What has the US done to tackle gun shootings?

[Curious3141]

And knives. And a list of other objects too long to fit in this post.

How many people can you kill per minute with a knife, before you're taken down or otherwise neutralised?

Now compare that with a firearm (even a handgun), and you'll see how silly your argument is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How many people can you kill per minute with a knife, before you're taken down or otherwise neutralised?

Now compare that with a firearm (even a handgun), and you'll see how silly your argument is.

People per minute? What's that got to do with it? He killed six and wounded three. Here is an example where the killer used a knife to kill 8 and wound 15.
Wiki, and therefore unreliable.

 

[SixNein]

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).

Sure, but do you agree with the law?

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.

I think people need to have something at least as strong as a pistol, a moderate rifle, and shotguns. A pistol levels the playing field as far as size. A women could defend herself against a huge guy with a pistol. The others are useful for hunting. But I do consider public risk when deciding what types of weapons or components of weapons should or should not be sold for domestic use. How does a weapon effect gangs and lone wolf terrorist?

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 occurring 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.

A bad government isn't going to get formed or continue to exist unless it has the will of a majority. These governments were created because people wanted them by and large. And even in oppressive areas today, you'll find a great deal of internal support for those governments.

As far as Syria is concerned, it had defectors from the military. In addition, what makes you think that the rebels are going to install some freedom loving government? From where I sit, the new government may be just as bad or worse then the existing one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/human-rights-abuses-syrias-regime-condemned

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

We already have a standing army with its own support. Solders don't need to bring their own weapons anymore.

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.

The courts generally decide if new communication mediums should be protected based upon the principles of the constitution.

 

[mheslep]

As a non-local, I have no clue what is been done in the US to prevent shootings from reoccurring. What keeps on happening in the US, most people up here call it insanity. The shooting news catch international attention yet prevention measures and actions from the governments don't come in the international news.

We had two shootings here recently. Politicians acted reasonably to tackle the violence issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/24/harper-toronto-gun-summit.html

"The fact of the matter is, most of the guns that end up in the hands of young criminals are illegal guns and they're coming from south of the border," McGuinty said, noting that the prime minister indicated "he's going to take another look at that."
...
The mayor, who has already met with Toronto's police chief and McGuinty regarding the recent shootings, declared a "huge victory" Monday after he was assured by the premier that the province would ensure that $5 million in permanent funding would be earmarked to fund a special police squad to curb violence.
...
McGuinty also pledged $7.5 million in permanent funding for the provincial anti-violence intervention strategy (PAVIS), the provincial extension of TAVIS, which funds similar units in several other Ontario municipalities.

Has US also pledged any money to reduce the gun violence or created organizations to prevent random shootings?

...

Why do you believe pledging money on strategies and "special ...squads" is an example of politicians "acting reasonably", as opposed to political pandering?

If you accept that guns largely enter Canada illegally across its southern border as the quote suggests, what do you suppose would stop guns entering the US illegally across its southern border should the US somehow end private gun ownership?

 

[CAC1001]

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.

What kind of gun policy would you suggest? And while for resisting tyranny and invasion, the Second Amendment isn't solely about those things. Codifying into the Constitution the right to bear arms wasn't solely about preservation of the militia, but preservation of the militia was seen as very important as governments historically had disbanded the militia by disarming the people and then forming their own militias to oppress people.

 

[rootX]

Why do you believe pledging money on strategies and "special ...squads" is an example of politicians "acting reasonably", as opposed to political pandering?

They acted reasonably as in responding to the massacre rather than not responding to it. It appears US politicians did not act at all to the recent gun shootings. It was an opinionated post. Otherwise, it's very hard to come up with reasonable actions, backed by proper analysis study, required to deal with abuse of the guns by unfit people.

 

[Curious3141]

People per minute? What's that got to do with it? He killed six and wounded three. Here is an example where the killer used a knife to kill 8 and wound 15.
Wiki, and therefore unreliable.

Your example is a poor one. The circumstances were different in the two cases. In the case of the Sikh temple shooting, the targets (and indeed the victims) were mostly adults. The knife massacre in Japan involved children, and children are far more susceptible to mortal injury - they tend to be less mature in recognising a deadly threat, they may be slower to react correctly to it, they are physically weaker and slower to defend themselves, and, finally, because of their physiology, they exsanguinate (bleed out) faster and are more susceptible to the effects of rapid blood loss.

All I'm asking you to do is to recognise that guns are far more efficient at dispatching targets than knives. If you disagree, then ask your military and police to switch from guns to knives.

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone way off topic.