Now it is hospital shootings

[Spafranco]

Not satisfied with killing children and college students doctors are now a target.

Will anything come of this...NO. The reason: the NRA is so powerful that in a country of over 300 million people not one politician is prepared to take action. Not take away guns, just limit the number of bullets in magazines and the types of guns available. The loopholes closed.
In addition, the number of guns that should be available to anyone person at any given time either at home or the purchasing of limitless guns.

There is an author of fiction, Stephen Hunter, who is a ballistic expert and in many of his articles on this subject he is quite firm.

Too many guns.

[Mark]

Referring to: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... l-shooting

[Starter]

Referring to: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... l-shooting

Wow, that's a relief. From the title of the thread I had thought someone had shot a hospital. As opposed to someone being shot while in a hospital. Couldn't understand why anyone would do that.

On a serious note, I am hoping that the well documented shootings of the last couple years brings much, much more attention to the issue of detection, intervention and treatment of those with mental and emotional issues. The guns are just the tools used by these people and don't address the core problem. The mental health system in the US is primitive at best and highly ineffective.

[Spafranco]

There is more to be done than just psychological evaluation. Mental illness is oblique in many cases. Fundamentally, if the NRA would listen to the majority of it's members it would take steps to a/ reduce the capacity of magazines, b/ reduce the number and type of guns available to the public and c/enforce strict rules and regulations as was done in the UK and ROI during the 70's and 80's.
GB was under attack yet saw fit to make it illegal to own a rifle or handgun except in some cases. The same was true for the ROI where advocates stated that they would become victims of the loyalists groups. It did not happen. Crime in the UK did not escalate. Spain and the issues of the ETA. No criminal mischief any more than any other country and they are in a deep recession.

Fewer guns fewer deaths and injuries, fewer people in prison and the dramatic cost of care for the gun violence would drop dramatically.

[Roamy]

Not satisfied with killing children and college students doctors are now a target.

Will anything come of this...NO. The reason: the NRA is so powerful that in a country of over 300 million people not one politician is prepared to take action. Not take away guns, just limit the number of bullets in magazines and the types of guns available. The loopholes closed.
In addition, the number of guns that should be available to anyone person at any given time either at home or the purchasing of limitless guns.

There is an author of fiction, Stephen Hunter, who is a ballistic expert and in many of his articles on this subject he is quite firm.

Too many guns.

franco - I don't even know if you are a citizen but if you are I would suggest you look at other countries to move to. We are not giving up guns and it is only going to get worse for people like you as more and more people are packing. In addition the pendulem is going to swing very heavy to the right during the next elections. I think the liberals are going to be quite surprised at the next elections.

[Spafranco]

Not satisfied with killing children and college students doctors are now a target.

Will anything come of this...NO. The reason: the NRA is so powerful that in a country of over 300 million people not one politician is prepared to take action. Not take away guns, just limit the number of bullets in magazines and the types of guns available. The loopholes closed.
In addition, the number of guns that should be available to anyone person at any given time either at home or the purchasing of limitless guns.

There is an author of fiction, Stephen Hunter, who is a ballistic expert and in many of his articles on this subject he is quite firm.

Too many guns.

franco - I don't even know if you are a citizen but if you are I would suggest you look at other countries to move to. We are not giving up guns and it is only going to get worse for people like you as more and more people are packing. In addition the pendulem is going to swing very heavy to the right during the next elections. I think the liberals are going to be quite surprised at the next elections.

Oh for Gods sake shut up and stop acting like a child. My great great grandparents came to the US in 1826. You don't deserve to know that but to temper your outrage at someone taking your owns seem pertinent to my own feelings to validate myself.
As much as you seem to believe is pure trollop and delusional stop posting on threads where not me or any others suggessted you give up you phallic symbol.

[Jag_Warrior]

IMO, too many guns in the wrong hands, is really the primary issue that we face here. And to be honest, I believe that's a much harder nut to crack than simply saying there are too many guns in the U.S. The fact is, a disproportionate amount of the violent crime (including gun violence, of course) is committed by people who have already been convicted of one or more violent crimes. And we already have Federal laws which prohibit those individuals from owning or possessing firearms. To criminals, laws are simply words on pieces of paper. They pay no attention to them. So rather than focusing on all gun owners or the types of weapons, why not focus on the group(s) that are the major contributors to our issues: convicted criminals and mentally unstable people with plain Jane handguns.

And while the shootings involving long weapons with high capacity magazines are the ones that make the headlines, and they are indeed tragic, they are fairly atypical of the gun crimes that take place here. Most gun crimes do not involve AK47s or AR15s. These weapons are more like the Great White sharks of the gun world. When one of them is involved in a shooting, every news outlet rolls out the Live @ 5 cameras.

My position is, and has always been, that if law enforcement and law makers would seriously focus on the criminal element and those with mental/emotional issues gaining access to weapons, which they are prohibited from having, we actually could make a meaningful reduction in violent crime in this country. It wouldn't be eliminated, but I am sure that major reductions could be gained. But we can look at Chicago as a good example of what is wrong here. Unlike New York, when a prohibited person is found in possession of a firearm in Chicago, the tendency has been for the police to seize the weapon and either let the person go or they get a light tap on the wrist if they are convicted - and they tend to only go to trial if they are committing some other crime, in addition to being in possession of a prohibited firearm. While in New York, as I understand it, there is an automatic five year prison sentence applied upon conviction. And guess which city has a lower violent crime rate, especially crimes involving firearms? You got it, New York. About 20 years ago, my state went the same route as New York. Violent crime around Richmond, VA was skyrocketing, with drug dealers lighting up the night like the 4th of July. But once we began imposing automatic prison sentences for people found in possession of drugs and guns, about the worst problem they had in Richmond was drug dealers beating each other up with sticks - no joke. We got serious and the problem was reduced.

It's all about laying aside emotions and facing the actual, major contributors to an issue, which make themselves clear through unemotional data analysis (something politicians typically have little ability to do). Root cause analysis, as my kind calls it. It's not as sexy as running or watching stories about the Great White sharks, but it would likely gain more desired results.

Just my 2 cents...

[webberf1]

Oh come on, if they stop selling to rednecks, psychopaths and criminals, the only remaining customers of American weapons will be the military (they already have enough) and third world dictators (who usually end up selling half of them to al Qaeda and al Shabab via the black market anyway) so they can keep on 'freeing the shit' out of their people.

[Jag_Warrior]

Then I guess the only remaining question is: am I a redneck, a psychopath or a criminal? Possibly I am all three, or just a combination of two of those pejorative categories?

You see, this is another clear example of why sensible gun laws cannot be enacted or enforced in the United States: the various factions prefer to call people names, rather than, as I said, use objective data analysis to actually address agreed upon problems. It happens on both sides, as many gun owners think that those in favor of gun control measures are limp-wristed pinkos or whatever. But there is no doubt, and we've seen it with everything from the health care debate to the gun control debate, once the demonization and childish name calling begins, the chances for a true debate vanish.

“Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche

[airshifter]

Well said Jag. I didn't realize we shared a state, and I remember some of the news stories about the shake ups and how it affected the more violent areas.

Personally I'd be all behind much harder laws if they affect the criminal element much earlier than those that own guns legally. I'd really have no issue with a requirement for some type of annual or semi annual accounting for weapons, or even with registrations of all weapons if I knew it wouldn't later be used to take my weapons. With the government in the state it is now, and will probably remain, my official statement to the NSA and everyone else watching is that I own no weapons at all. Just make sure you knock and identify yourself properly if you look shady, just to make sure I don't ninja attack with a baseball bat.

As for the stereotypes, I know loads of people that might qualify as "rednecks" and the vast majority of them I would trust around guns. Being that many of them grew up hunting and fishing, they probably have much more respect for the use of lethal force than the average Joe does, or for that matter much more than people who have never been around guns and somehow determine that guns hurt people, but the criminals using them play no role in the matter.


But see Jag, if people used common sense and statistical data, they wouldn't hate assault weapons so much. Removed of the emotion and faced with facts, they would probably hate the cheap .25 and .22 caliber handguns with low capacities that are used in many, many, many violent crimes. And faced with facts they would be forced to differentiate between the criminals and the huge majority of legal and lawful gun owners who use them for a variety of reasons without issue. Since many want to group the criminal and law abiding owners together so they can cry "Guns kill people!" then the rest of the facts are pretty much off the table too.... it just doesn't suit what the anti gun crowd wants.


On a related note, it's very fortunate that the vast majority of people who go nuts with a weapon are poorly trained and educated in any real shooting or military tactics. I'd bet money someone with a military, cop, or hunting background could do a lot more damage with one of the "safer low capacity/small caliber/etc" weapons in the same situation. Likewise, if more people carried on a regular basis and were well trained, the chances would be much higher that a single well placed shot would end a lot more crime situations.