Gun Raffle Insensitive?

[AudriTwo]

Everyone has different views on "cheating" when it comes to different skills. Use what you're accustomed and most proficient with. But, be realistic when it comes to a shot. Most people forget that. They put their rifle, bow, etc away after they're done with the season and won't touch it until maybe the day before they leave to go hunt the following year.

doesn't everyone have targets in their back yard?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Do you agree that they're the same gun if you add a bump stock and 100 round clip to the AR? Both aftermarket modifications.

The modifications people do to make them more lethal is the problem, and those products should not be available to the general public without a more thorough background check, like you have when you apply for a federal firearms permit.

They can be. Look up a Ruger 10/22 and all the modifications that can be done to that. The 10/22 has almost as many options as an AR platform. Yet, it is not as "modular" as the AR in its stock form.

For the record, I don't agree with bump stocks, or modifications to make firearms fully legal. Including Glock pistols. But, many people do it illegally. Again, how do you stop those who willfully disregards laws?

But, I have to ask. Would you please define "more lethal". How do you classify that?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

doesn't everyone have targets in their back yard?

I set mine up in the garage, living room, etc.

 

[AudriTwo]

But, I have to ask. Would you please define "more lethal". How do you classify that?

double dead?

 

[fandango]

First off, there is no way that each person could have "killed hundreds" in the London Bridge attack unless they had that many rounds, a lot of time and people were packed on the bridge like sardines.

The attack started on the actual bridge when the drove their van up onto the sidewalk but the main damage was just off the end of the bridge. That area of London Bridge is very densely populated on a Saturday night, which is when the attack took place, there are thousands of people walking around and going to all the bars and restaurants in the area. The terrorists also went into some of the bars and restaurants and being peak time on a Saturday night the people were all squashed in there like sardines. Of course it assumes they were carrying enough rounds but if they were they could easily have killed hundreds of people in the time between the attack starting and the police arriving if they all had guns instead of knives.

No one in your family, or even city has a firearm. Now, you have terrorists whom have come in from another country and brought illegal firearms with them. What do you do?

As we have seen already the terrorists aren't able to get any guns so their potential for harm is much more limited but to play along in your scenario I personally would do nothing and there is nothing I would be able to do unless he got close enough and I somehow managed to fight him off before he got his shot off.

You also have to weigh up the probabilities of situations occurring. A terrorist bringing guns into the country is a lot less likely than a scenario where everyone who wants firearms has them and then some guy goes crazy and on a shooting spree. As we see in America this happens way more often and costs way more lives than invading terrorists.

 

[dilligaf0]

But, I have to ask. Would you please define "more lethal". How do you classify that?

The capability to rapidly injure and/or kill a large number of people in a very short time.

How do you control criminals whom have no intent of legally purchasing firearms, and get them from elsewhere? Who then take them across state/country borders?

They can also bring in what they need to make bombs, so should it be legal everyone to own explosives?

As I've said before, instead of trying to stop all killings at once, let's try stopping one. If that works, then expand that to try to stop two, and so on.

"If we can't stop them all, we shouldn't try to stop any" is not a reasonable argument.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

The attack started on the actual bridge when the drove their van up onto the sidewalk but the main damage was just off the end of the bridge. That area of London Bridge is very densely populated on a Saturday night, which is when the attack took place, there are thousands of people walking around and going to all the bars and restaurants in the area. The terrorists also went into some of the bars and restaurants and being peak time on a Saturday night the people were all squashed in there like sardines. Of course it assumes they were carrying enough rounds but if they were they could easily have killed hundreds of people in the time between the attack starting and the police arriving if they all had guns instead of knives.

Have you carried "hundreds of rounds"? Or, even a box of rounds? It's not light, and to carry that many rounds, you're not going to move very easily. Even the Las Vegas shooter had multiple firearms, and plenty of time to start shooting, yet couldn't kill "hundreds of people" as you so easily put it.

As we have seen already the terrorists aren't able to get any guns so their potential for harm is much more limited but to play along in your scenario I personally would do nothing and there is nothing I would be able to do unless he got close enough and I somehow managed to fight him off before he got his shot off.

You also have to weigh up the probabilities of situations occurring. A terrorist bringing guns into the country is a lot less likely than a scenario where everyone who wants firearms has them and then some guy goes crazy and on a shooting spree. As we see in America this happens way more often and costs way more lives than invading terrorists.

They aren't able to get any guns? There's plenty of ways to get guns into a region that bans them. Shipping containers, boats, etc for the islands. In the US, it's different in that it cn be smuggled across the border via land as well.

As to comparisons, how many terror attacks have occurred in the UK? How many in Europe entirely? How many mass shootings in the US?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

The capability to rapidly injure and/or kill a large number of people in a very short time.

Okay, so what modifications? Only bumpstocks, or full auto modifiations? Or, something else?

They can also bring in what they need to make bombs, so should it be legal everyone to own explosives?

As I've said before, instead of trying to stop all killings at once, let's try stopping one. If that works, then expand that to try to stop two, and so on.

"If we can't stop them all, we shouldn't try to stop any" is not a reasonable argument.

You're completely misinterpreting my questions. I'm not saying that because we can't stop illegal actions, we should just ignore them. What I AM asking is HOW? You propose "Let's stop one". Okay, how? Let's say it is from someone who acquired a firearm illegally. How will gun control laws have prevented when said person obviously ignores the law in the first place.

 

[Bocefish]

What ethical hunter is hunting with an AR-15?

I'm not sure what you are asking.

Why do you think hunting with an AR is unethical?

 

[dilligaf0]

Okay, so what modifications? Only bumpstocks, or full auto modifiations? Or, something else?



You're completely misinterpreting my questions. I'm not saying that because we can't stop illegal actions, we should just ignore them. What I AM asking is HOW? You propose "Let's stop one". Okay, how? Let's say it is from someone who acquired a firearm illegally. How will gun control laws have prevented when said person obviously ignores the law in the first place.

Bump stocks, trigger cranks, or any mechanical modifications to make guns 'fully" automatic, as well as high capacity ammunition clips.

As in the Texas massacre, there was information that wasn't put into the background check database. That error allowed him to purchase guns he should never have had.
Yes, people will always get guns illegally if they want to.
Can we fucking TRY to enforce the laws that do exist?
Maybe save one life.
Maybe even a child's life.

Every time there's a mass casualty event, each side runs to their respective corners and starts yelling stupid shit at each other. Meanwhile, those in the middle are trying to live as best they can. They bury their dead and try to survive until there's more to bury. Nothing gets solved because nobody really wants to try.

 

[fandango]

Have you carried "hundreds of rounds"? Or, even a box of rounds? It's not light, and to carry that many rounds, you're not going to move very easily. Even the Las Vegas shooter had multiple firearms, and plenty of time to start shooting, yet couldn't kill "hundreds of people" as you so easily put it.

You're nitpicking on tiny details instead of the broader point, but fine. What is the maximum number of rounds a person can reasonably carry? Then lets say the terrorists were each carrying 75% of that number. Would you accept that with the 3 of them combined they would likely have been able to kill far more than 8 people by just firing into a crowd of people trapped in a bar? If so then it is surely a good thing that the terrorists were unable to get guns and only had knives available to use.

They aren't able to get any guns? There's plenty of ways to get guns into a region that bans them. Shipping containers, boats, etc for the islands. In the US, it's different in that it cn be smuggled across the border via land as well.

If there are plenty of methods then why didn't they use them? Smuggling things is hard, you need to be well organised and or well funded to do it. Just because it is possible for it to still occur doesn't mean we should just give up trying and make it as easy as going to a local store.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Bump stocks, trigger cranks, or any mechanical modifications to make guns 'fully" automatic, as well as high capacity ammunition clips.

We're in general agreement here, as I've stated in previous posts that I don't think bump stocks and mechanical modifications to the fire controls to make them full auto should be legal. BTW, it is magazines, not clips. I agree that 100 round magazines are stupid and not practical.

As in the Texas massacre, there was information that wasn't put into the background check database. That error allowed him to purchase guns he should never have had.
Yes, people will always get guns illegally if they want to.
Can we fucking TRY to enforce the laws that do exist?
Maybe save one life.
Maybe even a child's life.

This is a data entry issue. Whether human error, or intentional, and should be investigated further. Pending the results of it, someone should be held accountable for it.

Every time there's a mass casualty event, each side runs to their respective corners and starts yelling stupid shit at each other. Meanwhile, those in the middle are trying to live as best they can. They bury their dead and try to survive until there's more to bury. Nothing gets solved because nobody really wants to try.

Some will move to extremes, and demand knee-jerk emotionally charged over-regulation of things. Others will become extremely defensive about their Constitutional rights stripped away. Many of us are wanting to be more rational about the approach to this. These things take time to resolve, and cannot be immediately resolved in many issues.
Like you, I believe that we should enforce the laws we already have. Unlike you, I think we have too many laws which lead to confusion as well as missed steps in enforcing them.

We do need to work to resolve the violence, not going to argue about it. I don't think anyone really is arguing that there isn't a problem. The issue is that we have to figure out what the root of the cause is, and correct that while preserving the rights of citizens.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

You're nitpicking on tiny details instead of the broader point, but fine. What is the maximum number of rounds a person can reasonably carry? Then lets say the terrorists were each carrying 75% of that number. Would you accept that with the 3 of them combined they would likely have been able to kill far more than 8 people by just firing into a crowd of people trapped in a bar? If so then it is surely a good thing that the terrorists were unable to get guns and only had knives available to use.

I'm bringing these things up because you're using exaggerations. As I mentioned before, the Las Vegas shooter had a lot of time and plenty of ammunition and firearms to continue to his shooting spree. While the casualties were very tragic, it was nowhere near what you are claiming as "hundreds of people shot" per shooter.
The reason for this is that when people see someone shot, they run for cover as part of the "fight or flight" human reaction. A stationary target is relatively easy to hit. Moving targets are much harder to hit, especially at long distances. Therefore, as people scramble, and move about, they become harder to hit. Unless you're an extremely proficient shooter, you're going to miss much more than hit as the ground clears.
Close up shooters, in groups of people will most likely only get small amounts of shots off before people flee and try to get out of the way. Again, far fewer than the "hundreds" you're referring to. Most of these shootings the person cannot carry enough ammunition to have more than a few minutes of erratic shooting.

If there are plenty of methods then why didn't they use them? Smuggling things is hard, you need to be well organised and or well funded to do it. Just because it is possible for it to still occur doesn't mean we should just give up trying and make it as easy as going to a local store.

How do you know they aren't arent attempting to smuggle them in? They won't stop, and they will keep attempting to find ways to do it. Even small numbers of smuggled firearms is a success in their mind. Once they find a way, they'll continue until it is discovered and stopped. Where did I say that we should "just give up trying and make it as easy as going to a local store"?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Do you agree that they're the same gun if you add a bump stock and 100 round clip to the AR? Both aftermarket modifications.

The modifications people do to make them more lethal is the problem, and those products should not be available to the general public without a more thorough background check, like you have when you apply for a federal firearms permit.

Well, there you're getting into several other discussions.

First, let me say I am for background checks, but checks on the person, not the guns or anything that can be bought for them. Personally I think a single background check per year should be it. That person should be given a card that then allows them to go buy whatever is legally on the market, and as many times as they wish. When the year is up, if they wish to purchase another firearm, they have to go get another background check. A background check for every single gun purchase isn't really a background check on a person, it becomes a registry of gun sales. Which I don't agree with.

To do a check for every single gun purchase achieves nothing more than additional waste of time and money. In the same vein, a check on a larger magazine, or a bump stock is the same waste of time. The person has already passed, or not, the background check. Nothing more is going to show up simply because they want to buy an accessory. Honestly I'm not even sure how it would be physically possible to do a more thorough background check than is already required. Currently it's a simple phone call to the NICS and they search all the databases that would exclude a person from purchasing a firearm. 1.3 million people have been denied already.

Bump stocks. This is an interesting subject. Just being technical for a bit here on definition. Bump stocks don't make guns fully automatic. People here keep using that phrase wrong because they hear it on the media, where they really don't have a clue what they are talking about. Rifles with bump stocks are still semi-automatic. That being defined as one trigger pull produces one fired bullet. To be fully automatic means pressing a trigger and more than one bullet can be fired repeatedly. Nothing the Las Vegas shooter did involved fully automatic weapons in any way as far as I know. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

But then it does get a bit more complicated than that. To most people, bump stocks seem like an accelerated rate of fire, because they are use to simple bolt action or similar hunting rifles, things of that nature. But they aren't really, nor are they more lethal.

Look at the rate of fire produced by them. Bump stocks usually make the rate of fire between 400-800 rounds per minute (rpm). The Las Vegas shooter was calculated at firing 90 rounds in 10 second spans, or 540 rpm, according to one report I read. Let's compare and contrast using that as a base value.

That can be beat by finger pulls, no mechanical aid needed. Anyone can fire by finger pull alone, faster than a bump stock. This man is an example, he's been referenced on the forum before, but I'll point to him once again. Jerry Miculek. In this video alone he can be seen firing a single pistol at 545 rpm. Then using two hands to fire a single pistol he goes to 609 rpm. Using two pistols, one in each hand, he's firing at 822 rpm. Any of these methods are faster than the Las Vegas shooters rate of fire.
Just to stress that last one: Finger trigger pulls can fire 282 rounds a minute faster than that bump stock managed in Vegas.

For one more look from a different guy, look at the last few seconds of this video for a shot timer for iPhones. You'll notice the first shot is at 2.84 seconds on that iPhone timer, the last at 5.92 seconds. 18 rounds fired in 3.08 seconds. That's a rate of fire of 350.6 rounds per minutes. It's entirely possible for anyone with practice to achieve close, or above, bump stock rate of fire without any modifications.

Bump stocks really aren't an advance on what can be done without them. So, yeah, they're still the same gun, the same lethality. Modification or not, a determined person will find a way.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Bump stocks. This is an interesting subject. Just being technical for a bit here on definition. Bump stocks don't make guns fully automatic. People here keep using that phrase wrong because they hear it on the media, where they really don't have a clue what they are talking about. Rifles with bump stocks are still semi-automatic. That being defined as one trigger pull produces one fired bullet. To be fully automatic means pressing a trigger and more than one bullet can be fired repeatedly. Nothing the Las Vegas shooter did involved fully automatic weapons in any way as far as I know. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

But then it does get a bit more complicated than that. To most people, bump stocks seem like an accelerated rate of fire, because they are use to simple bolt action or similar hunting rifles, things of that nature. But they aren't really, nor are they more lethal.

Look at the rate of fire produced by them. Bump stocks usually make the rate of fire between 400-800 rounds per minute (rpm). The Las Vegas shooter was calculated at firing 90 rounds in 10 second spans, or 540 rpm, according to one report I read. Let's compare and contrast using that as a base value.

That can be beat by finger pulls, no mechanical aid needed. Anyone can fire by finger pull alone, faster than a bump stock. This man is an example, he's been referenced on the forum before, but I'll point to him once again. Jerry Miculek. In this video alone he can be seen firing a single pistol at 545 rpm. Then using two hands to fire a single pistol he goes to 609 rpm. Using two pistols, one in each hand, he's firing at 822 rpm. Any of these methods are faster than the Las Vegas shooters rate of fire.
Just to stress that last one: Finger trigger pulls can fire 282 rounds a minute faster than that bump stock managed in Vegas.

For one more look from a different guy, look at the last few seconds of this video for a shot timer for iPhones. You'll notice the first shot is at 2.84 seconds on that iPhone timer, the last at 5.92 seconds. 18 rounds fired in 3.08 seconds. That's a rate of fire of 350.6 rounds per minutes. It's entirely possible for anyone with practice to achieve close, or above, bump stock rate of fire without any modifications.

Bump stocks really aren't an advance on what can be done without them. So, yeah, they're still the same gun, the same lethality. Modification or not, a determined person will find a way.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[dilligaf0]

Well, there you're getting into several other discussions.

First, let me say I am for background checks, but checks on the person, not the guns or anything that can be bought for them. Personally I think a single background check per year should be it. That person should be given a card that then allows them to go buy whatever is legally on the market, and as many times as they wish. When the year is up, if they wish to purchase another firearm, they have to go get another background check. A background check for every single gun purchase isn't really a background check on a person, it becomes a registry of gun sales. Which I don't agree with.

To do a check for every single gun purchase achieves nothing more than additional waste of time and money. In the same vein, a check on a larger magazine, or a bump stock is the same waste of time. The person has already passed, or not, the background check. Nothing more is going to show up simply because they want to buy an accessory. Honestly I'm not even sure how it would be physically possible to do a more thorough background check than is already required. Currently it's a simple phone call to the NICS and they search all the databases that would exclude a person from purchasing a firearm. 1.3 million people have been denied already.

Bump stocks. This is an interesting subject. Just being technical for a bit here on definition. Bump stocks don't make guns fully automatic. People here keep using that phrase wrong because they hear it on the media, where they really don't have a clue what they are talking about. Rifles with bump stocks are still semi-automatic. That being defined as one trigger pull produces one fired bullet. To be fully automatic means pressing a trigger and more than one bullet can be fired repeatedly. Nothing the Las Vegas shooter did involved fully automatic weapons in any way as far as I know. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

But then it does get a bit more complicated than that. To most people, bump stocks seem like an accelerated rate of fire, because they are use to simple bolt action or similar hunting rifles, things of that nature. But they aren't really, nor are they more lethal.

Look at the rate of fire produced by them. Bump stocks usually make the rate of fire between 400-800 rounds per minute (rpm). The Las Vegas shooter was calculated at firing 90 rounds in 10 second spans, or 540 rpm, according to one report I read. Let's compare and contrast using that as a base value.

That can be beat by finger pulls, no mechanical aid needed. Anyone can fire by finger pull alone, faster than a bump stock. This man is an example, he's been referenced on the forum before, but I'll point to him once again. Jerry Miculek. In this video alone he can be seen firing a single pistol at 545 rpm. Then using two hands to fire a single pistol he goes to 609 rpm. Using two pistols, one in each hand, he's firing at 822 rpm. Any of these methods are faster than the Las Vegas shooters rate of fire.
Just to stress that last one: Finger trigger pulls can fire 282 rounds a minute faster than that bump stock managed in Vegas.

For one more look from a different guy, look at the last few seconds of this video for a shot timer for iPhones. You'll notice the first shot is at 2.84 seconds on that iPhone timer, the last at 5.92 seconds. 18 rounds fired in 3.08 seconds. That's a rate of fire of 350.6 rounds per minutes. It's entirely possible for anyone with practice to achieve close, or above, bump stock rate of fire without any modifications.

Bump stocks really aren't an advance on what can be done without them. So, yeah, they're still the same gun, the same lethality. Modification or not, a determined person will find a way.

Didn't you just argue the reasons these bump stocks shouldn't be available?
It sounds like they're useless, so why bother?

 

[JoleneBrody]

I'm bringing these things up because you're using exaggerations. As I mentioned before, the Las Vegas shooter had a lot of time and plenty of ammunition and firearms to continue to his shooting spree. While the casualties were very tragic, it was nowhere near what you are claiming as "hundreds of people shot" per shooter.

I just wanted to point out that hundreds of people WERE shot, just not killed. 58 dead AND almost 500 wounded.

 

[JickyJuly]

For those of you who don't think further gun control would help or who think this is a human issue instead of a gun issue, do you support trying to solve the human issue? Do you have any ideas? It seems like politicians especially are quick to say mental health is the problem, but they stop there. Wouldn't it make sense for the politicians who feel that they need to protect the 2nd amendment rights of their constituents to explore other causes that could be mitigated? I mean, these mass killing murders do tend to share things in common. Why aren't other avenues to curbing this problem explored especially by people who don't see guns as a part of the problem?

 

[Gen]

Personally I think a single background check per year should be it. That person should be given a card that then allows them to go buy whatever is legally on the market, and as many times as they wish.

Would it get updated somehow if the person is arrested for a violent crime, or deemed a threat to society?

 

[JoleneBrody]

For those of you who don't think further gun control would help or who think this is a human issue instead of a gun issue, do you support trying to solve the human issue? Do you have any ideas? It seems like politicians especially are quick to say mental health is the problem, but they stop there. Wouldn't it make sense for the politicians who feel that they need to protect the 2nd amendment rights of their constituents to explore other causes that could be mitigated? I mean, these mass killing murders do tend to share things in common. Why aren't other avenues to curbing this problem explored especially by people who don't see guns as a part of the problem?

This has been burning a whole in my brain. Why is it that those arguing so strongly against stricter gun laws, because it's a mental health issue, aren't fighting for a better mental health care system? I don't see any of them rallying for mental health.
If they honestly believe it why aren't they trying to do anything about it and in many cases, such as the current health care debate, fighting to make it even harder to access for many.

The reality is that it's so much bigger than guns, or mental health, it's cultural and it's human. You can never completely or even mostly fix the cause but it shouldn't stop you from trying to lessen the after effects. We need better gun laws and we need better mental health care, and if we do those things the numbers of dead will go down. not to zero, but just as stricter traffic laws have lowered the number of fatalities substantially... lives will be saved.

If you think the absolutely slippery ease of purchasing weapons legally in this country isn't at least a large part of the problem you are intentionally ignoring basic reason. I was talking with my mom about this the other day. She is a moderate conservative and she kept saying "laws only stop the law abiding. what's to stop people from buying them illegally and on the black market?" So I asked her "ok, where is the black market? Do you know how to buy guns on the black market?" and she laughed and said "touche".

The unique thing about the U.S is that our mass shootings are rarely terrorism. They are rarely related to religious or political movements like most other nations, are are mostly just one "normal" guy with a shit ton of issues. The average "normal" citizen doesn't know how to buy black market firearms.

 

[JickyJuly]

I think if we're setting aside gun control as an option, then the problems to attack relating to mass shootings become way more long term. A high majority of these mass shooters are men. (Even with how obvious that is, it's hard for me to type out because I know some of the dudes here will shut down and become defensive instead of adding what insight they could to the conversation. I hope that you all can let me acknowledge that fact and know that I respect and love men as a whole and as humans.) Of these men, very few are actually diagnosed with mental illness and most have some instance of domestic violence in their background. The fact that most don't have a diagnosed illness is most likely due to never seeing a mental health professional. The problem then becomes, how do we get men to reach out for mental health help? How do we tackle the problem of domestic violence before it overflows the house and comes into our streets? America is failing in healthcare and education, and our system doesn't treat domestic violence with gravity. It's hard to expect there to be enough "good guys with guns" running around the streets when that is not what is cultivated in our country.

 

[Honey Moon]

Even the Las Vegas shooter had multiple firearms, and plenty of time to start shooting, yet couldn't kill "hundreds of people" as you so easily put it.

He still EASILY wounded 489. 58 dead. That's 547 total people assaulted.

NOBODY should even be able to hurt that many people in a short amount of time, regardless of if they die or not.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I just wanted to point out that hundreds of people WERE shot, just not killed. 58 dead AND almost 500 wounded.

The articles I have read state that it is very difficult to get the exact count of gunshot wounds. It was a crowd of about 20,000 people. When panic struck, many people were stampeded which caused issues beyond gunshot wounds. They also stated that many scratches, bruises, etc. make it difficult to determine the exact nature.

I'm not discounting that the injury rate is high. What I was discounting is the claims of "killing hundreds".

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Would it get updated somehow if the person is arrested for a violent crime, or deemed a threat to society?

The difficult part is that not all computer systems associated with legal jurisdictions are linked due to incompatible software, outdated, etc. However, these are generally updated whenever "issues" or "incidents" come up. The databases do keep track of a person's history, so long as it is entered correctly.

 

[dilligaf0]

The unique thing about the U.S is that our mass shootings are rarely terrorism. They are rarely related to religious or political movements like most other nations, are are mostly just one "normal" guy with a shit ton of issues. The average "normal" citizen doesn't know how to buy black market firearms.

There are also those massacres that start because some people think the way to resolve differences is by violence.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

For those of you who don't think further gun control would help or who think this is a human issue instead of a gun issue, do you support trying to solve the human issue? Do you have any ideas? It seems like politicians especially are quick to say mental health is the problem, but they stop there. Wouldn't it make sense for the politicians who feel that they need to protect the 2nd amendment rights of their constituents to explore other causes that could be mitigated? I mean, these mass killing murders do tend to share things in common. Why aren't other avenues to curbing this problem explored especially by people who don't see guns as a part of the problem?

If you've paid attention, I've been saying for a while in multiple posts that we have enough gun laws and adding more really won't solve the problems. It is a social issue which needs to be addressed. Everything from lack of parenting skills, what's acceptable on TV and in society desensitizing people, bullying, etc. all lead to many issues we have going on.
Some may not agree with it. But, due to the lack of interpersonal (face to face) communication, it's led to more people getting offended by taking things literally. Which then leads to pent-up rage and frustration, in an already complex world, and someone snaps. Potentially leading to assaults, fights, or as we've been discussing shooting someone
I would honestly like to see these issues tackled. But, I am also afraid of some classifications that may incorrectly be put on people that will be with them for life. For example, how many feel sad due to breaking up with someone that you really liked? If you happen to say "I'm feeling down, a little depressed because my SO dumped me." All many will remember is "I'm feeling depressed" and that could become a permanent entry in your medical record, to which you will always be questioned about.
So, the question becomes, how do we address all these issues without infringing on people's rights and ensuring they aren't subject to wrongful labeling/classification/diagnosis?

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I think if we're setting aside gun control as an option, then the problems to attack relating to mass shootings become way more long term. A high majority of these mass shooters are men. (Even with how obvious that is, it's hard for me to type out because I know some of the dudes here will shut down and become defensive instead of adding what insight they could to the conversation. I hope that you all can let me acknowledge that fact and know that I respect and love men as a whole and as humans.) Of these men, very few are actually diagnosed with mental illness and most have some instance of domestic violence in their background. The fact that most don't have a diagnosed illness is most likely due to never seeing a mental health professional. The problem then becomes, how do we get men to reach out for mental health help? How do we tackle the problem of domestic violence before it overflows the house and comes into our streets? America is failing in healthcare and education, and our system doesn't treat domestic violence with gravity. It's hard to expect there to be enough "good guys with guns" running around the streets when that is not what is cultivated in our country.

For the record, many states have laws where if you have any kind of domestic violence on your record, your life as a gun owner becomes extremely difficult and you may very well lose your right to own them. Furthermore, those whom are convicted will most likely need to see a counselor to address anger issues.

Part of the problem is that far more people would rather be "the bad ass" than the "good guy". It's more lucrative to promote bad behaviour than it is to promote good. This isn't always the case. But, many times it is. People want exciting, and they typically don't associate that with "the good guy".

 

[Gen]

The difficult part is that not all computer systems associated with legal jurisdictions are linked due to incompatible software, outdated, etc. However, these are generally updated whenever "issues" or "incidents" come up. The databases do keep track of a person's history, so long as it is entered correctly.

I meant in his hypothetical where you get a card that’s active for a year, that lets you buy as many guns as you want. Would it get deactivated if you were arrested?

 

[JoleneBrody]

The articles I have read state that it is very difficult to get the exact count of gunshot wounds. It was a crowd of about 20,000 people. When panic struck, many people were stampeded which caused issues beyond gunshot wounds. They also stated that many scratches, bruises, etc. make it difficult to determine the exact nature.

I'm not discounting that the injury rate is high. What I was discounting is the claims of "killing hundreds".

I see that now, you only stated "shot" in the post I quoted but I missed your previous point specifying of killing.

And you are correct. with such a high number of wounded and rapid fire, I don't doubt it's still in the hundreds but the exact number of shot vs. injured another way during the mess I'm not sure.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I meant in his hypothetical where you get a card that’s active for a year, that lets you buy as many guns as you want. Would it get deactivated if you were arrested?

Depends on the reason for the arrest. Arrested for an unpaid parking/speeding ticket? No. Arrested and charged for a violent crime? Yes. Especially if they were released from jail pending court dates.