How do you stop massacres by mentally unstable people using guns?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If he didn't have a gun, he could have easily driven his car through a playground full of kids. It has happened before. Didn't get much press. Nobody wants to take away other people's right to own a cadillac.

Like I said, you are willing to rely on the odds of saving yourself with a gun in a tear gas filled chaotic theatre. I am willing to rely on the odds of him not driving a cadillac through a playground if he didn't have ready access to guns.

Quote

Some on this forum want to make sure gun owners are competent with guns. No sweat. Mandatory military service. Everyone gets trained early. Works for the Swiss just fine.

It does, but then the Swiss don't also walk around with those rifles in day to day life. Your premise is somewhat flawed.

I would be more in favour of expanding a restricted system like the Canadian system and only allow concealed carry to those who have, and continue to prove themsleves proficient to do so.

A hybrid of systems if you will.

Combine this with better mental health care, work on removing the stigma of mental ilness and we might actually get somewhere.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

22 fired anchoring systems used in construction?
There are a ton of deadly weapons on this planet that are equally as accessible as guns.

Yet no one has walked into a theatre, restaurant or school and committed mass murder with a 22 fired anchoring system. Not even in countries where firearms are a lot harder to get....

[davjohns 1]

There was no premise. I just pointed out that mandatory military service would provide firearms proficiency training. Works for many countries.

You are correct. I like my odds when I have a gun in my hand. I'm also unwilling to risk the lives of the children on the playground. I'm a sheepdog. I don't play odds that result in innocent people getting killed. I put myself between innocent people and the wolves. I understand that laws, rules, regulations, government agencies, etc. are not capable of doing that. It takes human beings.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Skyrad 0]

Didn't Charle Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Allen Muhammad,Howard Unruh, David Berkowitz, Arthur Shawcross, Robert Lee Yates,Dwight J. Loving, Kenneth G. Parker were all ex military, not to mention others like Timothy McVeigh, Mark Fidel Kools and Jeffrey Dahmer who chose some other weapon to commit mass murder. Unfortunately history shows that the military has a pretty poor track record in training only those who are not likely to become mass murderers.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[davjohns 1]

You're struggling here. I know you are intelligent. Take your time to put together a coherent argument.

When I point out cars are used for mass killings, you say you'll take your chances. When someone else points out that there are plenty of other weapons, you say they aren't used. Those two really don't go together.

The fact will always remain that those wishing to use a firearm for a crime will not be hindered by laws. It's pretty axiomatic. Making more laws will not make it less axiomatic. Therefore, we need to find other solutions. Given the fact of the second amendment, other solutions are really the only option.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Didn't Charle Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Allen Muhammad,Howard Unruh, David Berkowitz, Arthur Shawcross, Robert Lee Yates,Dwight J. Loving, Kenneth G. Parker were all ex military, not to mention others like Timothy McVeigh, Mark Fidel Kools and Jeffrey Dahmer who chose some other weapon to commit mass murder. Unfortunately history shows that the military has a pretty poor track record in training only those who are not likely to become mass murderers.

So, you want us to train people in the use of firearms and know what's in their heads? Don't ask much, do you?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I don't play odds that result in innocent people getting killed.

Sure you do. But a nice bit of male machismo boasting.

You play the odds of relying on CCW holder stopping a massacre committed by somebody with legally acquired guns.

I play the odds of limiting those massacres by restricting easy access to guns. Combined with allowing well trainined individuals to carry concealed.

Quote

I'm a sheepdog

I have a sheepdog, it cowers when it hears loud bangs.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Didn't Charle Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Allen Muhammad,Howard Unruh, David Berkowitz, Arthur Shawcross, Robert Lee Yates,Dwight J. Loving, Kenneth G. Parker were all ex military, not to mention others like Timothy McVeigh, Mark Fidel Kools and Jeffrey Dahmer who chose some other weapon to commit mass murder. Unfortunately history shows that the military has a pretty poor track record in training only those who are not likely to become mass murderers.

So, you want us to train people in the use of firearms and know what's in their heads? Don't ask much, do you?

not at all but you pointed out that it works well for the Swiss, I'm just observing that even in a limited vetted scenario it doesn't historically work well for the USA.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't play odds that result in innocent people getting killed.

Sure you do. But a nice bit of male machismo boasting.

You play the odds of relying on CCW holder stopping a massacre committed by somebody with legally acquired guns.

I play the odds of limiting those massacres by restricting easy access to guns. Combined with allowing well trainined individuals to carry concealed.

Quote

I'm a sheepdog

I have a sheepdog, it cowers when it hears loud bangs.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[normiss 917]

Seems like some of the victims like this one
could see the shooter clear enough to see a gas mask - I'll still say I would take the odds at taking a shot.

You have no right to take away MY right to protect myself.

I feel for those who are so willing to surrender their basic human rights. I don't understand it. I don't think I can.
I value my life. A LOT.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

When I point out cars are used for mass killings, you say you'll take your chances. When someone else points out that there are plenty of other weapons, you say they aren't used. Those two really don't go together.

You are intelligent enought o understand my point. Just in case you are not, I will repeat it. I do not agree with the premise that every incident of gun violence would take place with a different weapon if guns were not readily available.

Quote

The fact will always remain that those wishing to use a firearm for a crime will not be hindered by laws. It's pretty axiomatic.

That argument can be used to repeal almost any law on the books. When people are willing to use the logic on every law, I am willing to listen. When you only want to use it very selectively, it is simply hypocritical.

Quote

Given the fact of the second amendment, other solutions are really the only option.

For the US, I agree. The occasional massacre is simply the price for you to carry a gun around.

[normiss 917]

Quote

That argument can be used to repeal almost any law on the books. When people are willing to use the logic on every law, I am willing to listen. When you only want to use it very selectively, it is simply hypocritical.

Boy howdy.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You have no right to take away MY right to protect myself.

Guns are just a tool. They don't exercise or restrict rights. Taking a gun away doesn't take away your right to defend yourself, it just takes a tool away.

Weren't you just arguing how the tool could so easily be replaced with other tools?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Boy howdy.

If you are no longer willing to debate with the adults, I have a sheepdog for you to play with if you like

[normiss 917]

So you're going to give the criminal a choice, why not the rest of us?

So if it's just a tool, why are you so adamant in removing that tool from the planet? I thought the loonies were the issue.

I'll stick with protecting myself thank you. Pretty hard to punch a guy shooting at me, so I'd like the gun option since I'm allowed one.

[davjohns 1]

OK. You actually got me to laugh when you described your sheepdog.

I think you are getting highly subjective when you describe access to guns as easy or when you describe the need for CCW holders to be well trained.

I have to prove who I am, fill out a form and be run through an automated system to confirm I am legal before I purchase a gun. The gun dealer keeps those records and they are subject to inspection by ATF at any time.

CCW holders that I know shoot regularly (monthly or so) to be reasonably proficient with their weapon. The cops I know shoot annually as required by their department (usually 50 rounds practice and 50 for qualification). So, the definition of well trained is going to need some help.

Yes, I have great confidence that good men with guns will most often result in good. I have no confidence that laws will keep anyone from killing others.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Didn't Charle Whitman, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Allen Muhammad,Howard Unruh, David Berkowitz, Arthur Shawcross, Robert Lee Yates,Dwight J. Loving, Kenneth G. Parker were all ex military, not to mention others like Timothy McVeigh, Mark Fidel Kools and Jeffrey Dahmer who chose some other weapon to commit mass murder. Unfortunately history shows that the military has a pretty poor track record in training only those who are not likely to become mass murderers.

So, you want us to train people in the use of firearms and know what's in their heads? Don't ask much, do you?

not at all but you pointed out that it works well for the Swiss, I'm just observing that even in a limited vetted scenario it doesn't historically work well for the USA.

Sigh. I pointed out that the Swiss have mandatory service and it results in a citizenry that is proficient with firearms. If you want the citizenry proficient with firearms, this is a route. I'm sorry I brought up the Swiss at all. It seems some people hereon just want to find something to argue with. It doesn't matter how far off point their vignette might go.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So you're going to give the criminal a choice, why not the rest of us?

So if it's just a tool, why are you so adamant in removing that tool from the planet? I thought the loonies were the issue.

You are speaking in absolutes. I have not advocating removing guns completely. That is just your knee-jerk thoughtless "shout" when it comes to this argument.

But, with the same logic, I could ask you why you are so upset if that tool would be removed, since upthread you claim it can so easily be replaced?

Quote

so I'd like the gun option since I'm allowed one.

And you are welcome to it.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

You are intelligent enought o understand my point. Just in case you are not, I will repeat it. I do not agree with the premise that every incident of gun violence would take place with a different weapon if guns were not readily available.

Quote

The fact will always remain that those wishing to use a firearm for a crime will not be hindered by laws. It's pretty axiomatic.

That argument can be used to repeal almost any law on the books. When people are willing to use the logic on every law, I am willing to listen. When you only want to use it very selectively, it is simply hypocritical.

Quote

Given the fact of the second amendment, other solutions are really the only option.

For the US, I agree. The occasional massacre is simply the price for you to carry a gun around.

This is so hard to keep straight online....

Nobody said that every incident of violence would be recreated elsewise without guns. That's an extreme that has little value in a legitimate debate. Some mass violence would still happen (World Trade Center). Some would be lessened (six kids dead on a playground vice 12 people in a theater). Some would increase (countless incidents where people defend themselves and others with a gun).

Criminal laws are reactionary by nature. No laws can prevent crime. They only punish afterwards and hope to influence the masses. In the extreme, you can use that argument to abolish laws. But again, extremes are not terribly useful for this discussion.

Sorry. Didn't notice that you are Canadian. I don't think you guys have many rights to firearms anymore. That makes it hard to communicate. I've never acknowledged a sovereign and likely never will. I wonder if it creates a basic difference in perspective. Not meaning to be insulting. I just recognize that there might be a subtle difference in attitude from early age that might be playing into this discussion.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think you are getting highly subjective when you describe access to guns as easy or when you describe the need for CCW holders to be well trained.

I have to prove who I am, fill out a form and be run through an automated system to confirm I am legal before I purchase a gun. The gun dealer keeps those records and they are subject to inspection by ATF at any time.

CCW holders that I know shoot regularly (monthly or so) to be reasonably proficient with their weapon. The cops I know shoot annually as required by their department (usually 50 rounds practice and 50 for qualification). So, the definition of well trained is going to need some help.

Of course it will, but we just jumped from designing a framework to the little details.

Quote

I have no confidence that laws will keep anyone from killing others.

I do. I am convinced more people would get killed if there was no law and penalty against it.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

So you're going to give the criminal a choice, why not the rest of us?

So if it's just a tool, why are you so adamant in removing that tool from the planet? I thought the loonies were the issue.

You are speaking in absolutes. I have not advocating removing guns completely. That is just your knee-jerk thoughtless "shout" when it comes to this argument.

But, with the same logic, I could ask you why you are so upset if that tool would be removed, since upthread you claim it can so easily be replaced?

Quote

so I'd like the gun option since I'm allowed one.

And you are welcome to it.

I'm not sure anyone said it is easily replaced. I think the value of a gun as a tool to the good guy and bad is how effective it is. However, a bad guy can easily plan for another tool to use in his schemes. It is hard for the law abiding citizen to carry something that is so handy for defense and still allows the citizen to go about daily life. Explosives are easily put together for mass destruction. They aren't nearly as useful for self defense in a theater.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I think you are getting highly subjective when you describe access to guns as easy or when you describe the need for CCW holders to be well trained.

I have to prove who I am, fill out a form and be run through an automated system to confirm I am legal before I purchase a gun. The gun dealer keeps those records and they are subject to inspection by ATF at any time.

CCW holders that I know shoot regularly (monthly or so) to be reasonably proficient with their weapon. The cops I know shoot annually as required by their department (usually 50 rounds practice and 50 for qualification). So, the definition of well trained is going to need some help.

Of course it will, but we just jumped from designing a framework to the little details.

Quote

I have no confidence that laws will keep anyone from killing others.

I do. I am convinced more people would get killed if there was no law and penalty against it.

I thought about it and I'll give you that last part. Laws do dissuade people. I was thinking more about the individual actor than the masses. On the macro level, you are right. I was thinking about the individual actor like in the theater shooting. Laws would not have stopped him from doing evil unless they were so oppressive that the laws themselves would have incited the populace.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Explosives are easily put together for mass destruction. They aren't nearly as useful for self defense in a theater.

Right. Nor is that gun in your holster going to do you much good when the seat explodes under your arse....

In response to your earlier point, guns are indeed harder to come by in Canada. Handguns even more so. We do not have a constitutional right to arms either.

However, guns are far from impossible to obtain. In a framework discussion I would be happy to explore a hybrid version of the two systems like outlined above. I am also not opposed to mandatory military service. I grew up in a country with it.

[billvon 3,173]

>Elderly are not regularly screened to determine if they can still pilot a car safely.

Agreed. The only time that screening comes into play is if they get a report from a doctor, law enforcement officer or family member that the person is no longer fit to drive a car. (At least here in CA) If they don't pass, they lose their license.

That might be a good model for gun ownership restrictions as well - if you could figure out how to implement it, since there is no "gun license" involved.

>I recommend that if people in our society were willing to take responsibility for
>those around them . . .

Agreed, that should be the first line of defense. The government can help via the above-mentioned method of evaluating elderly drivers.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Laws would not have stopped him from doing evil unless they were so oppressive that the laws themselves would have incited the populace.

I agree. Hence why discussions related to absolutes are not helpful. But, I see no reason why there cannot be discussion on what could possibly could be done to lower risk of occurence and severity, if anything.