Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(09-12-2015 10:14 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(09-12-2015 06:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't understand what you mean. The Massachusetts laws are very effective in Massachusetts.

Having different laws by State makes it impossible to uniformly implement any gun control. When all you have to do is drive across State lines to purchase what is illegal in your resident State it greatly weakens the effectiveness.

It doesn't actually work that way. If I go to New Hampshire and buy a rifle that is not allowed in Massachusetts, then as soon as I enter Massachusetts I'm a criminal. If I'm already a criminal, no big deal. Dodgy
By federal law, one can only purchase a handgun in one's state of residence.

Quote:I applaud Massachusetts for having the strictest gun laws in the country. Maybe if the rest of the States would follow suit many of these tragedies could have been averted. It may be that all that is needed is a nationwide adoption of Massachusetts’ gun laws. Consider

Some of MA's gun laws are pretty stupid, so I wouldn't suggest they be adopted wholesale. Dodgy
I think we may be the third most restrictive. Consider

Other than by banning and confiscating firearms, I don't think any new laws would have prevented many of the recent tragedies could have been prevented.

Maybe you could point to a tragedy and a law that would have prevented it.

Quote:Do you consider being personally punished because you aren’t allowed to purchase an RPG for instance?

Hyperbole, from either side, is not helpful to the discussion.

Quote:To curb gun related violence there will be have to be restrictions that will affect law-abiding people, I don’t see a way around it. I’d love to own a Gatling gun but I fully understand why no one, including someone like me with no criminal record, should not be allowed to own one.

I don't think there is any law against you owning a Gatling gun. Consider

Quote:Tangetial: I’m truly at a loss for words when I see how impossible it is to pass sensible gun laws. A few days ago we were treated to another example of the insanity that is our legislative body:

"The Senate rejected a measure from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows on a 48 to 50 vote and an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote.”

Until the watch list is under control, that provision is not acceptable. There is no accountability for who goes on that watch list, there is no due process, no oversight, nothing.

Quote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powe...-shooting/

The shooters in San Bernardino had their neighbor (related by marriage) purchase the firearms three years ago.

That broke multiple laws.

Quote:http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-b...n-35684429
How do laws stop that? As long as the guns are available to be purchased a determined individual will find a way to obtain them. This is why the Australian answer to the problem seems to me the best solution.

That's really the point. Gun laws affect law-abiding people, not criminals, and certainly not terrorists.

Societal change is the answer.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-12-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  It doesn't actually work that way. If I go to New Hampshire and buy a rifle that is not allowed in Massachusetts, then as soon as I enter Massachusetts I'm a criminal. If I'm already a criminal, no big deal. Dodgy
By federal law, one can only purchase a handgun in one's state of residence.

I think you're missing the point here. The argument is you can't point to places with strict gun control and argue the laws don't work when guns can be purchased so easily elsewhere in the US. People like to point to Chicago, and now California, as evidence that strict gun control laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns. But, if those laws existed nationally I guarantee the results would be vastly different.

There is a reason the US has dramatically more gun crime than any other democracy. It's directly attributable to how easy it is to purchase legal guns. And yes. I realize these other countries have gun crimes, but nothing near the scale of what we have. Arguing a UK style gun control law across the US would not have a significant downward impact on gun deaths is completely fallacious but you are certainly trying to imply that and others have outright said it. It's just not true, though.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(10-12-2015 09:47 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  It doesn't actually work that way. If I go to New Hampshire and buy a rifle that is not allowed in Massachusetts, then as soon as I enter Massachusetts I'm a criminal. If I'm already a criminal, no big deal. Dodgy
By federal law, one can only purchase a handgun in one's state of residence.

I think you're missing the point here. The argument is you can't point to places with strict gun control and argue the laws don't work when guns can be purchased so easily elsewhere in the US. People like to point to Chicago, and now California, as evidence that strict gun control laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns. But, if those laws existed nationally I guarantee the results would be vastly different.

There is a reason the US has dramatically more gun crime than any other democracy. It's directly attributable to how easy it is to purchase legal guns. And yes. I realize these other countries have gun crimes, but nothing near the scale of what we have. Arguing a UK style gun control law across the US would not have a significant downward impact on gun deaths is completely fallacious but you are certainly trying to imply that and others have outright said it. It's just not true, though.

Well, to be fair, I haven't seen many people arguing that a national gun control law wouldn't work -- the argument is that it has no chance of being implemented. And sadly, they are probably right about that. The NRA has a stranglehold on Congress, and there are just too many people in this country who subscribe to the dogma that gun ownership is some sort of God-given right. I think LDH is correct that we would have a civil war if such a sweeping policy were ever attempted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
I have absolutely seen that argument made. Not meaning to pick on Chas but he's at least implying it. And, I agree its not happening any time soon.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(10-12-2015 09:47 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  It doesn't actually work that way. If I go to New Hampshire and buy a rifle that is not allowed in Massachusetts, then as soon as I enter Massachusetts I'm a criminal. If I'm already a criminal, no big deal. Dodgy
By federal law, one can only purchase a handgun in one's state of residence.

I think you're missing the point here. The argument is you can't point to places with strict gun control and argue the laws don't work when guns can be purchased so easily elsewhere in the US. People like to point to Chicago, and now California, as evidence that strict gun control laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns. But, if those laws existed nationally I guarantee the results would be vastly different.

No, I am not. My point was clearly stated: strict gun control primarily affects law-abiding people and has little to no effect on criminals or terrorists.

Quote:There is a reason the US has dramatically more gun crime than any other democracy. It's directly attributable to how easy it is to purchase legal guns. And yes. I realize these other countries have gun crimes, but nothing near the scale of what we have. Arguing a UK style gun control law across the US would not have a significant downward impact on gun deaths is completely fallacious but you are certainly trying to imply that and others have outright said it. It's just not true, though.

No, it is directly attributable to a violent society with enormous wealth disparity, minimal social safety nets, and a crappy health care system that doesn't adequately address peoples' needs.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-12-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(10-12-2015 10:27 AM)BnW Wrote:  I have absolutely seen that argument made. Not meaning to pick on Chas but he's at least implying it. And, I agree its not happening any time soon.

I am implying what, exactly? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
That gun control at a national level wouldn't seriously reduce the violence.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2015, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2015 05:43 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(10-12-2015 02:23 PM)BnW Wrote:  That gun control at a national level wouldn't seriously reduce the violence.

If we're just talking "gun control" and not an outright ban and mass confiscation, I don't think gun violence would drop much at all. Think about it. Rifles of any type are used in very few crimes. "Assault" rifles even less so. The majority of gun crime occurs with easily concealed handguns. Even an outright ban of semi auto handguns wouldn't stop gang bangers. They'd just carry revolvers (many already do). Domestic violence abusers will still kill their partner with whatever gun they have. I've been to domestic murder scenes where a single shot pistol was used. (I've actually been to more strangulation/beating murder scenes than gun deaths in domestic violence cases,so they'll do it without a gun) And for suicides, do they really care how many bullets their gun holds? They only need one damn bullet to blow their brains out.

In my experience, the majority of guns used in street crimes were stolen. Many shootings are done by offenders not even of legal age to own a handgun. So these people aren't buying them legally anyway. Background checks do nothing on this issue.

It's not Joe America out there committing all of these murders either. (However there is a major DV murder problem amongst white women by white male offenders) But mostly we have a minority gang problem. The statistics are a little hard to interpret unless you've seen it first hand. For example, on our reporting system to the FBI for crime statistics, we have to put "white" for hispanic murder suspects. In 2012 there were 5,531 black murder offenders. The same year there were 4,582 "white" offenders. But a large chunk of those probably were NOT white caucasian. A ton of them were hispanic gang members.

If we want to stop gun violence, we need to start with getting people out of gangs. Get them jobs. Focus on education. Better mental health care. And one of the best ideas was getting rid of low income housing communities. So much crime occurs in these places. You stick 5,000 low income people all together and its a cess pool of crime. Additionally, domestic violence. Married couples need training or counseling before marriage. Not sure how to really tackle that issue. But I think that's something that needs to be solved.

Additionally, we must focus our attention on alcohol. Nearly all of the domestic violence cases I've responded to during my time in law enforcement involved alcohol.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2015, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 10-12-2015 05:54 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  It doesn't actually work that way. If I go to New Hampshire and buy a rifle that is not allowed in Massachusetts, then as soon as I enter Massachusetts I'm a criminal. If I'm already a criminal, no big deal. Dodgy
By federal law, one can only purchase a handgun in one’s state of residence.

I’m looking at this whole thing from the viewpoint of keeping these firearms from those that are going to use them for criminal purposes. As long as the assault-style firearms (not handguns) are sold anywhere in the US then a person only has to be inconvenienced to go to that State.
Do Federal laws ban the sale of firearms like those used in San Bernardino if you aren’t a resident of that State? I don’t think they are, and then there is the gun show loophole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Some of MA's gun laws are pretty stupid, so I wouldn't suggest they be adopted wholesale. Dodgy
I think we may be the third most restrictive. Consider

The article I was reading said MA was #1, but I didn’t research it.

(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe you could point to a tragedy and a law that would have prevented it.

Use the three I already mentioned and imagine that none of the weapons used in those shootings were available for sale anywhere in the US or are available but only with very strict criteria for ownership. These two restrictions alone would almost certainly have prevented the tragedies in the way they happened.

A person can always make the case of smuggling them into the country across a border or by sea etc but this alone would most likely eliminate the Columbine and Sandy Hook shooters seeing that they were kids not connected to any terrorist group. The San Bernardino perps would have had a much tougher obstacle to jump other than asking their neighbor to buy the firearms for them.

(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)‘Chas Wrote:  Hyperbole, from either side, is not helpful to the discussion.

I wasn’t attempting to be a smartass Chas, didn’t mean for it to come across that way. I’m trying to make the point that there are already firearms that are banned from the public. Instead of an RPG lets use machine guns as an example http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpoliti...-the-books & http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:SN00049: @@@D&summ2=m&. I can’t imagine people going around moping and fuming that they can’t go out and buy a machine gun when they weigh the consequences of having a criminal or terrorist in possession of one. Notice that machine guns have yet to be used in any of these mass shootings. I would bet my left nut that if the machine guns on that banned list were available for purchase in the US they would be the weapon of choice and the body counts would be even higher.

(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)‘Chas Wrote:  I don't think there is any law against you owning a Gatling gun. Consider

That is just crazy!
https://www.gunsamerica.com/969087610/GA...5-COLT.htm

(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)‘Chas Wrote:  Until the watch list is under control, that provision is not acceptable. There is no accountability for who goes on that watch list, there is no due process, no oversight, nothing.

Please explain what you mean by “under control”. When I look it up I find this https://www.ise.gov/terrorist-watchlist

(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)‘Chas Wrote:  That's really the point. Gun laws affect law-abiding people, not criminals, and certainly not terrorists.

Societal change is the answer.

While I might agree with you couldn’t you say the same thing about any and all laws? Laws are put in place to limit what people can and can’t do so that society doesn’t fall into chaos. We are all limited by laws of what we can and can’t do from how we drive our cars to how we treat our spouses. The difference I see is that guns are tools specifically designed to kill.

Sure you can kill without a gun but there wouldn’t have been 14 dead and 17 wounded without the use of guns in San Bernardino. Guns work great for what they were designed to do, some more efficient and deadly than others and in a society where civilians have nearly unfettered access to them we can see the results in the statistics when compared to other countries. The US population is in a state of siege by their own hand.

As for societal change being the answer I counter with it being part of the answer. I don’t think we can wait for the day society to come to it’s senses where gun restrictions are no longer necessary because that day is never going to come. People with guns kill people. Since we will never be able to control one side of that equation we have to work with the side we can, and that is restricting the guns.

What would you propose as sensible and effective laws regarding gun ownership and availability to stem the tide of mass shootings, active shooter situations and terrorism incidents involving guns?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2015, 06:03 PM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(10-12-2015 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Some of MA's gun laws are pretty stupid, so I wouldn't suggest they be adopted wholesale. Dodgy
I think we may be the third most restrictive. Consider

Looks you take the bronze medal. MD is an also ran at #7.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: