Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings?

Norway. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anders-behring-breivik-profile-of-anti-muslim-hater-in-confessed-norway-terrorists-manifesto/

Strange. I wasn't aware Norway had several mass shootings a year. If a mass shooting happens in Norway it is an extraordinary event (I think this was actually the only time in Norwegian history?). If it happens in the US it isn't out of the ordinary at all. It is something that happens frequently. That is the difference between gun control and no gun control. You will never be able to prevent all violence or even all mass shootings, but it likely would prevent many of them. Maybe even 60%, 80% or even 90% of all mass shootings. That would be saving hundreds of lives on a yearly basis. Wouldn't that be worth giving up your guns for? It is not like you won't be able to hunt or shoot for fun anymore. You can still get a license for a hunting rifle or visit a shooting range even in countries that have very restrictive laws on weapons such as here in the Netherlands.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unfortunately, I agree that most of the proposed new legislation will not address the problem. The core issue that drives the amount of deaths from guns is the proliferation of guns. Until America deals with that and starts a process to limit gun proliferation, we will have this issue.

But we really need to have that discussion nationally about how many guns we want to have in circulation. Until we do that and agree that a limit is necessary, gun deaths will just continue to increase.

Limits can be reconciled with the 2nd, right?

Can you reconcile putting a limit on the amount of free speech you can have or the amount of protection you have from illegal search and seizures or the a limit on your ability to invoke you 5th amendment right against self incrimination?

It's theoretically possible but unlikely that as a nation the US will reach a consensus that there is a limit on the number of firearms that one person can own or that there is a limit for the total number of firearms privately owned nationally.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Purchases at grocery stores are tracked so if you buy to much of certain cleaning supplies you get a visit from the police.

Huh? when did this happen?

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Purchases at grocery stores are tracked so if you buy to much of certain cleaning supplies you get a visit from the police.

Huh? when did this happen?

http://news.jrn.msu.edu/capitalnewsservice/2011/09/16/michigan-cold-medicine-sales-to-be-tracked-automatically-to-crackdown-on-meth-production/

first story I found, there's more that I know happened, just need go find them

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Unfortunately, I agree that most of the proposed new legislation will not address the problem. The core issue that drives the amount of deaths from guns is the proliferation of guns. Until America deals with that and starts a process to limit gun proliferation, we will have this issue.

But we really need to have that discussion nationally about how many guns we want to have in circulation. Until we do that and agree that a limit is necessary, gun deaths will just continue to increase.

Limits can be reconciled with the 2nd, right?

Can you reconcile putting a limit on the amount of free speech you can have or the amount of protection you have from illegal search and seizures or the a limit on your ability to invoke you 5th amendment right against self incrimination?

It's theoretically possible but unlikely that as a nation the US will reach a consensus that there is a limit on the number of firearms that one person can own or that there is a limit for the total number of firearms privately owned nationally.

apparently you can.

Not easily dude.

the president is pressuring the nfl to stop people from exercising their free speech.

He can't enforce jack gak in this regard...

he reinstated stop and frisk

Citation is needed... that makes no sense.

Purchases at grocery stores are tracked so if you buy to much of certain cleaning supplies you get a visit from the police.

Citation is needed... I've never heard of this.

now's the time to apply that to guns, if you start amassing an arsenal you get a visit from the police. buying two guns or 3 boxes of ammo in under a week and every purchase after that should alert law enforcement to keep an eye on you and to pay you a visit.

Honestly I told myself I wouldn't enter into this thread because talking with some of you is like dashing my head against a brick wall over and over again.

So I come bearing a gift since we already have a dakka bingo, we can have a mass shooting bingo chart and it'll get good use every few months or so.



To be honest it is mostly filled already

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Purchases at grocery stores are tracked so if you buy to much of certain cleaning supplies you get a visit from the police.

Huh? when did this happen?

http://news.jrn.msu.edu/capitalnewsservice/2011/09/16/michigan-cold-medicine-sales-to-be-tracked-automatically-to-crackdown-on-meth-production/

first story I found, there's more that I know happened, just need go find them

A Sudafed.
makes sense

pharmacies usually keep track of people buying too much Sudafed in the first place.

but i see nothing on other groceries or house hold goods.

 Breotan wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

When did this happen? I wasn't required to have a trigger lock when I bought my Chiappa snub nose revolver.

If they gave you a handgun without a lock they broke the law. You sure they didn't give you a lock you could pass through the cylinder?

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Purchases at grocery stores are tracked so if you buy to much of certain cleaning supplies you get a visit from the police.

Huh? when did this happen?

http://news.jrn.msu.edu/capitalnewsservice/2011/09/16/michigan-cold-medicine-sales-to-be-tracked-automatically-to-crackdown-on-meth-production/

first story I found, there's more that I know happened, just need go find them

A Sudafed.
makes sense

pharmacies usually keep track of people buying too much Sudafed in the first place.

but i see nothing on other groceries or house hold goods.

help me out, what's that cleaning product they use to make drugs with. I forget the chemical and the drug made with it so it's hard to find the story

sirlynchmob wrote:

http://news.jrn.msu.edu/capitalnewsservice/2011/09/16/michigan-cold-medicine-sales-to-be-tracked-automatically-to-crackdown-on-meth-production/

first story I found, there's more that I know happened, just need go find them

That's kind of a non-story. A lot of states where meth is bad have been doing the same thing for years. I don't buy a crazy amount of ephedrine, but I probably buy some at least once a year, because I can't take a lot of other medicines because of drug interaction and it works well. "Automated" doesn't meant that they're quietly tracking it by facial tracking or credit card or anything mystical like that. "Automated" means that they're asking you for your ID, verifying it, and then they're scanning/entering your numbers into a database that throws up any red flags for the police department. They hint at that later in the article:

retailers are required to obtain names and dates of birth of those who buy medicine containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Purchases at grocery stores are tracked so if you buy to much of certain cleaning supplies you get a visit from the police.

Huh? when did this happen?

http://news.jrn.msu.edu/capitalnewsservice/2011/09/16/michigan-cold-medicine-sales-to-be-tracked-automatically-to-crackdown-on-meth-production/

first story I found, there's more that I know happened, just need go find them

A Sudafed.
makes sense

pharmacies usually keep track of people buying too much Sudafed in the first place.

but i see nothing on other groceries or house hold goods.

help me out, what's that cleaning product they use to make drugs with. I forget the chemical and the drug made with it so it's hard to find the story

dihydrogen monoxide

but really i dont make meth so wouldnt know

it could be any number of things but i would assume as its a cleaner its probably bleach or lye. also i remember seeing some where they use lithium from batteries

sirlynchmob wrote:

help me out, what's that cleaning product they use to make drugs with. I forget the chemical and the drug made with it so it's hard to find the story

Only other thing I can think of that gets talked about regularly is anhydrous ammonia, but that's an industrial farm fertilizer (IIRC) and not a cleaning agent.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


TLDR: Something needs to be done, i dont know what

That's rather the issue everyone has run into.


I dont think anyone is against discussing proposals, but none presented appear to be functional solutions once they're put into context or practical realities are applied. Thats the great conundrum everyone eventually reaches with this.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Thats the thing, nothing happens, nothing has happend, nothing continues to happen

No effor because the conversation isnt allowed to even being started

"Now is not the time to talk about X" echoed over and over, its never the time to talk about it therefore nothing ever will get done since the conversation isnt allowed to exist at all.

So the status quo remains.

That's demonstrably false. Every time there is a mass shooting it gets massive media coverage nationally and politicians always seize the opportunity to make speeches about it. It's not that we don't discuss it's that when we discuss it we find that many more people are far more accepting of the status quo then the vocal advocates for new gun control laws believe. We are also subjected to gun control proposals that are rooted in obvious ignorance of firearms and are easily proven to be ineffectual responses in regards to the goal of preventing the tragedy from recurring.

So we should stop? You are assuming that just because I cannot or politicians cannot currently come up with reasonable gun safety laws, nobody can. That is absurd and that line of thinking is pushing the divide between people. Fighting against reasonable gun safety/control dialogue with this argument is essentially pushing both sides to the extreme here. So maybe stop shooting down every single suggestion as a flat no and try to make some reasonable compromises.

I would be happy with what Frazzled suggested. Those seem like reasonable changes. I don't want to take guns away from everybody, I just want to know that the guy standing next to me with a concealed carry knows what way to point it. I want to make sure people with mental health issues do not have access to these weapons for their own safety as well as others. If there is an event where a crime occurs in front of a CC holder, I want to know he isn't going to shoot me or some innocent bystanders on accident. These are not unreasonable requests. Denying any changes flat out is bordering on zealotry. The second amendment is not a part of a holy text, it was built to be changed. To be questioned. When you shut that down, we all suffer.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.

Within the US, areas which have very strict gun control laws have the worst gun violence. Areas with few restrictions and high gun ownership have the least.

Violence in general is also correlated with poverty more than anything else. So if you truly cared about reducing violence then you should focus on poverty and mental health. Guns are basically an entirely unrelated issue.

That is because the areas around them have lax gun control laws, so there is really no border to guard in order to keep them out. Also, your arguments that there are no studies proving that stricter gun control laws prevent gun violence is absurd since there is a ban on studies that would be looking in to those things.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

When did this happen? I wasn't required to have a trigger lock when I bought my Chiappa snub nose revolver.

If they gave you a handgun without a lock they broke the law. You sure they didn't give you a lock you could pass through the cylinder?

What law are you citing here? I guess some States like New York might have a law requiring this but most don't and there certainly isn't anything by the Fed requiring them as part of a firearm purchase.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, your arguments that there are no studies proving that stricter gun control laws prevent gun violence is absurd since there is a ban on studies that would be looking in to those things.

There is no such ban. The CDC got their budget slapped when they were engaged in such research and improprieties developed, but outside of that there's nothing banning research on this sort of thing.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings?

Norway. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anders-behring-breivik-profile-of-anti-muslim-hater-in-confessed-norway-terrorists-manifesto/

Strange. I wasn't aware Norway had several mass shootings a year.

You're moving goal posts. Your original statement was about simply about knowing that laws won't prevent mass shootings. For instance, did you know that in the USA it is actually illegal to murder people regardless of how it's done? Go to any web site with crime statistics and you'll see our murder rate is far from zero even if you erase all gun statistics. It's illegal to drive a car after you've been drinking but sure as feth if there aren't tens of thousands of drunk driving "accidents" each year. We've had several posts about certain medicine purchases being tracked yet meth is everywhere. My point is, laws don't prevent crime, they only provide a mechanism for the State to levy punishment after an incident.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You will never be able to prevent all violence or even all mass shootings, but it likely would prevent many of them. Maybe even 60%, 80% or even 90% of all mass shootings. That would be saving hundreds of lives on a yearly basis. Wouldn't that be worth giving up your guns for?

Except it doesn't work. Europe has shown that a lack of guns doesn't equate to a lack of mass killings. England has had three this year alone, one of which was a bombing, but none with a gun. Given this, speculation that XX% lives would be saved is specius at best.

Prestor Jon wrote:

nfe wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
"random checks" violates the 4th Amendment.

1) A check that would be a requirement of your holding a license wouldn't be an unreasonable search or seizure.
2) I don't care, anyway.
2.1) Written constitutions are stupid.

If you're already resorting to "I don't care" and "written constitutions are stupid" then you really aren't bringing much to the discussion. You can deal with the reality that exists or not, but you're just wasting your time with posts like that.

Resorting?

For clarity:

1) is the actual response.
2) is my being flippant because the nature of written constutions means that ambiguous statements like 'unreasonable search or seizure' hamstring entire leilsatures for decades.
3) see point 2.

1) is an ignorant response, being required to do something doesn't give the authorities probable cause to do random checks, it's illegal to carry weapons in NYC but stop and frisk police searches are unconstitutional, the fact that it is illegal to possess drugs or guns while walking the streets of NYC doesn't give the NYPD the right to randomly stop and search people, that kind of fishing expedition is expressly illegal in the US
2) if you're going to brush off the constraints of the parameters of the legal system and societal norms then you're not going to bring anything worthwhile to the discussion
3) flippancy doesn't hide the flaws in the response, every law is written down and it's not stupid by any definition of the term because words are how we define meaning and written laws can still be changed through legislation and can be reevaluated by subsequent judicial reviews, writing it down doesn't make it permanent or inviolate

Rapid phone typing sure turned into a shambles in my last post, eh?

I'm not bothering to reply further to this which because you've taken a clearly sarcastic aside absurdly seriously.

(Written constitutions are still stupid )

 Breotan wrote:

What law are you citing here? I guess some States like New York might have a law requiring this but most don't and there certainly isn't anything by the Fed requiring them as part of a firearm purchase.

18 U.S.C. § 922

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2005, requires that all handguns sold by an FFL must be accompanied by a "secure gun storage or safety device."

18 U.S.C. § 922(z)(1). A “secure gun storage or safety device” is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(34) as: (A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device; (B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or (C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.

So yes, all FFL dealers are required by Federal law to include some kind of locking device with every handgun they sell.

 Breotan wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You will never be able to prevent all violence or even all mass shootings, but it likely would prevent many of them. Maybe even 60%, 80% or even 90% of all mass shootings. That would be saving hundreds of lives on a yearly basis. Wouldn't that be worth giving up your guns for?

Except it doesn't work. Europe has shown that a lack of guns doesn't equate to a lack of mass killings. England has had three this year alone, one of which was a bombing, but none with a gun. Given this, speculation that XX% lives would be saved is specius at best.

Of course, the two worst years for mass killings in the UK don't remotely compare to the US today (1973 during the worst year of the Troubles when there were well-trained, very well equipped paramilitary donkey-caves running around trying to murder people, and 1988 when other donkey-caves blew up a passenger airplane: about 350 deaths in each year). This year 49 people have died in mass killings in the UK. There is no comparison to the number of die in mass firearrms killings in the US.

I'm not saying that our comparatively (extremely) low statistics proves that guns are the root of all evil, but saying 'look at the UK, it's bad there too!' doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

nfe wrote:


Of course, the two worst years for mass killings in the UK don't remotely compare to the US today (1973 during the worst year of the Troubles when there were well-trained, very well equipped paramilitary donkey-caves running around trying to murder people, and 1988 when other donkey-caves blew up a passenger airplane: about 350 deaths in each year). This year 49 people have died in mass killings in the UK. There is no comparison to the number of die in mass firearrms killings in the US.

I'm not saying that our comparatively (extremely) low statistics proves that guns are the root of all evil, but saying 'look at the UK, it's bad there too!' doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

The UK also has 1/5th the population of the US.

I sure hope statistics has a way to account for varying population sizes...

 wana10 wrote:

nfe wrote:


Of course, the two worst years for mass killings in the UK don't remotely compare to the US today (1973 during the worst year of the Troubles when there were well-trained, very well equipped paramilitary donkey-caves running around trying to murder people, and 1988 when other donkey-caves blew up a passenger airplane: about 350 deaths in each year). This year 49 people have died in mass killings in the UK. There is no comparison to the number of die in mass firearrms killings in the US.

I'm not saying that our comparatively (extremely) low statistics proves that guns are the root of all evil, but saying 'look at the UK, it's bad there too!' doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

The UK also has 1/5th the population of the US.

It's also a fraction per head of population. By all means do the maths. You could do it for every year and I'll wager the US sees numbers that are many times that of the UK every year all the way back to the 70s.

 Galef wrote:
Just to weigh in my thoughts: I cannot advocate stricter gun laws because I wouldn't even know where to begin. Stricter gun safety is a better place to start.
But on the other side of it, I have never understood why Americans (which I am) feel the need to have guns. If everyone has a gun (as the 2nd Amendment says is our right), then you should expect gun violence...because if everyone has a gun, it is easy for criminals to get access to them.
I have also never understood the "hunting" argument. I don't want to live in a world where there are Deer so fierce that that require super powerful weapons to take down. The kinds of weapons that are often used in these kinds of shootings are rarely "hunting" weapons.
Also, we (as Americans) consume WAAAAAAY too much meat in general, and meat is just about everywhere. So why do you need to go out an shoot your own?

Less guns in the world will always lead to less gun deaths. Now, I am an optimist, a pacifist, an idealist and have never owned or felt the need to own a lethal weapon, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I understand that guns will always exist in our lifetime and "good" people have to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.
I just wish guns were not the answer.

TL;DR: Guns are bad, laws are needed, but stricter laws probably won't do jack unless we as a species can find a better way.

-

The 2nd Amendment is about the populace having the capability to resist a tyrannical government, not about dangerous 4-legged animals. A gun isn't evil, it's a tool used for good or ill by its wielder. Just like a hammer or a knife. Hypothetically, if you went camping with your wife and 4 men showed up and said they were going to have fun with the two of you would you say the pistol you have is evil then?

Around here I find it curious that the same people who want the elimination of guns for the public are the very same people who find the police a dangerous, power-hungry adversary.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.

Russia or Russians have no room to talk about gun control and its efficacy. You're why a whole bunch of us are armed.

So you reject the point brought up about Australia because it was presented by a Russian?

 amanita wrote:

Around here I find it curious that the same people who want the elimination of guns for the public are the very same people who find the police a dangerous, power-hungry adversary.

You know, theres others solutions to the problem of Police being dangerous than killing them with guns.

 amanita wrote:
The 2nd Amendment is about the populace having the capability to resist a tyrannical government, not about dangerous 4-legged animals. A gun isn't evil, it's a tool used for good or ill by its wielder. Just like a hammer or a knife. Hypothetically, if you went camping with your wife and 4 men showed up and said they were going to have fun with the two of you would you say the pistol you have is evil then?

I wonder how many people are saved by having a gun in such situations, vs how many people are killed in altercations which they would have otherwise survived if guns weren't readily available?

I don't know, I haven't checked the numbers, but I'd guess at the former being much smaller than the latter.

It is an area where I think muricans tend to differ from much of the rest of the world, even if the latter number is much larger I'd guess many (most?) Americans would still want to have their guns for their protecting themselves whereas many other societies would rather have them removed for protecting the community as a whole.

Like, take the number of people killed by cops in the US, surely that number would be tiny if it weren't for the quarter of the population that is armed.

But it'd be interesting to see a poll about what the average murican does think, because obviously we only hear for the vocal ones when in reality roughly 3 quarters of you don't own guns in the first place so mustn't think they are a tremendously necessary part of life.

Doesn't much matter. The notion that we would repeal any part of the Bill of Rights is unrealistic to say the least.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.

Russia or Russians have no room to talk about gun control and its efficacy. You're why a whole bunch of us are armed.

So you reject the point brought up about Australia because it was presented by a Russian?

I would call the Australian point statistically insignificant. We didn't have a huge number of mass killings prior to guns being outlawed and we haven't had a huge number since either. If you flick through the history of mass murders in Australia a lot of them are domestic issues (people killing their families and then killing themselves) and they manage to do it with or without guns. If you only look at mass murders that were random public killing sprees, we've had so few through out history that any trends aren't going to be statistically significant.

 Jadenim wrote:

If everyone can be sat on thousands of rounds, ready to go at a moments notice when they snap, there is no time.

In practical terms, yes you might need a lot of ammunition when practicing at a range, but does it all need to be kept at home? Would there not be room for bonded stores at ranges and gun clubs, where people could keep their extra ammunition?

In practical terms, my property (38 acres) IS my range and gun club, and the house is where I keep the guns, ammo, targets, tools and cleaning supplies. I tend to fire between 200-0ver 1000 rounds a week (if I have friends over or if the wife and daughter are shooting too).

So, yeah, there is a need for keeping the ammo on hand at the house.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Not really. At best, maybe more people realized that gun control doesn't do anything to stop gun crime. It only serves to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

And then there is this gem again. Why pass any law, criminals will ignore it. How am I the only one that doesnt thing this argument is completely ridiculous. Criminals ignore laws, thats what they do, should we abolish all law?

You, and others making this argument, ignore the real issue.

If you made private ownership illegal (somehow repealed the 2nd), millions of otherwise law abiding citizens would either turn instantly into criminals or be forced to give up what had been legally owned property. When you force otherwise law abiding citizens to give up what had been a constitutionally protected right or turn outlaw, you may not get the desired effect (see Prohibition for example, and that was not even a constitutional protected right).

A law against murder does not effect anyone who does not intend to kill people. Most laws passed do not have the potential to turn millions of law abiding citizens into outlaws....