of amateur hour militias could even agree on what they all stand for, or reflect the national interest, let alone overthrow the American government is beyond infinitesimal, more like infantile. Where were the guns when the government was seizing all your gold bullion? Where was the millitia when president Bush (who we're not even sure was democratically elected the first time) lead you into an illegal war? gak I bet half the gun-rights people were pro-war, and pro-Bush.

and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

As a bonus, it makes it more likely that you or a member of your family, will be killed accidentally, murdered by your spouse, or commit suicide, and it might in a few rare scenarios (which have pretty much all be publicized by the NRA) protect you from criminals.

The important thing here is that Cincy used the word infinitesimal, which is funny because the chance of needing to fight tyranny, the chance of needing to shoot a criminal, and the chance of gun rights people being right about any of their wild claims, are also infinitesimal. If guns really did make society safer, then America should unquestionably be the safest country in the world, but that's a complete joke.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Guns do not make it more likely that you will die an accidental death or commit suicide. They do however quite often get used to stop criminals.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Guns do not make it more likely that you will die an accidental death

You should be able to see that needing to defend yourself against a criminal would be an important thing. Even if its rare.

At the very least, the evidence is clear that civilian ownership of guns doesn't cause more harm. And fairly often they are used to stop crimes when the police can't get there fast enough.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yup, its odd. Especially when you'd think the right to self-defense would be quite an obvious one to go along with the others.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Spree killings are far far more rare than suffering a home invasion.

In 2013 there were 17 incidents of spree killings over the entire year. The FBI also estimates there are 6,646 home invasions per day. Thats almost 2.5 million per year.

I'd say more security in those insane number of home invasions is worth any potential effect it might have on spree killings(not that any has ever been proven)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Spree killings are far far more rare than suffering a home invasion.

In 2013 there were 17 incidents of spree killings over the entire year. The FBI also estimates there are 6,646 home invasions per day. Thats almost 2.5 million per year.

I'd say more security in those insane number of home invasions is worth any potential effect it might have on spree killings(not that any has ever been proven)

Its also worth noting that violent crime in general has been plunging lately. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Spree killings are far far more rare than suffering a home invasion.

In 2013 there were 17 incidents of spree killings over the entire year. The FBI also estimates there are 6,646 home invasions per day. Thats almost 2.5 million per year.

I'd say more security in those insane number of home invasions is worth any potential effect it might have on spree killings(not that any has ever been proven)

Those statistics are misleading. Crimes recorded as burglary-homicide are very rare, one source estimated ~100 per year nationwide which is comparable with deaths from spree killings. Rapes are also quite rare during burglaries, and offenders are known to their victims in about 65% of violent burglaries.

If you compare those figures to the number of woman who were killed or raped by a violent or jilted partner, it blows them out of the water.

 Hordini wrote:
I think the number of women who are killed or raped by a violent partner is an argument in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns, not an argument against it.

Myth: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I think the number of women who are killed or raped by a violent partner is an argument in favor of allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns, not an argument against it.

It might be if only women had access to guns, but men are far more likely to decided that they want a gun than women are, and about 100 times more likely to get angry and use it.

Summed up here:

Myth: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

 Hordini wrote:
Again, more women being killed by their partners is an argument for women having access to guns, not an argument against it.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Again, more women being killed by their partners is an argument for women having access to guns, not an argument against it.

Not when their partners having access to guns, makes their death 5 times more likely.

The reason I was talking about spousal murder in the first place is because it becomes more likely when a gun is kept in the home. That is true for men and women. If we're talking about how likely it is that guns responsibly to fend of a burglar, which is quite rare, then we can't ignore how often guns are used irresponsibly to intimidate or murder a spouse.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Again, more women being killed by their partners is an argument for women having access to guns, not an argument against it.

Not when their partners having access to guns, makes their death 5 times more likely.

The reason I was talking about spousal murder in the first place is because it becomes more likely when a gun is kept in the home. That is true for men and women. If we're talking about infinitesimal probabilities, and how likely it is that a gun will be used responsibly to fend off a burglar, which is quite rare. Then we can't ignore how often guns are used irresponsibly to intimidate or murder a spouse, which is more common.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Can you prove that having a rocket launcher in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Then by all means try and do that. You will fail of course.

And I think it odd that you don't think that self-preservation to be a basic human right.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

Haha, I believe I could put it beyond reasonable doubt, to a reasonable person. What exactly would you accept as proof?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Weapon ownership is not a basic human right, It's not a right in any developed country apart from yours. I can't think of any internationally recognised bill of human rights that includes the right to own guns. Pretty much the only place it appears is in the American constitution.

Relapse wrote:
Getting drunk isn't a basic human right, yet despite that doing so results in 3 times more the number of people dead than in gun related incidents(8 times the number if you discount suicides), most of the same people who use alcohol yet call for the abolition of gun ownership would fight tooth and nail against alcohol being abolished.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Then by all means try and do that. You will fail of course.

I asked you what you will accept as proof. And you just say I will fail. Which I think if anything just shows how pointless it is to try and reason with you.

And I think it odd that you don't think that self-preservation to be a basic human right.

No one said that.

Weapons are merely tools to serve that end.

No they aren't. For centuries weapons have been used to intimidate, control and kill people. They are implicit in all manner of crimes, wars and atrocities. Even in America it's impossible to argue that the proliferation of firearms has made society better, when you also factor in illegal weapons. The only reason they're even considered an option in America is because firearms are already so insanely out of control there. To connect them with basic human right like free speech and a fair trial is obscene. Any developed society would want free speech, no one wants America's gun problem, not even America.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Getting drunk isn't a basic human right, yet despite that doing so results in 3 times more the number of people dead than in gun related incidents(8 times the number if you discount suicides), most of the same people who use alcohol yet call for the abolition of gun ownership would fight tooth and nail against alcohol being abolished.

Here we go with whataboutism again. At least people who drink alcohol are willing to admit that they just enjoy getting drunk and having fun. They don't feel the need conceal it behind "I get drunk in case I need to fight a burglar".

Also the vast majority of alcohol related deaths are self inflicted. If gun-rights people only wanted guns to shoot themselves, than I doubt so many people would take issue with them. The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people (whether those people are pro-gun or not) which takes a lot of the "personal choice" out of it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Can you prove that having a rocket launcher in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people

 Smacks wrote:
No they aren't. For centuries weapons have been used to intimidate, control and kill people. They are implicit in all manner of crimes, wars and atrocities. Even in America it's impossible to argue that the proliferation of firearms has made society better, when you also factor in illegal weapons. The only reason they're even considered an option in America is because firearms are already so insanely out of control there. To connect them with basic human right like free speech and a fair trial is obscene. Any developed society would want free speech, no one wants America's gun problem, not even America.

 Grey Templar wrote:
1) I can't say what I will accept. Thats not how you make a case. You make what you can. I was simply stating the obvious since all the reputable data will stack against your case. But please, do show what you have.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

There will always be evil people. And they will always find a way to be armed. If good people are not armed, they will simply be forced to kneel. The only way to prevent this is if people can defend themselves.

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people

Any shred of a point it might have had about anything in this thread so far is destroyed by that amazingly wrong statement.

 Hordini wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Can you prove that having a gun in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Can you prove that having a rocket launcher in the home makes the person less safe from their spouse than it does to protect them from a burglar?

And can you prove that it is significant enough to make infringing on a basic human right worthwhile?

Who has a rocket launcher in their home again?

 DarkLink wrote:
You realize that America is just about the least violent it's ever been, right? And that even the most conservative estimates place the number of legally justifiable uses of firearms for self defense at significantly higher than the number of people murdered or wounded with firearms?

 Smacks wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people

Any shred of a point it might have had about anything in this thread so far is destroyed by that amazingly wrong statement.

Oh, no argument would be complete with out the obligatory "pretending to be outraged" post (a conservative favourite). By "like" I meant that they have "a tendency" not that they enjoy it. So no need to get you knickers in a twist over it.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Getting drunk isn't a basic human right, yet despite that doing so results in 3 times more the number of people dead than in gun related incidents(8 times the number if you discount suicides), most of the same people who use alcohol yet call for the abolition of gun ownership would fight tooth and nail against alcohol being abolished.

Here we go with whataboutism again. At least people who drink alcohol are willing to admit that they just enjoy getting drunk and having fun. They don't feel the need conceal it behind "I get drunk in case I need to fight a burglar".

Also the vast majority of alcohol related deaths are self inflicted. If gun-rights people only wanted guns to shoot themselves, than I doubt so many people would take issue with them. The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people (whether those people are pro-gun or not) which takes a lot of the "personal choice" out of it.

 Smacks wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
You realize that America is just about the least violent it's ever been, right? And that even the most conservative estimates place the number of legally justifiable uses of firearms for self defense at significantly higher than the number of people murdered or wounded with firearms?

America probably is safer, but life is improving in lots of places. Some people have connected falling crime rates to abortion legislation decades ago. If gun ownership really made society safer then America should already be the safest place in the world by quite a margin, but it actually trails behind most devolved nations.

As for firearms being used in self defensive, I think that is highly debatable. Further research has unveiled that a lot of so called "self defence" stats have been inflated, and many cases would actually be better described as intimidation, and many more would also be technically illegal, not the "protecting my family" image we're lead to believe. This page has a lot of interesting data on the subject.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Relapse wrote:
The same week the theatre shooter made his attack that resulted in the deaths of two innocent people, a drunk driver hit a limo carrying a wedding party killing four of the limo occupants. I don't recall any pictures of them being posted or news reports going into the drunk driver's history. Just a news blurb that was gone inside of two days.

 Alex C wrote:
That's because slow-minded leftists enjoy cars and alcohol like many of us normal people do, and don't have an interest in flinging gak over it because it might result in infringing upon things that they enjoy.

 Alex C wrote:
Perhaps when it has a better grasp of human languages it might be able to pull itself out of the gibberish it's currently speaking.

 Smacks wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
That's because slow-minded leftists enjoy cars and alcohol like many of us normal people do, and don't have an interest in flinging gak over it because it might result in infringing upon things that they enjoy.

 Alex C wrote:
Perhaps when it has a better grasp of human languages it might be able to pull itself out of the gibberish it's currently speaking.

Reporting you for abuse. This is a touchy subject, but most of us are able to argue about it in a polite manner. It's people like you that spoil OT for everyone.

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I mistook his comment, but I read it as thinly veiled effort to interject more gun control comments in this thread.

Relapse wrote:
As are the majority of gun related deaths. 60% of gun deaths are suicides. As many or more people are killed by drunk drivers as are murdered by people with a gun. The same week the theatre shooter made his attack that resulted in the deaths of two innocent people, a drunk driver hit a limo carrying a wedding party killing four of the limo occupants. I don't recall any pictures of them being posted or news reports going into the drunk driver's history. Just a news blurb that was gone inside of two days.

 Smacks wrote:

The problem with guns in America is that any kind of control is resisted by the gun-rights lobby as unconstitutional.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

The problem with guns in America is that any kind of control is resisted by the gun-rights lobby as unconstitutional.

Geee, that might be because it is.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

The problem with guns in America is that any kind of control is resisted by the gun-rights lobby as unconstitutional.

Geee, that might be because it is.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fair enough, but really thats not improving the system. Its just making sure its working as intended.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
As are the majority of gun related deaths. 60% of gun deaths are suicides. As many or more people are killed by drunk drivers as are murdered by people with a gun. The same week the theatre shooter made his attack that resulted in the deaths of two innocent people, a drunk driver hit a limo carrying a wedding party killing four of the limo occupants. I don't recall any pictures of them being posted or news reports going into the drunk driver's history. Just a news blurb that was gone inside of two days.

This is still whataboutism though. If I kill two people and someone else kills four, it doesn't get me off the hook just because they are worse.

I'm not going to defend drink driving. I don't really like cars or drinking... Well actually I do like drinking, but I don't think it's necessarily good for society. Would I ban drinking? Not right away... But then I wouldn't outright ban guns either. In Scandinavian countries they have tried to curb drinking through high tax, and it's had some success.

I think the best way to curb problem drinking is to look at the reasons why people drink irresponsibly and then tackle them. Public transport issues might be a factor in drink driving (as an example of the top of my head).

The problem with guns in America is that any kind of control is resisted by the gun-rights lobby as unconstitutional. There is a lot of middle ground between unrestricted and banned which could be described as "controlled", but it's difficult to even find a compromise if one side sees their position as a god given right.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

Except that other countries exist, and we maintain strong freedoms despite having strict firearm controls.

I really just have to plead with you to please just look outside the borders of your country and fething learn something about how the world works.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.

Except that other countries exist, and we maintain strong freedoms despite having strict firearm controls.

I really just have to plead with you to please just look outside the borders of your country and fething learn something about how the world works.

Who gives a damn about other countries? This is about the US. Not anyone else.

I don't tell Australia or Britain or France what to do. Why should people there tell us what to do?

Relapse wrote:
Here's a question, then, since you say you like drinking. At parties, do you get drinks for people or serve them out? You are putting someone at risk whenever you do.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Here's a question, then, since you say you like drinking. At parties, do you get drinks for people or serve them out? You are putting someone at risk whenever you do.

It's an interesting philosophical question no doubt, but it's unlikely I'm going to be putting them at as much risk as if I were to shoot them.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Here's a question, then, since you say you like drinking. At parties, do you get drinks for people or serve them out? You are putting someone at risk whenever you do.

It's an interesting philosophical question no doubt, but it's unlikely I'm going to be putting them at as much risk as if I were to shoot them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who gives a damn about other countries? This is about the US. Not anyone else.

I don't tell Australia or Britain or France what to do. Why should people there tell us what to do?

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who gives a damn about other countries? This is about the US. Not anyone else.

I don't tell Australia or Britain or France what to do. Why should people there tell us what to do?

It isn't just about the US. Remarkable as it may sound other countries also have guns, and gun problems. The question of whether guns are healthy for a civilized society is a human question, not just an American one. It just often seems like an American one because you have so many shooting incidents.

And when I see people dying in other countries, be it China, or Iran, or America then I think not only do I have a right, but I have a responsibility to speak out, and say "this is wrong".

Alex C likes to cuddle his gun and tell people to STFU. But I think people deserve to be able to watch a movie, without being shot, more. Despite what he claims, I do understand, and comprehend etc... that he thinks he has a right. But I think if having that right is going to cost many other people their lives, when he could make do with out it, then he is just being selfish, and that's wrong.

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't Australia had a whackjob with a shotgun go full on "Shooter" in a coffee shop last year?
Not the teen with a fire axe going full tantrum on some poor Mini Coop(?)

France has/had a few whackjobs go full on "Shooter"
UK had one whackjob go full "shooter" to

Its not like the US is the only one with "Shooters"

People go whackjob to full on shooter can happen anywhere regardless of the country laws concerning fire arms

Edit

Watching Shindler List so my inner rage might show later on

Relapse wrote:
I think people deserve to be able to drive without a drunk driver running into them, also, or the 2 in 3 victims of domestic abuse caused by alcohol not having to suffer such a thing. Yet here we have people with no problem serving up alcohol, putting other people's lives at risk from the fallout, yet who go on about wanting to save lives from something that affects far less people.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I think people deserve to be able to drive without a drunk driver running into them, also, or the 2 in 3 victims of domestic abuse caused by alcohol not having to suffer such a thing. Yet here we have people with no problem serving up alcohol, putting other people's lives at risk from the fallout, yet who go on about wanting to save lives from something that affects far less people.

You are just deflecting. And it's not going to work. You think that you can somehow undermine my argument by switching guns for alcohol and exposing a double standard, but it isn't going to work. I agree alcohol is bad, and I think society would be better off without it. The fact that I enjoy drinking doesn't blind me to that fact.

So by the same measure I can say without any double standard that I think society would be better off without guns. I think you are letting your own enjoyment of guns cloud your judgement on this issue.

 Smacks wrote:
To connect them with basic human right like free speech and a fair trial is obscene. Any developed society would want free speech, no one wants America's gun problem, not even America.

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people

 Smacks wrote:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original)

“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.

– The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.

– 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.

– Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.

– In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.

– Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.

– Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.

– Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 156%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.

– Regression estimates show that even after accounting for the per capita number of police and people admitted to prison and demographics, the adult population with permits is significantly associated with a drop in murder and violent crime rates.

– Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors or felonies at one- sixth the rate that police officers are convicted.

 Smacks wrote:
The problem with guns in America is that any kind of control is resisted by the gun-rights lobby as unconstitutional. There is a lot of middle ground between unrestricted and banned which could be described as "controlled", but it's difficult to even find a compromise if one side sees their position as a god given right.

 Jihadin wrote:
Its not like the US is the only one with "Shooters"

 Smacks wrote:
Despite what he claims, I do understand, and comprehend etc... that he thinks he has a right. But I think if having that right is going to cost many other people their lives, when he could make do with out it, then he is just being selfish, and that's wrong.

Relapse wrote:
Not deflecting at all. Just proving the hypocrisy inherent in saying the desire to get rid of guns is rooted in wanting to save lives while indulging in and encouraging others to indulge in a pass time that ends or impacts far more lives negatively.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So in light of a second in thread Moderator warning, and in an attempt to get us back to the original topic of the thread, have there been any further developments or details released in this case?

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Not deflecting at all. Just proving the hypocrisy inherent in saying the desire to get rid of guns is rooted in wanting to save lives while indulging in and encouraging others to indulge in a pass time that ends or impacts far more lives negatively.

Drinking and traffic accidents impact more lives because at any given time there are a huge number of people drinking and/or driving. That does not mean that either is pound for pound as dangerous as when a gun is fired.

You are trying to point out hypocrisy where there isn't any. As I have said, I agree that society would be better off without alcohol. I wish that people had something more meaningful in lives.

And you are deflecting. It doesn't matter to this topic if drinking kills more people than guns, that doesn't excuse any gun related deaths. Charles Manson does not suddenly become innocent because he killed fewer people than Ted Bundy. Chris Kyle killed more than Bundy but that doesn't make him a greater evil. Trying to to appeal to bigger problems, especially unrelated problems, is just deflection.

 Smacks wrote:
Here we go with whataboutism again. At least people who drink alcohol are willing to admit that they just enjoy getting drunk and having fun. They don't feel the need conceal it behind "I get drunk in case I need to fight a burglar"

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people (whether those people are pro-gun or not) which takes a lot of the "personal choice" out of it.

Relapse wrote:
You agree society would be better without it, yet you support it by your use and sharing of it.

Ouze wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
The problem is that people with guns like to shoot other people (whether those people are pro-gun or not) which takes a lot of the "personal choice" out of it.

I think you had a lot of good arguments in this thread but this is crazy talk.

In this country there is a very strong hunting culture, especially in rural areas. Additionally, a great many people, myself included, enjoy the shooting sports such as skeet, trap, and so on. To claim these people all are hoping to shoot people is really, really condescending, wrong, and rude.

 Smacks wrote:


I did not mean to imply that all people with guns are looking to shoot someone. Just that guns are sometimes (some people might say too often) use to shoot other people. This is a point I'm sure you can acknowledge as just a statement of fact.

If you look at the context of my post, I was talking about self inflicted harm, versus harm inflicted by others.

 Smacks wrote:
Ouze, as you're the third person to bring that up. I can only apologise. That is absolutely not what I was trying to suggest, and I really can't apologise enough if I inadvertently caused offence.

I did not mean to imply that all people with guns are looking to shoot someone. Just that guns are sometimes (some people might say too often) use to shoot other people. This is a point I'm sure you can acknowledge as just a statement of fact.

If you look at the context of my post, I was talking about self inflicted harm, versus harm inflicted by others. Not the character of of gun owners. I hope you will see that any offence I might have caused through a poor choice of words, was accidental, and not a reflection of my actually beliefs.

I in no way shape or form believe that gun owners like killing, that would indeed be crazy talk, and it's not something I stand behind.

Ouze wrote:
I would strongly argue that it's the first amendment that ensures all others. YMMV of course.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You agree society would be better without it, yet you support it by your use and sharing of it.

There are lots of things I disagree with, such as usury, pollution etc... But I will inevitably contribute to them because they are so deeply ingrained in society. If I could live in a solar powered house I would, but my house is rented, and my landlord would never pay for something like that so meh. I guess sometimes we are just stuck with what we've got. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with way things are, and imagine a better world, even if I must contend with this one for now.
.

Relapse wrote:
So you drink and can't stop because it is so deeply ingrained with you? What you seem to be saying is that because someone likes guns, they are indulging in dangerous behavior and are doing something worse than what you do because it's different, even if it is far less dangerous to the public welfare.

Relapse wrote:
So you drink and don't stop because it is so deeply ingrained with you? Gun culture is deeply ingrained here and does far less damage than alcohol and more than a few times, guns save lives.

 Smacks wrote:

Relapse wrote:
So you drink and can't stop because it is so deeply ingrained with you? What you seem to be saying is that because someone likes guns, they are indulging in dangerous behavior and are doing something worse than what you do because it's different, even if it is far less dangerous to the public welfare.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at here. I don't have a problem with any individual who owns a gun legally and uses it responsibly.