Another day, another mass shooting in America

[Mr Coffee]

I'm all for the bolded. I guess the path to that is where I'm still confused. I don't get the uproar over background checks and other common sense measures that could be implemented while still allowing ownership. However, I'm not sure that solves this problem of mass shootings frankly. And I don't think what you're saying here is what he meant though.

I'm with Tim on this. I'm all for NJ-level checks on guns. NY (outside of the city) is reasonable as well, except for the useless assault weapons thing Cuomo pushed through.

The problem is you often can't tell who is crazy through a background check if they haven't previously done something to put themselves in the system. However, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be done.

[Mr Coffee]

My mistake. Still, the guy with the gun chose not to use it.

That's because the guy wasn't where he was.

Are you arguing that if the gunman came into his classroom that he wouldn't or shouldn't use his gun?

[Nome]

I'm all for the bolded. I guess the path to that is where I'm still confused. I don't get the uproar over background checks and other common sense measures that could be implemented while still allowing ownership. However, I'm not sure that solves this problem of mass shootings frankly. And I don't think what you're saying here is what he meant though.

Do you advocate people with violent criminal records, or past evidence of mental or social instability be allowed to have and own guns?


I am all for testing everyone who wants to purchase a weapon for IQ and setting a standard for rejection, for testing for mental instability and for antisocial attitudes and anything else that would help to prevent what we have seen in our society. Simply stated, not everyone deserves to own a gun. And in the case of the Oregonian shooter, does it make any sense whatsoever for anyone to have 13 or more firearms?


Again why should any citizen not in military or law inforcement have an automatic weapon like an Uzi?


I am tired of this subject and will not comment further. I simply do not understand why we let congress, the NRA and the munitions industry have their way.


"Guns don't kill people, people kill people".


What a crock of bull dung. I tried to use an acronym for Seton Hall Institute of Technology, but they wouldn't let me.


Andy

[False1]

I'm with Tim on this. I'm all for NJ-level checks on guns. NY (outside of the city) is reasonable as well, except for the useless assault weapons thing Cuomo pushed through.

The problem is you often can't tell who is crazy through a background check if they haven't previously done something to put themselves in the system. However, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be done.

Right... or perhaps they are sane at the time of acquisition and things go downhill over the years... who knows? That said, it makes absolute sense to at least prevent guns from going into the hands of people that can be clearly identified as mentally unstable and/or with a history of violence at the time they are trying to get their hands on one. I can't understand what logical argument ANYONE has against that.

[False1]

Do you advocate people with violent criminal records, or past evidence of mental or social instability be allowed to have and own guns?

No. I've said in pretty much every post I've made on this topic (including this one you're replying to) that background checks and other no-brainer measures should be implemented. I just don't think it's going to solve this particular problem.

I am all for testing everyone who wants to purchase a weapon for IQ and setting a standard for rejection, for testing for mental instability and for antisocial attitudes and anything else that would help to prevent what we have seen in our society. Simply stated, not everyone deserves to own a gun. And in the case of the Oregonian shooter, does it make any sense whatsoever for anyone to have 13 or more firearms?

For IQ? Hmmm... not sure that would fly. But agree with your point on behavioral testing and limits around how many guns.

Again why should any citizen not in military or law inforcement have an automatic weapon like an Uzi?

I couldn't agree more.

[Mr Coffee]

Do you advocate people with violent criminal records, or past evidence of mental or social instability be allowed to have and own guns?


I am all for testing everyone who wants to purchase a weapon for IQ and setting a standard for rejection, for testing for mental instability and for antisocial attitudes and anything else that would help to prevent what we have seen in our society. Simply stated, not everyone deserves to own a gun. And in the case of the Oregonian shooter, does it make any sense whatsoever for anyone to have 13 or more firearms?


Again why should any citizen not in military or law inforcement have an automatic weapon like an Uzi?


I am tired of this subject and will not comment further. I simply do not understand why we let congress, the NRA and the munitions industry have their way.


"Guns don't kill people, people kill people".


What a crock of bull dung. I tried to use an acronym for
Seton Hall Institute of [B]T[echnology, but they wouldn't let me.


Andy

They don't. AFAIK, there hasn't been a mass shooting with an automatic weapon in the US.

[JL25and3]

I disagree. I think it would be all over the news if CC holders were shooting innocent bystanders. I don't know if the stats are available anywhere, but I would guess CC holders have saved many times more lives than they've taken.

I don't know if the stats are available either, but my guess would be different from yours. I start with the assumption that gun owners are pretty much like everybody else, which means that a lot more of them are stupid and irresponsible than not.

[melon]

They don't. AFAIK, there hasn't been a mass shooting with an automatic weapon in the US.

Uzi's are legal in certain states. And some states allow kids to fire them.

Remember the 8-9 year old girl that killed her instructor while shooting an Uzi in Arizona?

[Mr Coffee]

Uzi's are legal in certain states. And some states allow kids to fire them.

Remember the 8-9 year old girl that killed her instructor while shooting an Uzi in Arizona?

Fully automatic weapons are regulated on a federal level. You need to apply through the ATF, and pay for a special tax stamp to purchase these weapons. The ATF does an extensive background check. After all this, you are not allowed to purchase any weapon registered after May 1986, so there is a limited number of these guns and they cost thousands of dollars. They are generally held by collectors and gun clubs and rarely are--I don't want to say never-- but nearly never used in the commission of a crime.

[melon]

Fully automatic weapons are regulated on a federal level. You need to apply through the ATF, and pay for a special tax stamp to purchase these weapons. The ATF does an extensive background check. After all this, you are not allowed to purchase any weapon registered after May 1986, so there is a limited number of these guns and they cost thousands of dollars. They are generally held by collectors and gun clubs and rarely are--I don't want to say never-- but nearly never used in the commission of a crime.

I agree with what you posted about the laws and regulations involved with owning an Uzi.

[Big_E]

In all those countries that banned guns, was there a change in the murder rate following the ban?

Yes, and suicide rate

[Mr Coffee]

Yes, and suicide rate

Link?

[Big_E]

a) I'm not convinced it worked. From what I can see the homicide rate hasn't changed.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.

[Big_E]

Link?

See above

[Big_E]

Another link:

1997, suicide in Australia 23.3 per 100,000 of population
2013, suicide in Australia 16.4 per 100,000 of population

(30% decline)

http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-...acts-and-stats

[Nome]

They don't. AFAIK, there hasn't been a mass shooting with an automatic weapon in the US.

Once is too many. How can you justify anyone having a weapon like an uzi? does it help you kill a rabbit ,more effectively? Just wondering? What use do they have? Educate me.


Andy

[Mr Coffee]

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."

What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.

Well, yeah.

EDIT: BTW, I don't see what suicide has to do with this discussion.

[Mr Coffee]

Once is too many. How can you justify anyone having a weapon like an uzi? does it help you kill a rabbit ,more effectively? Just wondering? What use do they have? Educate me.


Andy

I don't think you understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

[Mr Coffee]

Here's a good article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...95470446855466

[Big_E]

Well, yeah.

EDIT: BTW, I don't see what suicide has to do with this discussion.

Gun control saves lives. Both homicide and suicide.

[Mr Coffee]

Gun control saves lives. Both homicide and suicide.

I've seen no proof of that.

[JL25and3]

Well, yeah.

EDIT: BTW, I don't see what suicide has to do with this discussion.

Gun availability definitely affects suicide rates. Not the attempts so much, because it's true that people who want to attempt suicide have any number of available methods. But guns are exceptionally effective, and - if available - are easy to use impulsively.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-ma...case-fatality/

[Mr Coffee]

Gun availability definitely affects suicide rates. Not the attempts so much, because it's true that people who want to attempt suicide have any number of available methods. But guns are exceptionally effective, and - if available - are easy to use impulsively.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-ma...case-fatality/

OK, but that has little to do with the safety of the general public. Unless someone decides to shoot themselves while they are in an elevator with you or something, at which point your hypothetical death will be ruled a homicide.

I think we're getting off the topic of 'mass shootings'.

[Big_E]

OK, but that has little to do with the safety of the general public. Unless someone decides to shoot themselves while they are in an elevator with you or something, at which point your hypothetical death will be ruled a homicide.

I think we're getting off the topic of 'mass shootings'.

Murder-suicide.

[Mr Coffee]

murder-suicide.

ok..?