Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,523
    It would be less unacceptable than killing 58. Neither, of course, is acceptable - but the fewer murder victims, the better.

    Also if you had a revolver you wouldn't be able to kill six people in a crowd unless you nailed them to a wall first. To kill those 58 people, the Las Vegas shooter had to fire 1100. That means he had to fire 19 times to kill one person, on average. Assuming the revolver owner was as accurate, he wouldn't kill anyone with his six rounds.

    And THAT is definitely more acceptable.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    mentally ill and children using large calibre revolvers would prevent many deaths.
    they are slow to re-load and without training cant be used to fire rapidly like a computer button.
    they are also hard for children to aim and do not have the distance of a rifle which can kill a mother & her baby in a pram after being fired through a house and down the street over several blocks.

    but guns in american are not about protecting life.
    they are about grabbing at power.
    they are also about profit.
    they are manipulated 'as a cult member(psychiatric patiens in groups) trophy symbolism'(you see most of the mass shooters collect guns & brandish them like a phelic symbolism of self empowerment)(has nothing to do with sport or antique collection)

    why is no one asking what terrible state the US society is in that it needs to be armed all the time.

    in reality the USA is a terribly violent & terribly Corrupt country country.
    if it wasnt all its citizens would not need to carry weapons
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,600
    Perhaps one murder is one too many. The problem is people will kill regardless of the tools available, whether that be a gun, explosive or a U Haul truck.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    extremely filtered public poll with gerrymandered choices.
    screaming at someone to choose left or right and then calling it a poll about the publics moral and ethical desires is a bit of a stretch of reality.


    elections would be better defined as exit polls of politico macinations of industrialist mens clubs
     
  8. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,600
    They can be. I was quite happy to see the police officer had a gun when a stranger had entered my house. I felt pretty silly holding a nightstand lamp after my wife came and got me.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,186
    That's a false equivalence.

    No wanton killing of innocents is acceptable. Minimizing the numbers of dead and maimed is acceptable (preferable). Is that not why we have seat-belts in cars?

    We are talking about regulation not banning of all weapons.

    A medical CNA giving home health care has to have a background check. The irony is stunning.
     
  10. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,600
    You want to ban semi-automatic weapons. Also, there would be no need for seat belts if we just banned cars.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,186
    Oh, that's another false equivalence. No-one is arguing for banning guns. Just "well regulation" as we have with cars. Can't drive a car without a license, no? Moreover, owning a car requires accident insurance, even as you are competent to drive a car.

    Comparing transportation vehicles with semi-automatic weapons of war is silly, IMO.
     
  12. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,600
    There are background checks in place already. What do you propose we do further. Also, do you know anyone who drives without auto insurance, who doesn't bother to register their car? The criminal doesn't care about the law.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  13. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Straw man purchases are the main way felons get guns. They just send someone who can pass the background check to make the purchase.
    Universal background checks would not stop these, because universal background checks rely on honest citizens abiding by the law. Criminals do not follow laws.
    Or can you not imagine how one person could sell a gun without anyone else knowing?
    The whole point of a straw man purchase is that the buyer transfers the gun without checking their background.
    No, he didn't. The federal law keeping those "adjudicated as a mental defective" or have been committed from receiving a gun was not affected by Trump getting rid of that Obama policy.
    In the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a false accusation has made its way back into the media: President Trump made it easier for the mentally ill to get guns.

    This claim is absolutely false. President Trump simply reversed an Obama-era policy that stripped the Second Amendment rights from Social Security recipients without due process.
    http://thehill.com/opinion/374769-pavlich-the-claim-trump-let-the-mentally-ill-get-guns-is-a-lie
    And it had nothing to do with court. Look it up.
    That's either a lie or ignorance.
    Record Retention Time
    Dealer’s Acquisition and Disposition Record 20 Years*
    Firearms Transaction Record, Form 4473 – Transfers 20 Years*
    Firearms Transaction Record, Form 4473 – Background Check without Transfer 5 Years
    Multiple Handgun Sales Report, Form 3310.4 5 Years
    FFL Theft/Loss Report 5 Years​
    https://rocketffl.com/long-ffls-need-keep-records/
     
    sculptor likes this.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,393
    Still not reading the posts, apparently. Can't help you if you won't read.
    They won't kill by the dozens regardless of tools.
    There are other cultures in which people run amok - such as the one we got the word "amok" from - but the casualty count is lower.
    More than we have, obviously. At least, 4/5 of us do for sure, and probably a lot of the rest if they had a better idea of what we have.
    That would be much hampered by universal background checks with no loopholes.
    Hampering criminals reduces crime - in this case, gun crime. And this one would pick up a few head cases, flag people suddenly accumulating arsenals, flag straw buyers, etc. - all to the good.

    And of course there are several other majority approved gun controls on the table - that's just one of the more famous.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
  15. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,600
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,393
    Can't mass murder a school full of kids like that. Can't pick your targets easily. Hard to even kill your estranged wife and kids and yourself, let alone five dozen people at a concert.

    Check the high count casualties from the non-jihadists in your link - five, eight - even one dozen is difficult, with such an inefficient method. Killers would have been better advised to park the cars and get out with an Uzi.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
  17. Bowser Right Here, Right Now Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,600
    Yet it still happens.

    I think it better to examine the underlying cause rather than the tools of the crime. People act as though removing a gun will prevent the problem, but it won't.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,821
    Yes, there are!

    Of the 143 guns wielded by killers in mass shootings, more than three quarters were obtained legally, including dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines, according to Mother Jones.
    [Source]

    A majority were mentally troubled—and many displayed signs of mental health problems before setting out to kill.
    [Source]​

    How's the background checks, you have in "place already", working out so far?

    In the case of Cruz, police had been called to speak to him over what? 25+ times? Several calls to the FBI due to the threats, his behaviour and the fact that those around him considered him to be a danger. He was still able to purchase his firearms legally.

    So yeah.. Those background checks.. How's that working out so far?
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,393
    So? More rare, fewer deaths, is an improvement.
    People should not be naive and silly and expect perfection. No people should regard perfection as a necessary feature of sound governance.
    And meanwhile make sure the worst of the tools of the crime are not so easily obtained, so the crime is less common and less disastrous. We know that's something we can do to help, while we're waiting on the results of the next fifty years of examination of the underlying cause(s). Since this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    Because the citizen of the USA has the right , legally , to defend them selves from the government , armed .

    That to me is what is missing here , the understanding of why a USA citizen can be armed with a gun .
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,186
    Yes, but the gun can be traced to the original purchaser. That's where you have a start in investigation.

    A long time ago I already suggested that the manufacturer should be required to fire every gun made and keep a bullet and serial number of the gun on file That way bullets and guns can be traced back to the original purchaser of the gun.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    Good idea , not perfect of course , but , good idea
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,186
    That is the danger of a semi-automatic weapons, an angry child that can pull a trigger could potentially kill 50 people, without needing to worry about reloading or aiming.
     

Share This Page