Today's mass shooting in the US

[Vonhelmet]

Doesn't sound like the system was working - there were all sorts of reasons that in pretty much any other country would have precluded him from being able to own a gun and should have meant he couldn't buy a gun - but he was able to purchase them anyhow due to a mixture of poor organisation and omitting details.

I'm being flippant. The point is he wasn't supposed to have the guns, so it's ok that he killed people with them because he was already off the map. You don't need any more laws. You can just say that someone didn't obey the existing laws at some point. Everything is fine, ignore it, look the other way, wait for the next one.

 

[D.P.]

Correlation is not causation. If there's a correlation between the chance of owning a gun and the chance of being shot and killed there are at least two possible explanations:

1) Owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and killed for some reason.
2) People who are more likely to be shot and killed for any reason are more likely to own a gun because they are aware of the increased risk and thus more likely to want an effective weapon.

What makes you think the correct explanation for the correlation (assuming it exists) is (1) rather than (2) or some other explanation? The explanation for most correlations is coincidence, so there's another possible explanation.

You are most liekly to be shot with your own gun, and most liekly to be shot either by yourself or family or close friends.
The typical cases, beyond suicide, are drunken spouse/cousin shooting over an our-of-hand argument, or you children playing with your gun.

The correlation has causal reasons.

 

[Mr Badger]

I suggest checking what type of guns are actually owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Cyprus

Sounds like you can own a shotgun and that is about it. But I'm sure some Americans won't let that inconvenient difference get in the way.

It is possible to demonstrate to concerned Americans that there's nothing wrong with sensibly restricting gun ownership to shotguns. Here's one suitable for squirrel hunting:

 

[Angilion]

Ban semi-autos/machine guns and keep hand guns legal but require stronger background checks on them.

This will still ensure compliance with the 2nd amendment whilst keeping mass shooting death tolls lower.

Guns do save lives in a lot of situations though... home invasions etc... It only logically makes sense to ban semi/automatics.

That wouldn't ensure compliance with the 2nd amendment, which states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Even with the most restrictive definition of "bear arms", any control on any weapons that can be carried and used by a person isn't really compliant with "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". With a looser definition of "bear arms", anything counts. When we talked about "the armed forces", we don't include only handguns and rifles as "arms". A nuclear bomb is an arm and owning one that can be used is bearing it.

So what people are really talking about regarding any weapons control in the USA is whether or not they approve of it and whether or not they can devise an interpretation of the 2nd amendment to match up with their own position or just say it does often enough for enough people to believe it. The 2nd amendment is more of a tool than a rule.

 

[Minstadave]

Don’t worry everyone, Trump says it’s not about guns it’s about mental health.

It must be that nowhere else has mental health problems, that explains why mass shootings are so prevalent in the US, not the guns.

In fact guns saved the day.....

 

[Angilion]

The commandment given on the mountain doesn't refer to clerics, though it may do elsewhere in the Pentateuch, I'm not about to look. I've always understood it's more like "murder" than just "kill".

Yes. It prohibits killing without permission from the authorities approved by the text and those authorities were of course the clerics for that text.

 

[Rroff]

Don’t worry everyone, Trump says it’s not about guns it’s about mental health.

It must be that nowhere else has mental health problems, that explains why mass shootings are so prevalent in the US, not the guns.

In fact guns saved the day.....

Mental health is one area that the US hasn't traditionally done well on - though the last 5 years have seen massive advances in recognition and huge strides in changing attitudes and treatment, etc. it is another area where there is a lot of contention between it and their 2nd amendment rights - but its demonstrable that in other countries it has a big impact on reducing firearms related incidents.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

has anyone said "it's not the guns it's the people" yet?

Noted ** Steady on ** Donald Trump did exactly this.

He's the President of the United States.

 

[Rroff]

Ban semi-autos/machine guns and keep hand guns legal but require stronger background checks on them.

This will still ensure compliance with the 2nd amendment whilst keeping mass shooting death tolls lower.

Guns do save lives in a lot of situations though... home invasions etc... It only logically makes sense to ban semi/automatics.

There is very little reason for most people to own a handgun unless they believe there is a direct threat to their life i.e. some law enforcement, etc.

Likewise pretty much no reason to own a machinegun or other high rate of fire automatic weapon - the laws (with a little less restriction in certain areas) in that respect in this country would still satisfy the original intentions of the 2nd amendment in that you can own semi-automatic in small calibres and bolt action/straight pull for full rifle calibres.

 

[teaboy5]

More whining about guns on here. When will you learn our opinion in the UK has no affect on the states.

I am very much pro gun and just love going hunting or just general range shooting. Do you ever think of that? Just look at that video above! I would love to own that in the UK! I am just glad I live in a part of the UK that still allows you to own a handgun and keep it at home.

In the states there is a massive issue with the correct storage of weapons and who they are sold too. If they can fix that it would be far far better.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
So what people are really talking about regarding any weapons control in the USA is whether or not they approve of it and whether or not they can devise an interpretation of the 2nd amendment to match up with their own position or just say it does often enough for enough people to believe it. The 2nd amendment is more of a tool than a rule.

To show one example of many:

[..] Likewise pretty much no reason to own a machinegun or other high rate of fire automatic weapon - the laws (with a little less restriction in certain areas) in that respect in this country would still satisfy the original intentions of the 2nd amendment in that you can own semi-automatic in small calibres and bolt action/straight pull for full rifle calibres.

The original intentions of the 2nd amendment aren't known. The people who wrote and passed the 2nd amendment didn't write their intentions down clearly and their intentions weren't necessarily all the same and the text itself doesn't make the intentions at all clear because it's quite badly written in terms of clarity. The relationship between the first and second parts of the sentence isn't clear. The relevance of the first part of the sentence, if any, isn't clear. What "bear arms" was intended to mean isn't clear. For example, there's absolutely no doubt that the people who wrote and passed that law were aware of the fact that guns had already become much more efficient by their time and were continuing to become more efficient in their time. So why presume they definitely meant for further improvements in efficiency to be excluded from the law they'd written and passed? That's not in the text of the law and there's no reason to think they intended it to be.

 

[hornetstinger]

There is very little reason for most people to own a handgun unless they believe there is a direct threat to their life i.e. some law enforcement, etc.

Do you play darts?

Shooting a gun and playing darts is exactly the same thing.

 

[Sankari]

So he wasn't legally permitted to own the guns found on him - wasn't expecting that.

Texas' gun laws are abysmally weak. There's no background check, so all he had to do was lie on his declaration form and say he didn't have any felonies on record. Then he was free to walk out with the gun.

 

[Rroff]

Texas' gun laws are abysmally weak. There's no background check, so all he had to do was lie on his declaration form and say he didn't have any felonies on record. Then he was free to walk out with the gun.

According to reports a background check was carried out in this case but it didn't flag up any of his military (negative) citations and he omitted to mention any of those factors on the form.

 

[Sankari]

That was never a value of Christianity. Christianity is absolutely fine with killing.

Not true. The earliest Christians refused to fight even in self defence, and likewise refused to serve in the military. They maintained these principles for several centuries, until Constantine the Great came to power and converted to Christianity, at which point Christian involvement in the military became acceptable.

The objection in that commandment (which is more Jewish than Christian, but that's a grey area and not directly relevant to this point) isn't to killing.

It's contained in the Law of Moses, which is 100% Jewish and 0% Christian. This is not a grey area. Christians inherited the prohibition through the Jewish roots of their faith.

It's to killing without permission from the clerics.

No. The objection is to murder, which is why modern translations correctly render the verse 'You shall not murder.' There is no reference to clerical permission.

 

[Rroff]

Do you play darts?

Shooting a gun and playing darts is exactly the same thing.

Your point?

The original intentions of the 2nd amendment aren't known. The people who wrote and passed the 2nd amendment didn't write their intentions down clearly and their intentions weren't necessarily all the same and the text itself doesn't make the intentions at all clear because it's quite badly written in terms of clarity. The relationship between the first and second parts of the sentence isn't clear. The relevance of the first part of the sentence, if any, isn't clear. What "bear arms" was intended to mean isn't clear. For example, there's absolutely no doubt that the people who wrote and passed that law were aware of the fact that guns had already become much more efficient by their time and were continuing to become more efficient in their time. So why presume they definitely meant for further improvements in efficiency to be excluded from the law they'd written and passed? That's not in the text of the law and there's no reason to think they intended it to be.

There were two issues that appear to be (fairly firmly established) the motivation behind it however - the lacking military capabilities at the time combined with fears about "tyranny".

 

[Sankari]

According to reports a background check was carried out in this case but it didn't flag up any of his military (negative) citations and he omitted to mention any of those factors on the form.

Well, that proves my point even more effectively. Inadequate background checks, and the ability to lie on your declaration. Recipe for disaster.

 

[hornetstinger]

Your point?

You throw a dart to hit the dartboard to get points.
You shoot a paper target to get better accuracy. Or you shoot a arrow to get better accuracy.

In fact, crocket, bowling, tennis, pool, snooker, basketball, football is the same concept. You fire something at something to get better accuarcy

 

[Rroff]

I have no idea what you've read into my post but I don't see the connection to what I said.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Do you play darts?

Shooting a gun and playing darts is exactly the same thing.

How many people are killed with darts?