What has the US done to tackle gun shootings?

Jakeus314

I believe we need extreme punishment for these actions. The crimes need to be deterred with truly scary repercussions. Prison is horrible and so is the death penalty, but no where near what should be done. This cruel and unusual thing needs examination if we truly want change. 2c

CAC1001

Aside from the "high-capacity magazines" (I put that in quotes because I wouldn't say anything over 10 rounds means high capacity, it depends), the AWB banned weapons based on their cosmetic features. According to the proponents of the AWB, having certain types of grips and barrel coverings and so forth makes the weapon more dangerous or deadly. The counter-argument (also the view I hold) is that that's like the difference between giving a set of crappy golf clubs to a person who can golf versus a set of decent clubs. They'll be able to hit the ball with either, it's just the decent clubs will be better-made. A lot of media reports have said it would have made the AR-15 James Holmes used illegal, but that's a misconception, as it never outlawed the AR-15. At most, it would have outlawed certain cosmetics of the AR-15 Holmes had.

You also can improvise, I mean if you want to fire forty rounds and have only ten round magazines, you could carry four pistols, and just shift to a different pistol upon using up the ammunition in one.

The Assault Weapons Ban didn't stop the guys in the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, who had assault rifles (automatic fire weapons) and large capacity magazines. California has an AWB, but it didn't stop a gang member in 2005 from pulling out an SKS assault rifle (which had to be converted (the SKS is a semi-automatic rifle), itself something that isn't easy to do as the weapons have to be manufactured where you can't just easily convert them), with a large capacity magazine and armor-piercing rounds which are only supposed to be available to law enforcement and the military, and which I believe you need a special license to even manufacture them.

CAC1001

One other point I thought I'd make (which has also been addressed to some degree in this thread already in the talk about mentally ill people), which has been pointed out by the columnist Charles Krauthammer, is that we as a society have taken the view that it is better to have lots of legitimately mentally ill people out loose in society so as to prevent the few sane people who could be wrongly locked up from ending up so. This was due to a change in the civil rights laws due to I think a SCOTUS case in the 1980s from groups such as the ACLU that changed these laws around. Beforehand, a person like a Jared Loughner for example, would have been committed into an institution, as so many knew he was mentally ill. Because of the laws now though, until the person does something bad, they can't be committed.

For all the talk about how we need to "do something," something had been in place, but it was un-done by those same proponents of rights for the mentally ill. I'm not saying that's bad, as the mentally ill have been horribly mistreated historically and sane people have been wrongly committed in the past (there's a saying that a Democrat is a Republican who's just been wrongly arrested and a Republican is a Democrat who's just had their home broken into or been through a situation in which law and order has broken down), but for all the talk about "gun control" the real problem may be entirely different (i.e. how to get the legitimately ill people off the streets without infringing on sane people's rights). It would be interesting to compare the laws regarding the mentally ill in the U.S. with the laws regarding how they can be committed in other countries.

ThinkToday

I think you are referring to "deinstitutionalisation". This came about during JFKs time with the Community Mental Health Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...tal_Health_Act .

edward

This is apples and oranges again. Any weapon that can be used to commit mass murder is an assault weapon. The previous description of grips and bayonet attachment is ludacris now. Holmes used an AR15 with a 100 round rotary magazine. Luckily it jammed. How many shots were fired was never disclosed.

Ironically that is probably what a sane person would think of doing.


Those guys were criminals and knew exactly what they were doing and why. They also knew where and how to obtain the weapons, which were most likely very expensive unless they stole the weapons themselves.

A person who goes off of the deep end isn't going to be able to do that. Even that is a moot point now that slide stocks and 100 round magazines are available for purchase online.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U6tORrODJE

There are already so many semi automatics and high capacity magazines in the general public it would be impossible to enforce any kind of ban.

We are in a difficult situation to say the least. There are methods available that can detect unstable people, yet filling out a test with 500 true or false personal questions would most likely be declared a violation of privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneso...lity_Inventory

SixNein

The problem with many weapons available on the market is the large risk that they impose to the public. A person can rush a crowed with an assault rifle and kill large amounts of people before anyone has the ability to respond. In my opinion, these weapons are primarily offensive.

On a side note, I don't understand the whole "intent of the founding fathers" argument. Their intent was based on a situation entirely different then ours. If they were writing the constitution today, I'm willing to bet it would be different.

CAC1001

Any gun can be used to commit a mass murder though.

Remember though that being insane is not the same as being stupid. And otherwise sane criminals are also the ones society has to be concerned about as well.

CAC1001

Remember, assault rifles are not available for sale. And any gun can be used offensively. A gun is gun is a gun generally, they're machinery capable of killing (remember unless you believe in Creationism, then humans are biologically animals, so anything that can kill a human can make an excellent hunting weapon and vice versa). There are AR-15s that fire a larger-caliber round, such as 7.62 mm, that are for hunting larger game, but which otherwise look like an "assault weapon." The U.S. Army's M24 sniper rifle system and the U.S. Marine Corps's M40 sniper rifle system are both based off of one of the most popular hunting rifles in existence, the Remington 700. The 700 is not a civilian version of a military sniper rifle, it's the opposite, those sniper rifles are militarized versions of a hunting rifle. Almost all bolt-action hunting rifles today draw their core design from the Mauser rifles from the late 19th century that were used for military purposes. Then there's all manner of handguns and shotguns that for both civilian, police, or military use.

Was it? There are plenty of Westernized countries that, given enough economic crisis and radical politics, could experience another tyrannical government. Modern liberal democracies do not make obsolete the right to bear arms regarding a tyrannical government. In the United States, it sounds incredibly rare because of how stable our system is and how large our country is (such an instance would probably lead to another civil war if it really happened). But rare doesn't make it impossible.

Also, the concept of the right to bear arms was not created by the Founding Fathers. A lot of people think the right for people to bear arms was a novel concept because of the war they'd just fought with England, but actually, the right to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689. By the time the Constitution was being written, the idea that people have a fundamental right to bear arms was something that was considered as normal then as our idea that people have a right to free speech and freedom of religion and so forth today is.

The question was over whether to codify it into the Constitution or not. In terms of what the Founders meant by the word "arms," they meant weapons commonly owned by law-abiding citizens that they would be expected to muster to milita conscription with. At the time, the weapons used for war, hunting, personal protection, etc...were pretty much the same, and really to a good degree, that is still the case. Yes, there are guns designed solely for hunting, but there are plenty of guns used for all of these things, and military guns can easily be adopted for hunting (they make some of the best hunting weapons) and of course for personal protection purposes, and hunting guns can be adopted for military purposes as I've pointed out.

The difference today is that in addition to handguns, rifles, and shotguns, the military has a whole slew of additional weapons that didn't exist before, that are not commonly owned by citizens (tanks, bombs, aircraft, etc...). Now if one wants to say that citizens should have a right to those to be able to stand up to a modern tyrannical government, well that would require amending the Constitution as interpreting the Second Amendment as covering that would likely be a form of right-wing judicial activism as you are stretching the meaning of the word "arms." The left-wing judicial activist argument is that the word arms only meant weapons of the time and not modern weapons, but by that argument, then one could say the First Amendment doesn't apply to modern forms of free speech and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply against modern forms of search and seizure.

So the word arms today applies to weapons held by both civilians and the military so long as they are commonly-owned types of weapons (handguns, rifles (so long as they are not automatic fire), and shotguns).

rootX

On related topic, I recall some US military personnel were involved in compromising the US interests in ME/Afghanistan (killing innocent people/burning holy books etc). I believe these personnel are closely related to the US public shooters. The solution for dealing with incompetent military members might be useful at home also.
A normal person wouldn't do that. It's either terrorists or mad people who are behind these kinds of attacks IMO. It's interesting to note that while guns are widely available but Al-Qaeda has never managed to use them in the US. The point is that it's not that easy to kill large amounts of people even when you are very determined. Waking one morning and feeling like playing with your gun in public is bit easier as the recent massacres suggest.

edward

It seems like all we are doing is coming up with reasons why the OP can not be answered.

SixNein

You seem to have missed the point. My overall point is that public risk is a big factor in the discussion. So when we talk about what guns and components should or should not be available to the public, we should consider how much risk is involved. Yes any gun can kill; however, guns have different capabilities to kill over a period of time. And according to those rates, they can benefit offensive use over defensive use. For example, how does a machine gun empower gangs and lone wolf individuals compared to legally abiding citizens?


Of course it was different. Just look at the way war was conducted then and now. In addition, compare a gun 300 years ago to a modern machine gun. If you are going to argue "Anything can kill; therefore, guns", you might as well extend that argument to the right to own nukes. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people right?


Gun ownership isn't going to stop a tyrannical government. Instead, education is the real protection from such things.

What did arms mean then compared to now? In a basic nutshell, you are comparing apples to oranges.

We are a nuclear power with a gigantic military. We have weak neighbors and we are flanked by fish. The whole argument that we need these guns in the domestic area in case we get invaded is simply risible.

Ideas are more dangerous to tyrannical governments then guns. Your not going to win any kind of rebellion unless the majority is on your side. Unless of course, the international community steps in to help.

The word "arms" as expressed in the constitution did mean arms of the day. The question for us to resolve is how should we interpret that today in light of new technologies and the realities of our time? For the most part, this is a job for the supreme court. But the legislator could clarify it.

SixNein

How many people dying do you think is reasonable? What is your tolerance?

In other words, how much risk to the public are you willing to accept?

russ_watters

Are you American? That's an odd thing to not understand:

Clearly, their intent would have to be updated if they lived today. But the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and has to be obeyed unless 2/3 of us agree to change it. I'm in favor of that, but thus far, it hasn't gotten the needed support. That's a very difficult question. The answer can include some facts and logic, but also includes a significant component of opinion. Much is made of the fact that the US has a higher gun murder rate than most other western countries. Seems to indicate a problem. Trouble is, we also have a much higher car accident death rate. Is that also a symptom of a problem? To really answer that question, we have to investigate why and what we get out of it (ie, more miles driven = more deaths).

CAC1001

Again though, machine guns are already illegal, minus a few exceptions. To own a machine gun, you have to go through all manner of legal arm-twisting, and the weapon must be registered pre-1986. It also will cost you an arm-and-a-leg to acquire. Otherwise, the fastest rate-of-fire for a weapon is semi-automatic (semi-automatic (one round fired for each trigger pull).

I explained what the word "arms" in the Second Amendment means. It does not extend to machine guns or nukes or anything in between. Those are not arms commonly owned by citizens that they'd bring to militia duty with. Also, I wasn't referring just to warfare, but the question of whether there is a need for people to still own arms in modern societies. My point was the existence of modern liberal democracies does not mean that people no longer need guns. Liberal democracies still have violent criminals and are fragile systems in which law and order can break down during certain natural disasters, economic disasters if severe enough, or where even the government could collapse in extreme cases.

Education is what keeps a liberal democracy a liberal democracy, but if the liberal democracy fails and a tyrannical government forms, then education isn't going to mean anything at that point. That is where firearms ownership comes in. And I believe firearms ownership could very much stop a tyrannical government. Look at the fighting occuring in Syria. Those people never had a right to bear arms and were going up against tanks, artillery shellings, attack helicopters, and all the works, but still are fighting there. In America, this is assuming said tyrannical government would be able to maintain complete control of the existing military, which probably would not be the case. A lot of military would probably either defect or aid the resistance movement (or individual states might break off while retaining their own National Guard units). And yeah I know all that is a highly-improbably scenario, but highly improbable doesn't mean impossible.

Arms then as the Founders intended meant the weapons commonly owned by citizens that would be used to form up a militia.

Where did I ever say we needed guns for fear of invasion?

Guns are not the be-all, end-all, but they are a very helpful tool to have. That's like saying the Internet isn't useful to a rebellion as its the ideas that count. Sure, but access to the Internet can allow the ideas to be spread a lot more thoroughly.

The problem with that interpretation is that then one could say the First Amendment only meant the communications mediums of that time as well. If the Founders had meant the arms of the day, I think they would have explicitly written muskets, not arms. Arms is a general term as advancements in weapons can occur as years go by.

CAC1001

To expand on those points, Japan has a significantly lower gun violence rate than the European countries, even though all have restrictive gun laws. And most of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs in the inner cities between gangs. If we could stop the gang violence in the major cities, it would reduce America's gun violence rate by an astronomical amount. The causes of the gang violence is a wholly separate issue though.

lisab

It's very tough to make an apples-to-apples comparison between countries on an issue like this because culture plays a *huge* role in how individuals react. You use Japan as an example, but they have a tremendous social pressure to conform and not be a "squeaky wheel". Makes it hard to compare them to the US on social issues, since Americans value individualism so strongly.

I agree with your point about gangs. Damn vermin, they are. But we have only to look as far as our screwed up drug laws to see the root of that problem.

russ_watters

So then we should think about the Now implications of having a gun policy that is based partly/largely on a highly improbable possibility. Is it worth it?
That was one of the purposes of the militia.