na
Posts: 9374
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:13 pm

The whole world thinks the overly liberal gun laws of the US are stupid and murderous. But of course the whole world could be wrong and the likes of Mr. Stephen Paddock could be right.

In the past 60 years more Americans have been shot dead than in all wars the USA fought since 1776.
Still there are "citizens" who think these 1,500,000 people killed in the US since the death of M.L. King are nothing against the right of the individual to own a gun. 1,5 million, thats more than twice as many as in the Civil War, almost 4 times as many as in WWII, and 25 times as many as in Vietnam. Something must be fundamentally wrong inside the heads of such people. But as long as the NRA rules the country through strawmen like Mr. Trump this type of heads will overrule the rest of the country.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6866
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:39 pm

OK, this is a rant. My apologies. I will return to a more normal discourse afterwards but I just realized something and think I need to say it.

I am beginning to view the current thought/interpretation of the 2nd to be the penultimate example of the "me first" attitude in the USA. That was not how the amendment was written but selfish people appear to think that any other interpretation is personally against them. It is "all about me".

The 2nd amendment is written as the need for a well regulated militia being necessary for the safety and security of the USA, to the founding principles of the USA. It is to protect the people against a government that does not serve them as well as protect themselves, their families and communities. But individuals owning guns are just that: Individuals, alone. They are only in it for themselves, not to protect others despite any protestations saying otherwise. They may be doing it to also protect their family or others as well but it is only effective if the family owns together. In my family, the ones that own guns and hunt, it is a family event and everyone knows how to manage gun even if they don't use it. But even a family alone doesn't help other in the community. The Vegas mass shooting is a perfect example.

Owning a gun was useless to defend ones self in the Vegas attack. The ONLY thing that stopped this was "a well regulated militia", the LV police and SWAT team. The organized forces that opposed the gunman. Several gun owners reported that they thought about getting their firearms but realized they would only cause harm and confusion and could themselves then be attacked by others out of fear or by law enforcement responding to the situation.

So the individual right to bear arms is useless to the USA but we are of course "all about me" and I want and demand my gun. I need to be responsible? And train with others? And actually work at gun ownership? No way, it is my right to do nothing but be able to buy a gun and do with it as I please.

Selfish.

But that is the USA.

Gun ownership, it is all about me.

Of course maybe this is best, maybe that is what the courts and others want, a weak a divided population that are islands alone who cannot defend anything beyond themselves and are therefore easy to overcome. Being required to be a part of an organized team? That could create a lot of problems as we have seen over the years when militia do stand against the government. Imagine thousands of organized militia across the country? You want to stop crime in your neighborhood? Form a militia with other gun owners and work together. But of course that is not easy, that requires effort and doing things for and with others. Now that would be a force.
/rant

OK, I went off the rails a bit, but there are some good points there. It kind of makes sense but is weak in several areas, sorry. I am not attacking gun owners per se, I am attacking the current interpretation and thought that the only thing that matters is "me", my right, that I can have a gun. There are many responsible gun owners. The vast majority in fact. I really do not have an issue with gun ownership and the right to bear arms. It is that many people think that is all that matters, that being able to own the gun is what is important. I think there is much more to the 2nd amendment, and that the "more" is at least as important as the only part of it that is currently allowed or enforced.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:01 pm

To me there needs to be a through and extensive study as to this terror event covering lets say 5+ years done of the survivors who were injured, those killed and their families and a sample of those not injured as to the psychological and physical health and financial affects on them. We need to know more so to deal better with the trauma of these victims.
 
KLDC10
Topic Author
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:04 pm

ltbewr wrote:
To me there needs to be a through and extensive study as to this terror event covering lets say 5+ years done of the survivors who were injured, those killed and their families and a sample of those not injured as to the psychological and physical health and financial affects on them. We need to know more so to deal better with the trauma of these victims.


That's a reasonable idea. It would be preposterous to assume that they will simply be able to go about their lives as they did before after such a traumatic event. I would guess that a number of them might end up suffering from PTSD. Providing the right support is essential.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146/Q400/737/738/739/752/763/772/A320/A321/A332/A333/E190
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3449
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:07 pm

bgm wrote:
I don't think anything effective can be done anymore, it's too late. There are just too many guns out there. There also just isn't the will to change any laws, thanks to the NRA propaganda. When nothing was done after those kids were gunned down in an elementary school, I knew there and then nothing would ever get done.

Americans want the right to bear arms? Don't want any background checks? Well, today's events are the consequence of your demands.

The chance of getting universal health care passed is close to diddly-squat, so the mental health thing is most likely a no-go.

Happy days!


They want background checks but the NRA lobby that essentially now is a lobbying force for the gun industry (to make them more money) lobbies congress against any action as it hurts profits.
This is less about the second amendment because arms are already regulated. You cannot own an RPG legally or a bomb (both technically considered arms).

Background checks need to be federal though or you can only buy guns in the state you reside in. The reason that Chicago has a high gun homicide rate is that people can go to Indiana where it is lax and buy them and bring them back to Illinois.

NoTime wrote:
Tugger wrote:
NoTime wrote:
It seems that's how the other side works, too. Or, is the use of extremes allowed when it is coming from the left?

I think part of the problem is people are shifting to discussing "a side" and blanketing the person they are speaking/responding to with everything they believe "that side" stands for or wants to do. But individual people are not "a side", you NoTime aren't, I am not, no one is.


Well, that's kind of the pastime around here... from just about everyone... but, in the interest of getting things headed back towards the topic -

I think any effective change has to start with the mental health aspect of the problem. The father of the Vegas shooter was apparently a diagnosed psychopath, and there is apparently a significant genetic operation with that (and other) mental illnesses. The Sandy Hook shooter had a slew of mental health problems. The Santa Barbara shooter had mental problems. The Denver movie theater shooter had mental health problems. The list goes on and on...

The hard part is introducing worthwhile steps to guarantee mental wellness without stepping on people's rights.

I agree with an earlier post that a full gun registry is a non-starter and will never happen. Especially after the Obama administration effectively weaponized certain parts of the government and various newspapers have already published the names and addresses of gun owners in their cities in the name of public safety.


More will come out I am sure but this shooter seemed to have no Red Flags that would signal he would be a high risk individual that would commit this crime.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Here's a question that came to mind this morning:

The 2nd Amendment is construed to imply that it's the citizenry's way to defend itself against a rogue state. But just when exactly does it start coming into effect? When do I have the right to say that I'm defending myself against what I perceive is a rogue state?

Would Japanese Americans back in WW2 been able to use their 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves against forced internment?
If my state says it's OK to have a small amount of pot and federal agents come to arrest me, wouldn't that qualify as a perception of a rogue authority coming for me?
If someone born to immigrants in this country (ie. they're a citizen) is old enough and purchases a gun, could they defend their immigrant parents from ICE?

I'd be willing to support the notion that guns are just for self-defense (they stay at home) or for sport (hunting, shooting range, etc.) and maybe that's what the framers intended. Until we agree on why the 2nd Amendment was introduced in the first place (or where its limits are), mass shootings will continue to happen.


As I read the second amendment is was written to allow for militias to bear arms to fight against external threats to US freedom long before the US had the largest military in the world. If there is an equivalent model to this today it would be the Swiss model where there is no official military but an organized militia among civilians to defend the country. Civilians have guns in Switzerland but if you are a criminal or mentally ill I bet you are not getting a gun at all.

JJJ wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
My cousin bought a handgun at a gun show about two years ago when he and his girlfriend were doing a US roadtrip, his only ID was his NZ passport and drivers license. No checks were done. After three months in the US they handed the gun over to a police station in LA because they didn't know what to do with it and you can't own a handgun in NZ.


So he and the seller committed a felony. Explain to me how more laws would have prevented that? Why don't we enforce those currently on the book.


Would you be OK with a central register of handguns, so that the cops can go after those people whose guns suddenly go missing and end up in the wrong hands?

If a law has no teeth it's worthless.


This is needed so that law enforcement can trace stolen guns and prosecute those that traffic guns. Many of the guns in Canada have been trafficked illegally over the border to be sold illegally it would help law enforcement on both sides of the border if the guns were more traceable.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 807
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:48 pm

When we say ''ban guns'' we don't actually mean to ban them. Nobody does that. There are just special licences involved that make owning a gun much harder. Now that won't stop a multi-billion dollar organization like ISIS, but it will stop the record for deadliest mass shooting in the US being broken every 15 minutes.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:57 pm

Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:21 pm

What is sad is this guy was well off made millions from real estate. Certainly had plenty of cash to be a high roller at the casinos. Some would say he had the American dream. I can't think of any reason why this guy would do what he did. Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.
 
NoTime
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:00 am

Interesting read:

"I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise."

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 731a066dc9)

Pretty much comes to the conclusion that many right-minded folks around here have - that "banning guns" isn't going to fix anything.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

...

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:19 am

NoTime wrote:
Interesting read:

"I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise."

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 731a066dc9)

Pretty much comes to the conclusion that many right-minded folks around here have - that "banning guns" isn't going to fix anything.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

...

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.


Yes the weak rules that are proposed to have a small chance of passing (and often don't pass anyway) won't make a noticeable change.

The only way would be to drastically reduce the number of guns, and no proposal even attempts to do that.

In the US it seems you like to talk about the same subjects at every election, so this will continue. Abortion still a subject, the death penalty still a subject, health care, drugs, etc. No meaningful change in sight for most. At least politicians don't have too much work to do, have an answer for those and gun regulations, and you're good to go.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6866
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:39 am

Top 20 states with highest gun death rates:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/
Utah
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Idaho
Arizona
West Virginia
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Montana
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
NoTime
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:44 am

Tugger wrote:
Top 20 states with highest gun death rates:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/
Utah
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Idaho
Arizona
West Virginia
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Montana
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska

Tugg


This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.

If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.
 
jetero
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:50 am

NoTime wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Top 20 states with highest gun death rates:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/
Utah
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Idaho
Arizona
West Virginia
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Montana
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska

Tugg


This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.

If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.


Why is “gang related” in quotes, NoTime? It’s OK, we know you mean “black.”
 
NoTime
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:01 am

jetero wrote:
NoTime wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Top 20 states with highest gun death rates:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/
Utah
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Nevada
Idaho
Arizona
West Virginia
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Montana
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska

Tugg


This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.

If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.


Why is “gang related” in quotes, NoTime? It’s OK, we know you mean “black.”


Please don't project your own racist tendencies onto me. It's such a narrow and racist view for you to assume that only blacks are involved in gang violence.
 
jetero
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:23 am

NoTime wrote:
jetero wrote:
NoTime wrote:

This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.

If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.


Why is “gang related” in quotes, NoTime? It’s OK, we know you mean “black.”


Please don't project your own racist tendencies onto me. It's such a narrow and racist view for you to assume that only blacks are involved in gang violence.


Cute, NoTime, very cute.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:44 am

jetero wrote:
NoTime wrote:

This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

During 2014, there were 21,386 suicides by gun... and 11,008 homicides.

If you remove the "gang related" homicides (which the average American will never encounter), you're left with even less.


Why is “gang related” in quotes, NoTime? It’s OK, we know you mean “black.”

Plenty of gang-related homicides and other crime is attributable to Latino (and other non-black) gangs.

In Washington D.C. the gang activity is mainly by blacks, but in the suburbs of Montgomery County, MD and in Northern Virginia, there are significant Latino gang problems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md ... a3a5c4d217

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... 786c91f787
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6866
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:56 am

NoTime wrote:
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

Why would you not include suicides in gun death rates? That is a key part of the gun control debate, and as many now agree mental health is something that should be considered when allowing access to or purchase of a gun.

Here is another site for gun death stats:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... -1238134-1

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:04 am

Tugger wrote:
NoTime wrote:
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

Why would you not include suicides in gun death rates?

So as not to confuse the data regarding crime.

Tugger wrote:
That is a key part of the gun control debate, and as many now agree mental health is something that should be considered when allowing access to or purchase of a gun.

Suicide (when not part of a crime) should not be considered a crime and, often, has nothing to do with "mental health".

I have no data to support my contention, but I doubt that many people purchase a gun in order to commit suicide. I would suggest, rather, that a gun might be used simply because it is available (and perhaps has been owned for many years for protection).

Perhaps opioids will tend to replace guns for purpose of suicide. If opioids are self-administered it's probably a lot cheaper than going to a hospice to get them.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:20 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Tugger wrote:
NoTime wrote:
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

Why would you not include suicides in gun death rates?

So as not to confuse the data regarding crime.

Tugger wrote:
That is a key part of the gun control debate, and as many now agree mental health is something that should be considered when allowing access to or purchase of a gun.

Suicide (when not part of a crime) should not be considered a crime and, often, has nothing to do with "mental health".

I have no data to support my contention, but I doubt that many people purchase a gun in order to commit suicide. I would suggest, rather, that a gun might be used simply because it is available (and perhaps has been owned for many years for protection).

Perhaps opioids will tend to replace guns for purpose of suicide. If opioids are self-administered it's probably a lot cheaper than going to a hospice to get them.


Suicide has everything to do with mental health. Suicide is per definition a mental health issue. Overcoming the will to live is a very powerful thing.

Many people commit suicide at a moments notice, if, for what reason the act is interrupted, the suicide can be prevented, a fence, for instance, preventing someone entering a train tack, people have a moment to rethink and many will not proceed. A gun in the home will lower that bar, shooting a bullet into your mouth will most certainly do it in a permanent way. Sure opioids could do it as well, but people whom try to commit suicide don't substitute that easy between methods, shooting yourself is violent, pills isn't so no real substitute.

So in the end, wide available guns will lower the bar for people to commit suicide, so that is something to consider.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:36 am

Dutchy wrote:
Suicide has everything to do with mental health. Suicide is per definition a mental health issue.

So now you have become the word policeman?

I have several dictionaries, including an unabridged, and none of them define suicide with respect to mental health.

Perhaps that is because my dictionaries date from 1975-76.

Definitions created by psychiatrists after our 200th year of independence ought to remain in their specialized lexicon and not clutter up an important reference work used by the American people.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:45 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Suicide has everything to do with mental health. Suicide is per definition a mental health issue.

So now you have become the word policeman?

I have several dictionaries, including an unabridged, and none of them define suicide with respect to mental health.

Perhaps that is because my dictionaries date from 1975-76.

Definitions created by psychiatrists after our 200th year of independence ought to remain in their specialized lexicon and not clutter up an important reference work used by the American people.


This is a subject close to my heart, I will not go into the reason why on this forum. I think about suicide in a mental health kind of way and that is, I think, the key to preventing it. Every life saved is one, every life is special, even though people whom commit suicide think about it differently, at that moment in time.

My advice, listen to people whom have had a serious suicide attempt and miraculously survived, there are some really good Ted talks about this on youtube.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
jetero
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:47 am

stratosphere wrote:
What is sad is this guy was well off made millions from real estate. Certainly had plenty of cash to be a high roller at the casinos. Some would say he had the American dream. I can't think of any reason why this guy would do what he did. Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.


That's the real tragedy. He had a lot of money. So he shouldn't have killed. :sarcastic:

Spoiler alert: I doubt he did.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:46 am

The OP obviously meant well, however IMHO focusing on mental health is not going to solve the problem. Mental health issue has been used as a straw-man/deflector by too many people. It is a unrealistic fantasy that putting more resource to manage mental health issue will make the gun-related mass murder go away. Here is why:

-Mental health disorders/diseases are very prevalent. Prevalence of schizophrenia is estimated at 1%, that means there are approximately 3.2 million suffers in the US. The prevalence of depression is much higher. It is not possible, no matter how much resource a government commits, to identify all or even most of mental health issue sufferers.
-Mental health disorders/diseases are very difficult to diagnose. Even psychiatrists not infrequently get it wrong, especially after only one brief assessment. Unlike a lot of organic diseases, there is no objective, patient-independent marker for mental health disorders/diseases. You can't do a (or 10) blood test to diagnose mental health disorders.
-Mental health disorders/diseases sufferers are often very good at masking their conditions. They are often highly functional individuals that nobody suspects until the very end (Like Paddock). Those who actually seek help are probably less likely to resort to/manifest as extreme measures
-The success of treating mental health disorders/diseases are varied and difficult to determine. At what stage would you think is appropriate for treated mental health disorders/diseases sufferers to be allow to own guns? Andreas Lubitz (of 4U9525) was allowed to return to work by professionals. Had he lived in the US, should someone like him to allowed to own guns?
-Other countries with similar health standard (by inference similar incidence and management of mental health disorders/diseases) do not have anywhere near the same level of gun-related violence as the US. Many countries where much worse mental health disorders/diseases-associated stigma (therefore these conditions are likely to be even more under-diagnosed) exist do not have anywhere near the same level of gun-related violence as the US.

The only way to reduce gun-related mass murder is to take away the capability of murders to kill many people within a short period of time. Another words, the incidence and extent of mass murder is directly dependent on the ease of obtaining weapons and the amount of damage the highest-powered obtainable weapon can do. If a would-be murderer can only get stones, he/she won't kill many people before being subdued. If he/she has access to nuclear weapons, hundreds of thousands of people will die.

There will always be people who will resort to extreme violence. Only a proportion of them declare themselves by committing lesser felony/crimes prior. I don't have words to describe those who think weapons capable of killing hundreds within minutes (or even silencers for heaven's sake) should be available to purchase with minimal restriction (as is the case in the US).
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:20 am

jetero wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
What is sad is this guy was well off made millions from real estate. Certainly had plenty of cash to be a high roller at the casinos. Some would say he had the American dream. I can't think of any reason why this guy would do what he did. Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.


That's the real tragedy. He had a lot of money. So he shouldn't have killed. :sarcastic:

Spoiler alert: I doubt he did.


Read into it a little more. I am saying that you would think he doesn't have the same stresses the rest of us face you know like money issues for one. However, if he gambled it all away than I guess he wouldn't have any money. Who knows with this guy maybe he hated country music and all it's fans or he thought they all were Trump voters. Whatever his motive looks like he planned it out for a while will be interesting to see what they find out about him.
 
KLDC10
Topic Author
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:44 am

Dutchy wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Suicide has everything to do with mental health. Suicide is per definition a mental health issue.

So now you have become the word policeman?

I have several dictionaries, including an unabridged, and none of them define suicide with respect to mental health.

Perhaps that is because my dictionaries date from 1975-76.

Definitions created by psychiatrists after our 200th year of independence ought to remain in their specialized lexicon and not clutter up an important reference work used by the American people.


This is a subject close to my heart, I will not go into the reason why on this forum. I think about suicide in a mental health kind of way and that is, I think, the key to preventing it. Every life saved is one, every life is special, even though people whom commit suicide think about it differently, at that moment in time.

My advice, listen to people whom have had a serious suicide attempt and miraculously survived, there are some really good Ted talks about this on youtube.


I'm going to guess that you two don't get along for some reason?
But in this instance I'm going to agree with Dutchy. Suicide absolutely is a mental health issue - you have to be really, really broken mentally to take your own life. A person does not go out and commit suicide if that person is of sound mind.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146/Q400/737/738/739/752/763/772/A320/A321/A332/A333/E190
 
SaschaYHZ
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:46 pm

stratosphere wrote:
What is sad is this guy was well off made millions from real estate. Certainly had plenty of cash to be a high roller at the casinos. Some would say he had the American dream. I can't think of any reason why this guy would do what he did. Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.

Disclaimer: this is complete conjecture on my part. Perhaps he had a big loss of some kind and it caused him to snap? I'm a regular poker player....and streaks do exist of various lengths. Perhaps he had become so "accustomed to winning" that when some losses finally started piling up something happened?

And I posted this rant to Facebook and has some application here....as to my opinion on the gun control debate: No one has ever said we want to ban guns outright. If you want to compare guns to cars it actually makes a larger case in support of gun control. Yes, cars are dangerous. Which is why there is an incredible amount of strict rules and laws governing the road. And if you screw up enough, you don't get to drive anymore. And yeah, sometimes people who have had their license taken away, still get behind the wheel. Does that mean that law enforcement shouldn't even bother trying to reduce deaths? Of course not.
 
jetero
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:07 pm

stratosphere wrote:
Who knows with this guy maybe he hated country music and all it's fans or he thought they all were Trump voters.


I know you guys went to bed praying for exactly that last night.

stratosphere wrote:
I am saying that you would think he doesn't have the same stresses the rest of us face you know like money issues for one. However, if he gambled it all away than I guess he wouldn't have any money. Whatever his motive looks like he planned it out for a while will be interesting to see what they find out about him.


Oh, it'll be the same old tired story, I'm sure. Crazy, whiny, dissatisfied, angry white man with inflated sense of self from suburbs (or their male offspring). I can say that because I know you love racial stereotypes.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:01 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
So now you have become the word policeman?

I have several dictionaries, including an unabridged, and none of them define suicide with respect to mental health.

Perhaps that is because my dictionaries date from 1975-76.

Definitions created by psychiatrists after our 200th year of independence ought to remain in their specialized lexicon and not clutter up an important reference work used by the American people.


This is a subject close to my heart, I will not go into the reason why on this forum. I think about suicide in a mental health kind of way and that is, I think, the key to preventing it. Every life saved is one, every life is special, even though people whom commit suicide think about it differently, at that moment in time.

My advice, listen to people whom have had a serious suicide attempt and miraculously survived, there are some really good Ted talks about this on youtube.


I'm going to guess that you two don't get along for some reason?
But in this instance I'm going to agree with Dutchy. Suicide absolutely is a mental health issue - you have to be really, really broken mentally to take your own life. A person does not go out and commit suicide if that person is of sound mind.

So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.

Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?

No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6866
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:23 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.

Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?

No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.

Bob, with respect, if you are truly referring to "Death with dignity", allowing people the right to kill themselves for the reason you are noting above as well as terminal/pain issues, then I have to point out that the VAST majority of those people do not use guns and blow their brains out. Yes there have been instances of this along with murder suicide version (husband kills his wife who truly wished to end her life but could not then take his own life).

It would be fine to remove from the statistics any that match up to a "death with dignity". It won't move the needle much though. If you want to debate it more please present some sources where your claim can be supported.

And by the way, yes I have experienced the absolute agony you refer to. The look in my step-fathers bright blue eyes, the brief fleeting moments as he knew he was in a failing body and mind and could do nothing, then could not understand why he could no longer read, or comprehend things. How his mind, the mind of a man that graduated from Brown and MIT (with his Phd), how had lead his church, many organizations, befriended and helped hundreds of people who all showed up for his memorial, was fading away. The outbursts of anger and confusion followed by an apology for the way he was.... the sadness and hopelessness... And now I get to watch it again with my father-in-law, who while happy and content, wishes he would just die. He knows he cannot remember people any more, he has thought his wife was his daughter recently, doesn't know his friends, can't remember what he reads, and is just living without his knowledge anymore. He was an engineer, helped put men in space and make things fly, was deeply interested in and read everything he could on faith and religions. As I said he is a "happy" person, that is his current personality, but in conversations, when he is "all there", he is just ready to end this life.

And while I have not refused to help due it being illegal I have discussed it and have researched plans if it were decided to be what they desired. But it is their wives and them that have to make that decision.

Yes Bob, I know it all to well.

Tugg
Last edited by Tugger on Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
KLDC10
Topic Author
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:29 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.

Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?

No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.


You are conflating suicide and assisted dying (euthanasia). In the latter case, in countries which allow euthanasia, the person choosing to die is thoroughly counselled on their decision, and they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason - they must meet a certain criteria. The process is structured to ensure that the right decision is being made.

When we speak of suicide, we speak of the spontaneous decision to end one's life. This is not a structured process, and it does not necessarily come about as the result of a terminal illness (as would euthanasia). It is a decision taken when a person feels absolutely hopeless - they feel that they are trapped in a situation from which death is the only escape. Perhaps they might plan their suicide, or perhaps they will simply be standing on a subway platform, see an opportunity and make a split-second decision to end it all.

Finally, I didn't say suicide wasn't final. Of course it is final. Death is final.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146/Q400/737/738/739/752/763/772/A320/A321/A332/A333/E190
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:41 pm

KLDC10 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.

Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?

No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.


You are conflating suicide and assisted dying (euthanasia). In the latter case, in countries which allow euthanasia, the person choosing to die is thoroughly counselled on their decision, and they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason - they must meet a certain criteria. The process is structured to ensure that the right decision is being made.

I realize we are not going to change each others minds about this.

But "they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason" and "to ensure that the right decision is being made" tells me all that I need to know from "the other side of the debate".

I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).

I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
KLDC10
Topic Author
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:37 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
I realize we are not going to change each others minds about this.

But "they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason" and "to ensure that the right decision is being made" tells me all that I need to know from "the other side of the debate".

I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).

I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.


Perhaps not, but at least allow me to explain what I meant by that: Say for example a person has been through a hard breakup with a spouse or significant other. An assisted dying clinic would not help them to end their life based on that. Very well, you may say that you have the right to determine how and when to die, but if you are asking another person to help you do that (through a clinic), then it is not unreasonable to expect that they will wish to ensure that the course of action is correct and appropriate.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146/Q400/737/738/739/752/763/772/A320/A321/A332/A333/E190
 
apodino
Posts: 3151
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:41 pm

The reason this is so difficult an issue to solve IMO is a lot of people feel their safety is at risk and they want to feel safe. The problem is half the country feels much safer when they are armed and thus trying to disarm them has them really upset. The other half of the country feels unsafe because other people can be armed. These are both somewhat rational positions and trying to find a middle ground between the two is very difficult without affecting someone else. Right Wing talk radio this morning was blabbing that gun control is code for we are coming to take your guns, and that has a lot of people in right leaning states freaking out. The NRA has an effect on congressmen no question, but I know too many people who have nothing to do with the NRA that are thinking as these listeners, many of them women, fear for their safety if they have to go unarmed.

On the other side though, because arming people occasionally leads to the wrong people getting weapons, we see tragedies like Las Vegas, and the mass shooting in Tennessee last week that no one talked about. People in left leaning cities fear that people trying to take up arms is going to lead to more and more instances of the above. Yet, because of the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted, we have a huge conflict on an issue when both sides may actually be right.

The bigger issue here though is we are a divided nation on a lot more than this. Politicians, the Media, and activists on both sides have created so much conflict and hatred for each other, that it only breeds this kind of conflict. The reason politicians cant solve these problems is because they themselves partly create the problems. I think this is by design so that they can convince people that they will fix the problems and get elected. Yet they never do. But yet there is no money to be made if there was no conflict, we all got along, and there would be nothing for people to run on. Until that mindset changes, nothing will happen.
 
330west
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:33 pm

Always fly first class, otherwise your heirs will.
 
NoTime
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:21 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:22 am

Tugger wrote:
NoTime wrote:
This is somewhat misleading. This includes suicides... and while those are certainly tragic, they're not the same thing as homicides.

Why would you not include suicides in gun death rates? That is a key part of the gun control debate, and as many now agree mental health is something that should be considered when allowing access to or purchase of a gun.

Here is another site for gun death stats:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... -1238134-1

Tugg


Well, you can include them... but when these stats inevitably come out, after a mass shooting, many people see those numbers and assume that those are ALL murders. When, in fact, only about a third of them are murders... and a large portion of those murders are actually gang related and pose no real danger to the majority of the people in this country.

I mean, the gist of the numbers is "look at how violent the USA is..." But the majority of those deaths are people committing violence on themselves, not other people. And, while that's certainly a bad thing, I think it's important to distinguish between self-inflicted and otherwise.
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:37 am

Gun argument aside, all I know is this is NOT the answer: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-s-future

Airports, theme parks, and stadiums aside, I am NOT going to allow hotels/resorts to check my bags, make me go through a metal detector etc. I do not support Nazi Germany tactics just to make the public "feel" safe.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:26 am

KLDC10 wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
Why can't licenses be required to purchase a gun? At the very least it shows that the person has trained and shown to be adept at handling weaponry.


I think this one goes back to the 2nd Amendment. Lots of people have an objection to the government "taking a right and selling you it back". Personally, I don't think you should need a license to have a gun in your own home or use it at a range/on private property, but if you're going to be wandering the streets with it, then some kind of training would be good.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Why can't a database be instituted so that any sales that raise eyebrows are tracked? It's one thing if Joe Average goes to his local gun shop and buys ammunition or decides to purchase a new gun; it's another when bad hombre Joe Average hits up different stores and buys different weapons of different types in a short time span.


The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups are vigorously opposed to anything resembling a gun registry. I don't think it would get off the ground. In fact, the chances of any laws to restrict gun ownership passing Congress are slim. That's why I think the focus needs to be on mental health and preventing individuals from getting anywhere near the point that they go out, buy a gun and start shooting people at random.


Canada tried to implement a long gun registry. Very few Canadians complied, and the whole project was scrapped. I would expect even less compliance with a gun registry in the US.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:33 am

BobPatterson wrote:
KLDC10 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
So you consign a lot of people who have a terminal illness to mental health practitioners rather than just letting them make a sane and logical decision to leave this vale of tears with as little pain as possible.

Have you watched a loved one go through the absolute agony of knowing, in their lucid moments, that they were losing their mind? And have you gone through the agony of having to refuse their request to help them end it all because your assistance in suicide would be illegal?

No one can tell me that suicide is "absolutely" anything other than final.


You are conflating suicide and assisted dying (euthanasia). In the latter case, in countries which allow euthanasia, the person choosing to die is thoroughly counselled on their decision, and they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason - they must meet a certain criteria. The process is structured to ensure that the right decision is being made.

I realize we are not going to change each others minds about this.

But "they aren't permitted to end their lives for any old reason" and "to ensure that the right decision is being made" tells me all that I need to know from "the other side of the debate".

I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).

I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.


I indeed think there is a misunderstanding. I am not talking about euthanasia. In the end I do believe that self-determination is important and almost absolute. Euthanasia should be allowed everywhere and should be practiced in a human matter, with drugs - and a doctor - and your loved ones around you. But that should come at the end of a process where it is determined that the person absolutely doesn't want to live anymore and there is nothing that can be done do reverse the person's mind, either with better care - more pain medicine or more social interaction or whatever the reason might be.
I was talking about suicide, that is an irrational impulsive act. That is a mental illness. If you raise the bar a bit, many people will not do it and hopefully, will seek the help they needed so they can better their lives. People whom contemplate suicide are in a very dark place, a place without light. So someone should bring them a bit of light.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
WIederling
Posts: 4057
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:39 am

stratosphere wrote:
Just goes to show you how much evil really does live among us.


This is the view from "those that can do no wrong".
( Larry Niven in "Ringworld" on puppeteers: The majority is always sane.
even with proof to the contrary.)

You'll find that these persons invariably think that they are surrounded by evil.
( valid assumption. (?) )
And that there is no meaningful differentiation between groups.
( probably wrong.)
result: indiscriminate "extermination" of perceived evil.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:40 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
KLDC10 wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
Why can't licenses be required to purchase a gun? At the very least it shows that the person has trained and shown to be adept at handling weaponry.


I think this one goes back to the 2nd Amendment. Lots of people have an objection to the government "taking a right and selling you it back". Personally, I don't think you should need a license to have a gun in your own home or use it at a range/on private property, but if you're going to be wandering the streets with it, then some kind of training would be good.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Why can't a database be instituted so that any sales that raise eyebrows are tracked? It's one thing if Joe Average goes to his local gun shop and buys ammunition or decides to purchase a new gun; it's another when bad hombre Joe Average hits up different stores and buys different weapons of different types in a short time span.


The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups are vigorously opposed to anything resembling a gun registry. I don't think it would get off the ground. In fact, the chances of any laws to restrict gun ownership passing Congress are slim. That's why I think the focus needs to be on mental health and preventing individuals from getting anywhere near the point that they go out, buy a gun and start shooting people at random.


Canada tried to implement a long gun registry. Very few Canadians complied, and the whole project was scrapped. I would expect even less compliance with a gun registry in the US.


Don't know how things are organized in other countries. In the Netherlands, you need to have a permit (prove you can handle one with care and prove you haven't got a mental illness, prove you aren't a criminal) and you have to be either a hunter or a member of a shooting club. You can keep your gun in your home, but there are strict rules which you must comply to. You need to keep your gun in a safe, bullets separate. The police will visit you onces in a while to physically check if you comply to those rules. And because it is kind of a social thing, people in the shooting club or other hunters will keep an eye on you. It works - for the most part - for the legal guns in the Netherlands. A few years ago there was a mass shooting with legal guns, so the whole thing was reevaluated.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:37 pm

Dutchy wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
KLDC10 wrote:

I think this one goes back to the 2nd Amendment. Lots of people have an objection to the government "taking a right and selling you it back". Personally, I don't think you should need a license to have a gun in your own home or use it at a range/on private property, but if you're going to be wandering the streets with it, then some kind of training would be good.



The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups are vigorously opposed to anything resembling a gun registry. I don't think it would get off the ground. In fact, the chances of any laws to restrict gun ownership passing Congress are slim. That's why I think the focus needs to be on mental health and preventing individuals from getting anywhere near the point that they go out, buy a gun and start shooting people at random.


Canada tried to implement a long gun registry. Very few Canadians complied, and the whole project was scrapped. I would expect even less compliance with a gun registry in the US.


Don't know how things are organized in other countries. In the Netherlands, you need to have a permit (prove you can handle one with care and prove you haven't got a mental illness, prove you aren't a criminal) and you have to be either a hunter or a member of a shooting club. You can keep your gun in your home, but there are strict rules which you must comply to. You need to keep your gun in a safe, bullets separate. The police will visit you onces in a while to physically check if you comply to those rules. And because it is kind of a social thing, people in the shooting club or other hunters will keep an eye on you. It works - for the most part - for the legal guns in the Netherlands. A few years ago there was a mass shooting with legal guns, so the whole thing was reevaluated.


Lots of people in the US and Canada don't want the government to have a list of guns that people own already much less a list of firearms people buy now from licened dealers.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:32 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Lots of people in the US and Canada don't want the government to have a list of guns that people own already much less a list of firearms people buy now from licened dealers.


I understand and thankfully we trust our government a bit more so these weapons can be a bit controlled.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12919
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:32 pm

The LV mass terror shooter had been buying a number of non-hunting guns over the last year or so. As he bought them 1 at a time, the USA's ATF didn't know he was amassing an arsenal as current rules only mean attention to the ATF if a person buys 3 guns at once from a licensed dealer. To me there should be change in law/regulations if some individual buys 3 or more guns in a set period of time like 3 months, that could cause a hold on any further sales from that person for a period of months. Not only could this possibly curb the creation of arsenals by individuals or small groups but also 'straw buying' where guns are legally purchased for private and unregulated resale - usually to criminals. Of course the NRA and other 2nd Amendment absolutists won't even allow such a small but possibly effective change.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:41 pm

You may wonder if Congress unwillingness to act is a dark hidden ploy for population control - yes sounds complete nonsense but many will continue to consider this....

We should enjoy everyday as if it were our last - knowing we're all going to a better place. :angel:

For no one really knows when their time in this life will be up...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/ecclesiastes/9-12.html
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9193
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:44 pm

3% of Americans own 50% of the guns.

A majority of Americans actually don't own one and don't live in a household with one.

Strange that nothing can be done.

Instead of showing the love affair of some US citizens for guns, I think it shows the corruption of US democracy, you can simply buy it.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2890
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:01 pm

Dutchy wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:

I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).

I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.


I indeed think there is a misunderstanding. I am not talking about euthanasia. In the end I do believe that self-determination is important and almost absolute. Euthanasia should be allowed everywhere and should be practiced in a human matter, with drugs - and a doctor - and your loved ones around you. But that should come at the end of a process where it is determined that the person absolutely doesn't want to live anymore and there is nothing that can be done do reverse the person's mind, either with better care - more pain medicine or more social interaction or whatever the reason might be.
I was talking about suicide, that is an irrational impulsive act. That is a mental illness. If you raise the bar a bit, many people will not do it and hopefully, will seek the help they needed so they can better their lives. People whom contemplate suicide are in a very dark place, a place without light. So someone should bring them a bit of light.

Dutchy, I think I understand your position and respect it.

I agree, that terminal illness and other, near end-of-life, situations are one thing, and that "suicide" (in most other cases) is another matter altogether.

My wife and I have living wills and they are supposedly on file with the hospital that would most likely treat us in dire situations. Our kids have copies and know of our wishes regarding "heroic efforts" to keep us alive - no feeding tubes, life support systems, no colostomy operations. etc.

Living Wills : http://www.alllaw.com/articles/wills_an ... ticle7.asp

All we want are meds to ease our passing. We do not need hoops to jump through or counselors to help us change our minds.

Suicide by otherwise (physically) healthy persons is quite another matter, and counseling should be available to them.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:36 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:

I hold that no one has the right to tell me that I do not have the right to determine how and when to die (if I choose to end my life, especially in the case of terminal illness).

I do acknowledge that a hospice has the right to require me to follow their rules if I request their services.


I indeed think there is a misunderstanding. I am not talking about euthanasia. In the end I do believe that self-determination is important and almost absolute. Euthanasia should be allowed everywhere and should be practiced in a human matter, with drugs - and a doctor - and your loved ones around you. But that should come at the end of a process where it is determined that the person absolutely doesn't want to live anymore and there is nothing that can be done do reverse the person's mind, either with better care - more pain medicine or more social interaction or whatever the reason might be.
I was talking about suicide, that is an irrational impulsive act. That is a mental illness. If you raise the bar a bit, many people will not do it and hopefully, will seek the help they needed so they can better their lives. People whom contemplate suicide are in a very dark place, a place without light. So someone should bring them a bit of light.

Dutchy, I think I understand your position and respect it.

I agree, that terminal illness and other, near end-of-life, situations are one thing, and that "suicide" (in most other cases) is another matter altogether.

My wife and I have living wills and they are supposedly on file with the hospital that would most likely treat us in dire situations. Our kids have copies and know of our wishes regarding "heroic efforts" to keep us alive - no feeding tubes, life support systems, no colostomy operations. etc.

Living Wills : http://www.alllaw.com/articles/wills_an ... ticle7.asp

All we want are meds to ease our passing. We do not need hoops to jump through or counselors to help us change our minds.

Suicide by otherwise (physically) healthy persons is quite another matter, and counseling should be available to them.


So we are essentially in agreement.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
wingman
Posts: 3207
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:01 pm

Aesma wrote:
3% of Americans own 50% of the guns.

A majority of Americans actually don't own one and don't live in a household with one.

Strange that nothing can be done.

Instead of showing the love affair of some US citizens for guns, I think it shows the corruption of US democracy, you can simply buy it.


Even the russkies can buy it now. Kudos to the Chinese in this regard, at least they purchase actual bonds. The russkies just buy ads and unleash their bots on the unthinking sheep amongst us. Bigly sad.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:02 pm

Aesma wrote:
3% of Americans own 50% of the guns.

A majority of Americans actually don't own one and don't live in a household with one.

Strange that nothing can be done.

Instead of showing the love affair of some US citizens for guns, I think it shows the corruption of US democracy, you can simply buy it.


The ownership of guns is not geographically homogeneous.

The United States is a republic made up of 50 states, not a democracy. It takes much more than just getting a plurality of voters to create or change laws at the federal level. It isn't corruption that prevents enacting much stronger gun regulations. The US Constitution has lots of checks and balances.

Lots of gun owners are highly suspicious of any regulation that would create a federal database of gun owners. Such databases ultimately lead to confiscation of weapons in both NAZI Germany and Australia. In the case of NAZI Germany the registration laws were actually enacted by the Weimar Republic. Later the NAZI's used those lists to confiscate weapons. The excuse they gave was that it was for public safety.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Preventing Mass Shootings

Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:21 am

ltbewr wrote:
The LV mass terror shooter had been buying a number of non-hunting guns over the last year or so. As he bought them 1 at a time, the USA's ATF didn't know he was amassing an arsenal as current rules only mean attention to the ATF if a person buys 3 guns at once from a licensed dealer. To me there should be change in law/regulations if some individual buys 3 or more guns in a set period of time like 3 months, that could cause a hold on any further sales from that person for a period of months. Not only could this possibly curb the creation of arsenals by individuals or small groups but also 'straw buying' where guns are legally purchased for private and unregulated resale - usually to criminals. Of course the NRA and other 2nd Amendment absolutists won't even allow such a small but possibly effective change.



Why? What does buying 3 guns in 3 months signify? I've bought 3 in 3 weeks, probably time to add on to safe space, since my 70 gun safe is mostly full. Should I be a criminal, simply for owning guns?
From my cold, dead hands

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1337Delta764, NoTime, seb146 and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos