ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think one should test any safety proposal against historical incidents and ask if it would have prevented them. For example, the Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record. Killed 58 people and injured 515
Academy Awards Best Picture - Know These New Rules Before You Start Production
- Thread starter Paul F
- Start date
I think one should test any safety proposal against historical incidents and ask if it would have prevented them. For example, the Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record. Killed 58 people and injured 515
Run&Gun
Veteran
If you have a plan for this idea, please share.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Cuz most aren't as large, have as many guns, as much money, or as a wide variety of personalities within 50 areas of land.
USA literally has all of the best and all of the worst of everything.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Well, I haven't studied the issue closely. But I think a good place to start would be to get rid of assault rifles and such. For example, if the Vegas shooter had only a handgun or a shotgun or a hunting rifle, he would have inflicted far fewer casualties. I'm not sure why a person needs such a weapon. It seems like usually the reason is because the bad guys might have one. Take away all of them, problem solved. I've also heard of people using them on flocks of wild hogs in the south. I dunno about that.
You could also alter the paradigm from letting everyone have a gun unless they're proven dangerous to only letting people have a gun who have proven themselves to be especially capable and responsible.
And there are various problems and loopholes - gun show sales, straw buyers, selling/lending to your friends.
In Australia, I've heard that the police can do random checks on gun owners to make sure their weapons are stored securely, etc.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
You can't be serious
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is the worst kind of American exceptionalism. The kind that has no bearing on reality or knowledge of the world beyond our shores
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Like the one deputy who shot the other deputy? I'm sure he would have passed the "capable and responsible" litmus test. Too many stupid people doing stupid stuff for stupid reasons. as long as they shoot each other, I'm okay with it.
nutmegger
Well-known member
According to this chart there are 120.5 guns per 100 inhabitants in America. No other country comes close to us in gun possession. We should be the safest country in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...trics alongside,and Venezuela has the highest.
64.5% of the perpetrators of mass shooting did have prior criminal records, 62.8% had history of violence, 30% were suicidal prior to committing the act, 39% killed themselves during the act (including the Las Vegas shooter), 48% leaked their plans. The numbers were significantly higher for younger shooters, with K-12 students who engaged in mass shootings found to be suicidal in 92% of instances and college/university students who engaged in mass shooting suicidal 100% of the time.
There are bigger problems from the younger generations and particularly mental illness. Mental health + criminal histories. That should be your focus.
Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories | National Institute of Justice (ojp.gov)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So, you're saying that people with a criminal history or a history of mental illness should not be allowed to own firearms. And that we should raise the legal age of purchasing firearms. And that you should have to pass a mental fitness evaluation on a regular basis in order to own firearms. Sounds good to me.
Run&Gun
Veteran
When was the last time the US was successfully invaded by a foreign nation?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah I'm sure that's totally why
What is noteworthy is that mass shootings have been going on long before Columbine. The coverage of the Columbine tragedy brought it to America's consciousness and to the mentally distressed. That made it the de-facto way to react for some unfortunate people who needed help. The trick is to get the mentally distressed to get away from jumping to this action. While I don't have an issue with regulating semi-automatic rifles, I don't see that as a effective means to end this activity. The fact is that semi-automatic pistols have the same capability and magazine capacity. What we need, and I don't have an idea how to do this, is to get them off this mass shooting knee-jerk reaction and onto something else. What did mentally distressed do before they learned about mass shootings? Coverage of mass shootings isn't helping.
As tragedies go, the focus on semi-automatic rifles to curb killings is not a best-effort. We need root cause analysis and then attack the issues that are causing these incidents and we need to use methods that stop people from wanting to do what they do.
Let's look at the numbers. In 2022 100 people died from mass shootings. That same year there were 21,000 murders. I expect that the vast majority of the murders was not from semi-automatic rifles. People are being killed by the bushel in Chicago (10 per week), New Orleans (4 per week), Dallas (4 per week), Indianapolis (4 per week). Yet for some reason, we discuss mass shootings and semi-automatic rifles.
As tragedies go, the focus on semi-automatic rifles to curb killings is not a best-effort. We need root cause analysis and then attack the issues that are causing these incidents and we need to use methods that stop people from wanting to do what they do.
Let's look at the numbers. In 2022 100 people died from mass shootings. That same year there were 21,000 murders. I expect that the vast majority of the murders was not from semi-automatic rifles. People are being killed by the bushel in Chicago (10 per week), New Orleans (4 per week), Dallas (4 per week), Indianapolis (4 per week). Yet for some reason, we discuss mass shootings and semi-automatic rifles.
Last edited:
It is illegal for them to purchase them now. It is illegal in most states to transfer to them by any means. It is illegal for a felon to possess firearms. So why do we allow felons in our midst? Why do we free mentally ill presidential assassins and punish sportsmen? In NYC you freed the Bernard Goetz the subway vigilante and charged Marine Daniel Penny with manslaughter for restraining a harassing mentally ill man with a chokehold. Where is the logic? You don't address the core problem, mental illness and nefarious criminality. Yes, the guns are out there, the genie is out of the bottle but so are the evil and sick people. What are you doing about them? What kind of police force do you want and where will you find them while protecting your constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure? In the middle of the night, a knock on the door? Armed men in black riot gear, "Mr. Halpert, there was a report you may be in possession of banned items. We'd like to ask you some questions. Your compliance is mandatory, our search team is authorized to inspect your premises." How did that work out for the search teams at Ruby Ridge? The children at Waco? What were the crimes?
Absolutely! States can and should do this!
You see your primary care doctor, already required for certain occupations. You don't need a special evaluation for firearms. The problem of mental fitness is the same. The medical professional is required to report suspected mental illness, depression, non-fitness, suicidal tendency.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Well, we could look at countries that have had mass shootings and instituted policies that stopped them... there are a few examples... check it out...
A lot of murders happen between people who know each other. I'm not worried about getting murdered when I go to the grocery store but i have thought about what would happen if someone opened fire. Or at my kid's school.
Here's a map of gun death rate per 100k people by state
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This is a bait and switch. You're the one who brought up criminal history and mental health issues. I didn't say only felons shouldn't have guns. I would make the prohibition wider than that. I'm also not sure that many states have a prohibition on people who have a history of mental health issues. At least, I read all the time about shooters who were flagged by their partner or their neighbor for abuse or harassment but there was no restriction in place to prevent them from getting a gun.
I don't believe you need a medical evaluation to buy a gun. But if I want to keep my driver's license, I need to pass an eye exam at regular intervals.
There's also reasons to initiate a search based on breaking minor crimes and suspicious behavior. They had stop and frisk in Brooklyn for years and uncovered many illegal guns that way. Of course, conservatives favored that policy because it targeted black people.
Anyway, there's a world of difference between doing door to door searches for guns and what we have now-- same-day purchase of a gun for anyone who isn't a felon and then they can carry it and conceal it without a permit. There's a big middle ground there.
Here's active shooter incidents in the US by year
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-re...hs-in-the-u-s/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/healt...bEpZbmhBWkR2Qw..Maybe that is the answer. Maybe the knee-jerk reaction to use a semi-auto rifle and its unavailability works. Maybe that's enough to break the cycle. Ok, I'm on board.
You might want to edit that post Abe. It sounds like you're ok with 21,000 murders among relatives and associates, as long as it's not you and yours. Boy, that reads stone cold.