It Never Ends

[Domo]

Maybe instead of "how do we stop the shootings" the question should be "how do we stop the killings" and figure out what is happening to make too many too willing to kill.

Very well put

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I guess when I see only, I read it differently.. KWIM?

I understand, the "only" was strictly in reference to the difference of it and the previously reported 74.

I strongly feel 1 is to many and would love to get to zero but in reality I don't think it will ever happen.

 

[luvsJack]

Maybe she wouldn't have passed the background check, maybe she wouldn't have had a good enough reason to own the guns she wanted, maybe she wouldn't have allowed him the access he had if she new she could lose those guns for being irresponsible.
I don't know what makes these shooter's or any shooter act. I don't think the problem is people don't want to talk because it doesn't follow "get rid of guns" I really don't. I think the problem is the loudest voices on both sides are extremists and they drown out any productive talk.

And maybe it would have happened exactly the same way it did with all those regulations in place. That's my point. It happened because her son had a slip in reality or had a breakdown or lost his mind or whatever happened to him. Now surely in all of Finland, there are people with mental health issues--what stops them from killing? (with anything, not just guns)

 

[sunshinehighway]

And maybe it would have happened exactly the same way it did with all those regulations in place. That's my point. It happened because her son had a slip in reality or had a breakdown or lost his mind or whatever happened to him. Now surely in all of Finland, there are people with mental health issues--what stops them from killing? (with anything, not just guns)

Maybe it would have but really we don't know. It can't be used to say those restrictions don't make a difference (which Gumbo had said) when we don't know.
Honestly I don't care about Finland. I just find it hilarious that someone who had stated previously he is a bit of an extremists when it comes to his beliefs of gun ownership in America, uses a country that had more restrictive gun laws to prove a point and then outright dismisses those restrictions as not making any difference.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Maybe she wouldn't have passed the background check, maybe she wouldn't have had a good enough reason to own the guns she wanted, maybe she wouldn't have allowed him the access he had if she new she could lose those guns for being irresponsible.
I don't know what makes these shooter's or any shooter act. I don't think the problem is people don't want to talk because it doesn't follow "get rid of guns" I really don't. I think the problem is the loudest voices on both sides are extremists and they drown out any productive talk.

I don't think I should have to justify why I need/want a gun before being allowed to purchase one. If a person isn't fit to own a firearm I question whether their fit to be allowed to wander around freely.

I have to believe she never thought he would kill her and all those people and children and just ignored it, like you suggest here.

, maybe she wouldn't have allowed him the access he had if she new she could lose those guns for being irresponsible.

 

[luvsJack]

Maybe it would have but really we don't know. It can't be used to say those restrictions don't make a difference (which Gumbo had said) when we don't know.
Honestly I don't care about Finland. I just find it hilarious that someone who had stated previously he is a bit of an extremists when it comes to his beliefs of gun ownership in America, uses a country that had more restrictive gun laws to prove a point and then outright dismisses those restrictions as not making any difference.

Well, he will have to answer for himself but I would assume that his meaning was that that the gun ownership is in place in Finland. I don't think he was using Finland as an example of laws to obtain a gun; they already own the guns; but as a comparison of equal numbers of gun ownership but unequal numbers in violent crimes using those guns.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Well, he will have to answer for himself but I would assume that his meaning was that that the gun ownership is in place in Finland. I don't think he was using Finland as an example of laws to obtain a gun; they already own the guns; but as a comparison of equal numbers of gun ownership but unequal numbers in violent crimes using those guns.

But you can't dismiss the restrictions on how those people obtain and keep their licensed guns. When I look at something like that, I see the regulations as allowing more responsible people to own guns and maybe that's the difference. Maybe their regulations create a different mentality towards gun ownership.
On the other hand maybe it doesn't. I just don't see why that should be dismissed outright.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I don't think I should have to justify why I need/want a gun before being allowed to purchase one. If a person isn't fit to own a firearm I question whether their fit to be allowed to wander around freely.

I have to believe she never thought he would kill her and all those people and children and just ignored it, like you suggest here.

So anyone who isn't institutionalized should just be allowed to own a gun?

I'm not suggesting she ignored the fact that he would kill people. I think too often families are too close to understand what someone is really capable of until it's too late. I'm saying that if gun owners are held to a certain standard of responsible behavior perhaps they would think twice before others have such access.

 

[luvsJack]

So anyone who isn't institutionalized should just be allowed to own a gun?

I'm not suggesting she ignored the fact that he would kill people. I think too often families are too close to understand what someone is really capable of until it's too late. I'm saying that if gun owners are held to a certain standard of responsible behavior perhaps they would think twice before others have such access.

I just don't think anyone is going to have a safe full of guns, live in a house with their family and not trust their family to have access to those guns. Especially a single parent living only with their one child. It just really wouldn't make sense.

A parent isn't usually going to say, after the fact, "yeah I knew he was going to kill someone someday". No one thinks their child is capable of doing such a thing. And, so, they are not going to think they are being irresponsible by giving their adult child access to their gun safe.

 

[Domo]

Perhaps part of the solution is investment in decent mental health services? I'm sure that's part of the problem. Of course, you always have mentally stable but mislead extremists who consider themselves to be on a jihad...

 

[luvsJack]

But you can't dismiss the restrictions on how those people obtain and keep their licensed guns. When I look at something like that, I see the regulations as allowing more responsible people to own guns and maybe that's the difference. Maybe their regulations create a different mentality towards gun ownership.
On the other hand maybe it doesn't. I just don't see why that should be dismissed outright.

What I am saying (again, can't answer for Gumbo) is that the gun ownership is in place. Guns can be stolen even from a safe, they aren't foolproof. Family members likely do have access to those guns. The ability for someone to get their hands on a gun if they want to is probably still there.

While I think that the regulations in place do have some effect on the low numbers of violent crimes, I don't think that its the only thing. What else does? What else is different?

No you can't dismiss their regulations but otoh, you can't dismiss the fact that even when some of those things (guns being locked up) are in place a mass shooting STILL happens. So that particular regulation, in that case, would not have mattered.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

So anyone who isn't institutionalized should just be allowed to own a gun?

I'm not suggesting she ignored the fact that he would kill people. I think too often families are too close to understand what someone is really capable of until it's too late. I'm saying that if gun owners are held to a certain standard of responsible behavior perhaps they would think twice before others have such access.

Why not? For what reason are you denying someone a right? everyone from birth has a right to own a firearm and when you do something wrong you loose that right not the other way around where-as I'm assumed guilty and I have to prove I'm innocent, I would tie this to other things like voting. Honestly I don't want people voting that aren't responsible enough to own a firearm.

 

[sunshinehighway]

What I am saying (again, can't answer for Gumbo) is that the gun ownership is in place. Guns can be stolen even from a safe, they aren't foolproof. Family members likely do have access to those guns. The ability for someone to get their hands on a gun if they want to is probably still there.

While I think that the regulations in place do have some effect on the low numbers of violent crimes, I don't think that its the only thing. What else does? What else is different?

No you can't dismiss their regulations but otoh, you can't dismiss the fact that even when some of those things (guns being locked up) are in place a mass shooting STILL happens. So that particular regulation, in that case, would not have mattered.

I understand what you are saying and I don't necessarily disagree with you or have answers to your questions. I have to wonder if there is simply a different way of thinking about guns than there is here.

Adam lanza'sgun were in a gun safe but that doesn't mean
We should just say oh well locking up guns won't help.

 

[Domo]

From what I've been able to ascertain active weaponry is primarily employed for protection in the USA; hunting and target shooting can both be accomplished with the aid of an air rifle or air pistol (I own a match air rifle which is stored in a lock down at the range). I guess you could use an air weapon to stop an intruder but there are some people who are out to kill in order to neutralise the enemy. Is this an accurate assumption?

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

From what I've been able to ascertain active weaponry is primarily employed for protection in the USA; hunting and target shooting can both be accomplished with the aid of an air rifle or air pistol (I own a match air rifle which is stored in a lock down at the range). I guess you could use an air weapon to stop an intruder but there are some people who are out to kill in order to neutralise the enemy. Is this an accurate assumption?

I don't know what type of air rifle you have but if it's powerful enough to be used as a defense tool it's powerful enough to kill. For defense I don't want to be restricted to a single shot air pellet rifle though if those are the type you are referring to because a thick coat will be like Kevlar.

Sometimes killing is the only way to neutralize a threat.

 

[Domo]

Sometimes killing an intruder is the only way to defend one's children, for example, but by removing certain firearms from the market we can make the threat significantly less immense... you can only do so much damage with an air weapon or knife, but give an offender a semi or fully automatic weapon such as a Five-seveN or Kar-99 and suddenly these nutters have the scope to do a great deal of damage before anyone can stop them. Therefore, my stance is fully against needlessly powerful weaponry.

ETA: Being in a state with heavy restrictions on weapons, we have a homicide rate one fifth that of the USA and a gun crime rate of about 0.25 versus 10.3 in the USA. Statistically, clamping down on weapons lowers homicides.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Sometimes killing an intruder is the only way to defend one's children, for example, but by removing certain firearms from the market we can make the threat significantly less immense... you can only do so much damage with an air weapon or knife, but give an offender a semi or fully automatic weapon such as a Five-seveN or Kar-99 and suddenly these nutters have the scope to do a great deal of damage before anyone can stop them. Therefore, my stance is fully against needlessly powerful weaponry.

ETA: Being in a state with heavy restrictions on weapons, we have a homicide rate one fifth that of the USA and a gun crime rate of about 0.25 versus 10.3 in the USA. Statistically, clamping down on weapons lowers homicides.

I don't know where you live but it's been discussed immensely that gun control and violence are not necessarily tied together. Their are a lot of other factors that also play a part.

 

[Domo]

I don't know where you live but it's been discussed immensely that gun control and violence are not necessarily tied together. Their are a lot of other factors that also play a part.

Just call me Mr. Statistics

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Just call me Mr. Statistics

Statistics are like polls, they can be manipulated/made to show whatever you want them to.

 

[Domo]

Statistics are like polls, they can be manipulated/made to show whatever you want them to.

I like polls, and put great stock in them... with safeguards. For example, NEVER take one statistic on it's own and beware of spikes. However, long time patterns (such as with firearms proliferation and homicides/suicides) based on multiple sources... well, you'd be a fool to ignore them.

Case in point: the recent UK/EU elections. We knew for a long time that UKIP were going to sweep up and surprise, surprise, they did.