News What has the US done to tackle gun shootings?

[Pkruse]

This is an interesting thread, but I've seen all this before. Many places.

But to give non US people an idea of how many guns people have here, I talked with a number of my friends, two dozen in all. Most are professional people over 50 years old. A few welders and machinists. One an eight year old boy with 8 eight of them under his bed and access to more than a hundred more in the house. I confirmed that with his grandma who said he has become an excellent marksman and has used all of them, including the very old black powder and flint lock weapons. During the family's last hunting trip he was the only one who shot anything and he filled the family's freezers for the year.

I do not pretend that this poll is in any way scientific, but everyone I talked to had at least 2 or 3 guns. Several had that many either in their car or on their person. Three of the older ones had more than 200. One told at 78 told me he has carried a gun every day of his life since he was 12 years old, but never had to fire one at anyone.

None of these people have ever been arrested. They are all just normal law abiding people that you might see on the street.

As for me personally, I have two in storage somewhere. I'd have to hunt for them to find them. Haven't fired them in years.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

If you are claiming that as a "fact", please give sme evidence. The number of legally held guns in the UK is almost 2 million, according to the police (who operate the gun licensing system, so they should know).

The point is the UK's gun laws are much more restrictive than the US, so obviously there are less firearms. You can probably help with a better summary of UK firearms laws than I can, but according to what I've read the only guns legal to own in the UK (with licensing certificate, more on that lengthy process below) are single-action hunting rifles, single or double barrel shotguns, and black powder (antique) firearms. This is very restrictive when compared to US law; from what I understand UK gun law is among the most restrictive in the world.

According to Wikipedia's summary of UK gun laws:

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued, which has to be renewed every 5 years.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Just this weekend, I went to the beach, choosing to face a possible death by car accident, shark attack, skin cancer, concussion, bungee-ball slingshot accident and drowning, in addition to the daily dangers of bathing and walking downstairs.

Around 33,000 people in the US die in car accidents each year, of which 17,000 die in alcohol-related vehicle accidents. It seems to me this is a worse scourge than "mass shootings," and in the same order of magnitude as total homicides (far higher than "mass shootings") by firearm in the US.

In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States#Statistics

For reference, gun related deaths:

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

And also in reply to the original poster's question as to what's being done to prevent it, a quick summary:

Policies at the federal, state, and local levels have attempted to address gun violence through a variety of methods, including restricting firearms purchasing by youths and other "at-risk" populations, setting waiting periods for firearm purchases, establishing gun "buy-back" programs, targeted law enforcement and policing strategies, stiff sentencing of gun law violators, education programs for parents and children, and community-outreach programs. Research has found some policies such as gun "buy-back" programs are ineffective, while Boston's Operation Ceasefire, a gang violence abatement and intervention strategy, has been effective. Gun policies are also highly influenced by debates over the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court took a position for the first time on this issue in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the second amendment secures an individual right to own firearms.

 

[rootX]

It isn't as simple as you imply, unless you favor a "Minority Report" world where people are declared criminals based on a prediction that they will commit a crime. A country that values rights can't work that way. Can we improve detection of people with emerging issues? Probably. Can we ever prevent all freshly blooming nuts from getting guns? No chance.

I never said declaring people criminals based on a prediction. Rather, all I said that taking guns from hands of people who shouldn't have them. The people who are unhealthy can unlikely use them for their protection or for any other intent that American founders had.

If these people can escape their punishments for being schizophrenia[1] why they should be given lethal weapons that can be used to harm innocent lives. It's similar to letting a blind person drive a car.

Yes, it will never be possible to prevent all freshly blooming nuts (looking at all past incidents however none of them was freshly bloomed when they went on rage) from getting guns. But at least, the mental health should be given a consideration when legally handing person a gun.

It is a popular cliche/platitude to say that human life is priceless, but it isn't and even people who say it is don't actually treat it that way -- it isn't possible to be a functional human being and try to seriously apply that view. Life is an endless stream of compromises of safety; we face death on a continuous basis and are constantly making compromises in the face of it. Just this weekend, I went to the beach, choosing to face a possible death by car accident, shark attack, skin cancer, concussion, bungee-ball slingshot accident and drowning, in addition to the daily dangers of bathing and walking downstairs. Oh, and I also recently bought a car that doesn't have lane exit notification, adaptive cruise control or blind spot monitoring. The added safety wasn't worth the extra money to me.

So the question really is how far are you willing to compromise on the issue of life versus freedom. Early Americans said "give me liberty or give me death" and soldiers today still buy-in to that. Civilians don't tend to think in those terms, but virtually all engage in risky actions. Sure, the scales are generally tipped far toward life, but not all the way. We still lean them a little toward liberty and happiness too.

I don't understand why freedom of a nut is more valuable than innocent lives. Reason I said innocent lives are priceless because they are more way more valuable than these nuts freedom or lives from my personal opinion as you already said "the scales are generally tipped far toward life".

You're also exaggerating to imply that innocent lives are purposely being compromised in favor of giving neo-nazis and psychos unlimited freedom

Yes I might have been exaggerating because of the anger. Seeing these shootings one after another and yet complete inaction from the government, why wouldn't you be angry? Government inaction was the main reason I started this thread. I feel occurrence of the same cause behind these incidents is bit too much to be ignored. You likely will have different ways to dealing with the issue but yet you and others seem to be ignoring that there is an issue.

 

[rootX]

Yes, but how does one go about determining just who is "unfit?" That's the problem. People can be committed for their crimes, the problem is you have to first commit a crime (such as shooting people) to show you're a nut.

Cannot same people who determine whether a person is fit for punishment also determine who is unfit? There will be mistakes but ignoring the mental health issue just seems absurd to me after seeing a series of consecutive massacres all sharing the same root cause.

On positive side:
1) There will be more awareness among Americans about mental health
2) You would less likely to see a mad person shooting in public places
3) People who are not healthy will not live in denial but rather seek help than just ignoring and wasting all their life in dark

 

[CAC1001]

Cannot same people who determine whether a person is fit for punishment also determine who is unfit? There will be mistakes but ignoring the mental health issue just seems absurd to me after seeing a series of consecutive massacres all sharing the same root cause.

On positive side:
1) There will be more awareness among Americans about mental health
2) You would less likely to see a mad person shooting in public places
3) People who are not healthy will not live in denial but rather seek help than just ignoring and wasting all their life in dark

Sane people determine who is fit for punishment via a court system. I doubt the average person would become more knowledgeable about mental health issues. As for people who need help, the sane ones go and get it. It's the nuts who are too nuts to realize how nuts they are, that are the problem.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I never said declaring people criminals based on a prediction. Rather, all I said that taking guns from hands of people who shouldn't have them. The people who are unhealthy can unlikely use them for their protection or for any other intent that American founders had.

How do you propose choosing which people shouldn't have them? Currently, when a person purchases a firearm from an FFL dealer (a.k.a. a gun store) they have to fill out an ATF Form 4473:

Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Question 11.f asks:

Have you even been adjudicated mentally defective, (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others, or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See instructions for question 11.f.)

Question 11.f's instructions:

Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

So limitations for people deemed mentally unfit already exist, and the judgements can be assessed by several forms of "lawful authority." The release of medical records (psych records) to non-law enforcement agencies can get sticky though...

If these people can escape their punishments for being schizophrenia[1] why they should be given lethal weapons that can be used to harm innocent lives. It's similar to letting a blind person drive a car.

He's gotten life in prison, while it isn't a death penalty which I would have much preferred as well, he's out of society forever more. In his case, psychiatric "suspicions" were brought up by witnesses during the trial, but there were no official "judgements" against him thus he was allowed to purchase firearms. Hindsight is always 20-20...

Yes, it will never be possible to prevent all freshly blooming nuts (looking at all past incidents however none of them was freshly bloomed when they went on rage) from getting guns. But at least, the mental health should be given a consideration when legally handling person a gun.

It is definitely already a consideration as I've shown, but I agree there is room for improvement, perhaps in proactively getting court rulings against people who are dangers to themselves or society, and making those records easily accessible for the purpose of FBI background checks.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Some other questions in ATF Form 4473:

11.b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (See Instructions for Question 11.b.)

11.c. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.)

11.d. Are you a fugitive from justice?

11.e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

...

11.g. Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

11.h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? (See Instructions for Question 11.h.)

11.i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? (See Instructions for Question 11.i.)

 

[edward]

I just am amazed at the apples and oranges comparisons I am seeing posted here. In many cases there is no positive way to identify a menatlly ill person until after the fact. Trying to do it by having them fill out a form is a joke.

RTTNews) - Former University of Colorado student James Holmes was referred to a threat team at his school weeks before he killed 12 people in a deadly theater shooting, throwing new onus on the institution.

Holmes, 24, was seeing school psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton in the week's leading up to the shooting. Fenton, alarmed by Holmes and worried about a possible violent streak, warned the school's Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment (BETA) team, the Denver Post reported this week.

The team was set up by Fenton in 2010 to help pinpoint possible violent students and alert the school to them before an incident could take place.

The federal laws and State laws are a jungle of contradictions. Primarily it appears that one of two elements must be present in regards to mental illness.

1. The person has been adjudicated to be incompetent to manage his own affairs.

2. The person has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/.../State_Laws_re_Firearms.pdf

 

[Pkruse]

With all this interesting discussion, I guess the simple answer to the original question is:

“Nothing useful.”

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I guess the simple answer to the original question is:
“Nothing useful.”

Did you read any of my above posts? What do you think needs to be done above and beyond what's already required when purchasing a firearm?

 

[russ_watters]

I never said declaring people criminals based on a prediction. Rather, all I said that taking guns from hands of people who shouldn't have them. The people who are unhealthy can unlikely use them for their protection or for any other intent that American founders had.

You are contradicting yourself. You can't know if someone shouldn't have a gun until they do something wrong. You're declaring: 'If we give you a gun, you might/will use it to commit a crime, so you can't have one.' That's deciding ahead of time to limit a right based on a crime that hasn't been committed yet.

But at least, the mental health should be given a consideration when legally handing person a gun.

You're suggesting we send everyone who tries to buy a gun to see a psychologist or take a test that includes mental competency prior to buying a gun; in order to try to predict if they might use the gun to commit a crime. How does that jive with your first sentence I quoted?

I don't understand why freedom of a nut is more valuable than innocent lives.

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true or less nonsensical than the first time you said it. Again, you don't know if someone is a murderer until they commit a murder and what you are suggesting also limits the freedom of those innocents.

Reason I said innocent lives are priceless because they are more way more valuable than these nuts freedom or lives from my personal opinion as you already said "the scales are generally tipped far toward life".

Yes I might have been exaggerating because of the anger.

So you exaggerated because this issue upsets you. Fine. I'm glad you are self-aware enough to recognize that. But this is why I don't like changing policy based on a traumatic event. People have a tendency to not behave rationally after a traumatic event and the law needs to be rational.

Seeing these shootings one after another and yet complete inaction from the government, why wouldn't you be angry?

Just for clarity, I do want increased gun control in the US. Why don't these mass shootings make me angry and want it even more? Simple: I'm less emotionally driven than you are so I recognize that these events don't change anything.

It is great that you are self-aware enough to know you've been emotionally compromised. Step two though would be to choose not to make decisions when in an emotionally compromised state. I know that's difficult, though.

Government inaction was the main reason I started this thread. I feel occurrence of the same cause behind these incidents is bit too much to be ignored. You likely will have different ways to dealing with the issue but yet you and others seem to be ignoring that there is an issue.

As I said above, I do want increased gun control. What you are not getting is that recent events do not point to any additional need that wasn't already there three weeks ago and that taking quick action based on preventing specific crimes that already happened from happening again can lead to making rash decisions, such as additional compromises in freedom that may prove unnecessary with a more rational analysis.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

In many cases there is no positive way to identify a menatlly ill person until after the fact. Trying to do it by having them fill out a form is a joke.

Note that the check boxes on the form are compared against the instant background check. Criminal records are pretty well handled, but I think psych records aren't as well managed by a central entity.

The federal laws and State laws are a jungle of contradictions. Primarily it appears that one of two elements must be present in regards to mental illness.

1. The person has been adjudicated to be incompetent to manage his own affairs.

2. The person has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

You forgot the most important one: anyone ruled "a danger to themselves or others" by a judicial entity.

 

[russ_watters]

I just am amazed at the apples and oranges comparisons I am seeing posted here. In many cases there is no positive way to identify a menatlly ill person until after the fact. Trying to do it by having them fill out a form is a joke.

Agreed:
Of the half dozen high profile incidents in the past few years, I don't think any involved/required lying on that form M_E linked.

 

[skippy1729]

You cannot price innocent people lives who just are enjoying their day at their school, watching a movie and having a peaceful religious gathering. Lives of people who never did anything wrong to others are priceless and these lives shouldn't be compromised just to give some psycho or neo-nazi freedom to do whatever he pleases. But, of-course this is a personal opinion.

Were the lives of the 50 million, or so, civilians in gun restricted nations who were slaughtered by their own governments priceless?

Who decides what groups are anti-social and violence prone?

Nazis? Klan? Black Panthers? Pro-life extermists? Greens? Communists? OWS vandals? "Militia" organizations? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[Pkruse]

Mech Engr: Yes I read the posts. Lots of good thinking and discussion. Certainly much has Ben done, but I'd argue that it is all non effective window dressing designed to make people feel good rather than address the problem. It is still easy for anyone to get a gun, and to use it in any way they desire.

I offer no solution regarding guns as I don't think there is one. To fix any problem, we need to get to the root. Guns are not the root.

As some of this current discussion addresses, I believe that the root is our completely broken mental health system. Several more competent than I have published articles on that recently. One on the Time site this morning is particularly good, but a quick search will turn up many more.

 

[russ_watters]

Mech Engr: Yes I read the posts. Lots of good thinking and discussion. Certainly much has Ben done, but I'd argue that it is all non effective window dressing designed to make people feel good rather than address the problem. It is still easy for anyone to get a gun, and to use it in any way they desire.

I'm working on a more detailed analysis, but real quick:

We had an assault weapons ban in effect for a few years that could have had a substantial impact on at least one case:

Jarrod Laughtner shot Rep. Giffords and 17 others with a legally purchased generic 9mm and a 33 round magazine. He was thwarted from further shooting by a failed attempt to reload that gave victims an opportunity to take him down. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that if the assault weapons ban had still been in effect, its ban on magazines above 10 round capacity could have prevented 12 people from being shot.

Now while I think that law matters, I am fully aware that the resulting ~4 saved lives are statistically insignificant. I wouldn't call it window dressing, but it isn't that useful in the big picture.

 

[ThinkToday]

He was thwarted from further shooting by a failed attempt to reload that gave victims an opportunity to take him down. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that if the assault weapons ban had still been in effect, its ban on magazines above 10 round capacity could have prevented 12 people from being shot.

Or, the more reliable 10 round magazines wouldn't have jammed, like in the CO shooters drum magazine, and more would have died. I've been an NRA Life Member for more than 40 years. I started hunting/shooting at 8 and competitively as soon as I was old enough. IMO, the problem with most gun control relates to "punishing all" to catch a few. As was discussed above, cars kill more people and we don't ban cars and require mass transit. Alcohol kills by toxic effects, drunk drivers, rage events, etc., but we don't ban it for all because of some people. There isn't any redeeming factor for cigarettes, and they are far more deadly than guns at 444,000 deaths per year in the US ALONE. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5114a2.htm . Cigarettes aren't banded and you don't need a permit to buy or use them.

I would break with some of my fellow shooters on a few points. IMO, just as first time hunters are required to have hunter safety classes before getting a license to hunt, anyone owning a firearm for protection should be required training on the proper, safe, and legal use of the firearm weapon class (rifle, shootgun, pistol, muzzle loader, etc.) being purchased, with refresher courses as laws change. EXCEPT, the State should be barred from any actions which would limit training with the actual or intended purpose of limiting ownership to people that would otherwise qualify. IMO, such training should include reasonable skills assessments, since discharging a firearm at an intruder in your home can be dangerous. I think if someone wants to own a gun they should be able to handle it safely for its intended purpose (target shooting, hunting, security, collectors, etc.). I support the FBI Instant Check system http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet . I would also like to see the Eddie Eagle Safety Program http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/ in the public school system as part of the generic health classes. We all know kids will likely come in contact with a weapon in their lifetime, and knowing the Eddie Eagle basics can’t do anything but help, IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

From what I read, the issue was that he dropped the new magazine, not that there was a jam.

 

[Skrew]

Some of this info is a bit out of date but I doubt that much has changed(I don't care for certain political slants but the info is cited).:

Edit: removed inappropriate link, there are valid sources of information available

Regardless of being against restrictions on mag capacity and any additional restrictions on firearms for ideological reasons(I would like to see the NFA machine gun registry reopened and SBRs removed from the NFA), according to this info for the years looked at the majority of criminal homicides involve less then 3 shots being fired. Also according to this info for the years looked at most of the non-suicide criminal deaths involving guns are actually criminals killing each other.

Magazine capacity limits would possibly only come into play for the occasional large shooting which doesn't make up the vast majority of gun homicides. Standard capacity and 100rd magazines are in wide circulation so even if a ban was passed, it's not going to prevent someone from purchasing them with the intent of going on a shooting spree.

Also as I wrote before bombs would be more effective in large crowds if the persons goal is maximum deaths.

EDIT:Well apparently Evo didn't think my link was a valid source of information, I happen to disagree but I will conform to the mods rules.

 

[rootX]

Yes, this was emotionally motivated thread, and that was the reason I put this thread in General Discussion initially and didn't have any references in my post. Otherwise, I can only have limited substantial discussion because I don't know much about America as I pointed out in my OP.

Related article from fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...-fuel-wisconsin-massacre-or-was-it-terrorism/

At present, our mental health care system is so fractured, with followup so unreliable, information so scattered and authority granted to psychiatrists so meager, that those with delusions, even those who have expressed the desire and intent to kill others, falling through the cracks isn't the exception; it's the rule.

 

[Jakeus314]

But, I only wanted to know about if something is being done and how successful the government has been in tackling the gun-violence issue)

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]

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.

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

 

[edward]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.



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/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.