Another school shooting? Really?

[Fragged]

My only input into this discussion is I think guns should be treated like cars. Classes before, test, register (already in place) and renewal. I am sure owners wouldn't be fond of this but it might cut back on some of this. But then again, most of these are guns taken from parents anyway so what difference would it make?

[Fragged]

I feel like I spun controversy with this thread, my apologies.

[Blackice]

[Lexinverts]

I feel like I spun controversy with this thread, my apologies.

 

Sometimes bad things happen and it seems appropriate to start talking about one of our sacred cows, even on a fish forum.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Lexinverts

[Fragged]

[reefbandit]

Guns shouldn't be regulated at all. A criminal will get there hands on guns by whatever means necessary no amount of regulatory means will prevent them from getting guns. The increased paperwork, checks, and fees only harm the average law abiding citizen. All these things infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. Guns dont kill people. People kill people whether it be with guns, rocks , spears, clubs or whatever else anything can be a weapon. Maybe one day that will click with certain people.

[Fragged]

Guns shouldn't be regulated at all. A criminal will get there hands on guns by whatever means necessary no amount of regulatory means will prevent them from getting guns. The increased paperwork, checks, and fees only harm the average law abiding citizen. All these things infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. Guns dont kill people. People kill people whether it be with guns, rocks , spears, clubs or whatever else anything can be a weapon. Maybe one day that will click with certain people.

Unlikely though. The number of school shootings is only rising

[kriz2fer]

Unlikely though. The number of school shootings is only rising

The guns in these shootings were purchased LEGALLY. Nothing you wrote would have stopped this shooting. If you took the gun from your parents and shot the school or stole it from a friend, someone bought it legally. The only way to stop these shootings is to take all the guns away. Thats why nothing gets done in congress, none of the background checks will stop a situation like this.

Edited October 3, 2015 by kriz2fer

[Fragged]

Guess we just get used to it I guess. School shall forever be known as deadly from now on.

[reefbandit]

Wow its a simple fix good ol liberals must not be able to wrap their minds around it. Arm and train the teachers in schools just like in israel that will at least make some of these people think twice knowing they will encounter resistance. Also it should be known the shooter in this situation had connections to Isis and other orginazations. There will always be incidents like this but lets look at all the facts here not just ones that push the lefts agenda. A criminal is a criminal they will do what they want a "gun free zone" wont do anything what so ever its a complete joke.

[PowderBlue]

Safest person in a gun free Zone is someone with a gun.

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[BoringDave]

The thing with trying to take all the guns would be impossible.

 

Today at work I was talking with some very good friends/coworkers. (I work for one of the largest nurseries in the pacific NW) so of course all of them are from Mexico. They told me horrible stories of what the government and criminals get away with because the people are not allowed to have guns. They were telling me the police are so crooked and the government covers up so many of the mass shooting that other countries never even here of them. They don't have problem with individuals shooting up places but the government or government hired narcos doing it.

 

Am I wrong or isn't this why we have the second amendment?

 

Lex

 

With the Australian buy back, to me it don't seem to pencil out. They bought back 643.000 firearms for $230 million. So that works out to be like $357. Ea?if they spent every penny on firearms and not labor to process them. That may work for some but what if you have a gun with a fair market value of say 3k wich is not very uncommon. I have several friends with 3 to 5k into each AR and own several. Would you expect them to take that great of a loss? That would be like me telling you I'll give you $357 for your reef aquarium.. You would tell me to pound sand! Further more they taxed the same people to raise the money to buy the guns from the people that didn't even want to sell them. I find it that when the government taxes and they have the money need the tax never stops

[Mandinga]

Australians never had a constitutional right to own guns. But yes, they do have great corals.

 

The information is just so clouded by politics on the left and the right. These days, one can easily find any number of studies that will support one view or another.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Mandinga

[g2theram]

As a law abiding citizen I'm not too worried what happens with gun control either way I will always find a way to get a new shinny gun. It might just mean that I have to use my trust to buy the common one with an additional tax stamp, but either way I will get them. Feel free to impose any gun control you want I don't not believe it will get the result that people think it will. With that said I am opposed to the gun control argument just for the sake of preventing mass shootings.

 

These shootings are a mental health problem that we still don't understand. We as a society want to fix the result not the cause. That reactive approach will never get us ahead.

 

As an analogy use someone driving a car, they have proven to get into multiple wrecks. The cause is bad driving skills the result is broken bumpers. Fixing the mental health issue would be like teaching them to drive better resulting in less car wrecks. Asking for gun control would be the equivalent to installing a steal bumper. The driver is still going to get into wrecks with the car but now the damage will show up elsewhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fisher15]

I am not sure what is the correct solution if there is one, but if regulation is the answer, we need to find somebody to enforce the regulations.  As it is now in this country, if you disagree with a law or regulation just ignore it.  Our governments have gotten so bloated and incompetent, that they don't do much in the way of enforcement.  Look at our tax laws, or our immigration laws.  Some of these ideas are pretty good until you realize that a government agency will be in charge.

 

"Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data."

 

There are a lot more guns than cars, so cars are the most dangerous of the two.  How is that regulation working?????

[Ninjabeaver]

Knee jerk legislation will not fix this. Fixing mental health in this country will help. Training and arming teachers will help. When I say training I mean real training, high stress shoot houses, active shooter stuff. Not just a PowerPoint presentation. People treating each other with dignity and respect will help. Parents actually parenting will help.

 

Guns are tools, very effective ones, and people need the right training to respect that. There are plenty of people that shouldn't have guns or want nothing to do with them and that's ok too.

 

There are sheep, sheepdogs and wolves in this world. Not everyone is cut out to be a sheepdog. The wolves are out there, I see them everyday at work, the worst society has to offer.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[g2theram]

"Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data."

This is another one of those stats that is looked at wrong. Of the 32,251 gun deaths a majority of those deaths are suicide I don't have the source but you can google it and see that it's about 20K-25K.

This is a less violent version of a similar mental health problem.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dlp6899]

I have been in law enforcement for 20 years. I have heard these debates over and over again. People who are for gun control have good intentions and want to fix the problem. Gun control seems to be the easiest fix since you can just make a law to ban or control them. Politicians use gun control to make them look good (The whole look at me I am fixing the problem). Unfortunately gun control has nothing to do with fixing the problem.

 

There is no one solution to this problem. All of these shootings are driven by religious fanatics who hate Americans or people with mental health issues or a combo of both. The UCC shooter had obvious mental health issues. These people will commit these crimes with whatever tool they can find (Gun, knives, bombs etc..) Another problem is our criminal justice system that sucks. People are not held accountable for their actions in this country. People are not scared to commit crimes in this country because they know nothing major will happen. If you look at some of the countries that have low crime rates I'm sure you will find a really good criminal justice system to go with it.

 

 

Anyway I could go on for hours but to fix the problem we have to attack all of the problems as a whole in our society. This will take time and there will not be a quick fix like everyone wants. Hopefully the next President will want to work on all of these problems as a whole.

[PowderBlue]

This is another one of those stats that is looked at wrong. Of the 32,251 gun deaths a majority of those deaths are suicide I don't have the source but you can google it and see that it's about 20K-25K.

This is a less violent version of a similar mental health problem.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In 2009 the suicide by gun rate was nearly 60 percent of all gun related deaths, homicide was 36 percent. I'm sure the numbers have changed a bit in time but I'm sure it's not a huge separation in those numbers.

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Lexinverts]

I am not sure what is the correct solution if there is one, but if regulation is the answer, we need to find somebody to enforce the regulations.  As it is now in this country, if you disagree with a law or regulation just ignore it.  Our governments have gotten so bloated and incompetent, that they don't do much in the way of enforcement.  Look at our tax laws, or our immigration laws.  Some of these ideas are pretty good until you realize that a government agency will be in charge.

 

"Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data."

 

There are a lot more guns than cars, so cars are the most dangerous of the two.  How is that regulation working?????

 

Cars are very dangerous. That is why we have drivers training, licensing, seat belt laws, car maker safety regulations, drinking and driving regulation, speed limits, and it goes on an on. Do these things always prevent death? Of course not. Will criminals always avoid driving drunk or speeding in a school zone? Does that mean that they are not worth enforcing or having at all? Of course not.

 

Because of the NRA, guns are MUCH less regulated than cars. That just doesn't make sense, and it is only true in the USA.

[Lexinverts]

As a law abiding citizen I'm not too worried what happens with gun control either way I will always find a way to get a new shinny gun. It might just mean that I have to use my trust to buy the common one with an additional tax stamp, but either way I will get them. Feel free to impose any gun control you want I don't not believe it will get the result that people think it will. With that said I am opposed to the gun control argument just for the sake of preventing mass shootings.

 

These shootings are a mental health problem that we still don't understand. We as a society want to fix the result not the cause. That reactive approach will never get us ahead.

 

As an analogy use someone driving a car, they have proven to get into multiple wrecks. The cause is bad driving skills the result is broken bumpers. Fixing the mental health issue would be like teaching them to drive better resulting in less car wrecks. Asking for gun control would be the equivalent to installing a steal bumper. The driver is still going to get into wrecks with the car but now the damage will show up elsewhere.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is why we need to act on mental health AND guns.

[Lexinverts]

In 2009 the suicide by gun rate was nearly 60 percent of all gun related deaths, homicide was 36 percent. I'm sure the numbers have changed a bit in time but I'm sure it's not a huge separation in those numbers.

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

 

Yup, that is another risk factor to having a gun in your house. Statistically, you are more likely to take your own life than you are to defend yourself against an armed intruder. I support the right of people to have a gun in their house, but that is statistically just the way it is.

 

This doesn't change the fact that the homicide rate is 20x great in the USA than in England and Japan, 5x greater than in Australia, etc... Suicides are not lumped into homicide numbers.

[PowderBlue]

You stated in your pm that mental health wasn't a cause, when I stated to look at the statistics on how many of these people were on anti depressants or mind altering pharmaceuticals. Now you're saying it is a problem? You go back and forth a lot with your arguments here man. Just like you said you won't carry a gun because you don't want to end up shooting someone in a road rage incident. YOU seem to be much more likely to act out in an unsafe, brash manner than anyone else in this thread.

You're correct they are not lumped into the homicide numbers they are still lumped into GUN deaths. They seperate the numbers now to show that suicides hold about 50 percent of the gun related deaths not homicides. What part of that did you not understand?

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

[Lexinverts]

The thing with trying to take all the guns would be impossible.

 

Today at work I was talking with some very good friends/coworkers. (I work for one of the largest nurseries in the pacific NW) so of course all of them are from Mexico. They told me horrible stories of what the government and criminals get away with because the people are not allowed to have guns. They were telling me the police are so crooked and the government covers up so many of the mass shooting that other countries never even here of them. They don't have problem with individuals shooting up places but the government or government hired narcos doing it.

 

Am I wrong or isn't this why we have the second amendment?

 

Lex

 

With the Australian buy back, to me it don't seem to pencil out. They bought back 643.000 firearms for $230 million. So that works out to be like $357. Ea?if they spent every penny on firearms and not labor to process them. That may work for some but what if you have a gun with a fair market value of say 3k wich is not very uncommon. I have several friends with 3 to 5k into each AR and own several. Would you expect them to take that great of a loss? That would be like me telling you I'll give you $357 for your reef aquarium.. You would tell me to pound sand! Further more they taxed the same people to raise the money to buy the guns from the people that didn't even want to sell them. I find it that when the government taxes and they have the money need the tax never stops

 

Hello Dave:

 

It is not really a fair comparison to compare the US to a developing country like Mexico. The overall crime rate and law enforcement, and quality of institutions is at a completely different level than it is here. Comparing the US and any third world country with regards to guns is comparing apples and oranges. That is why the rigorous studies out of Harvard always compare the US to other comparably developed countries like Australia and Western Europe. As an example, in Mexico a law that makes having a certain type of weapon illegal is not effective because anyone can pay a bribe to an official and get whatever they want. Does that make sense?

 

Regarding the Australian gun buyback, I'm not sure of exactly how they implemented it so that they had such a high rate of participation, but it did end up getting lots of assault weapons out of their society. I'm not sure how it would work if it were to happen here. It would be expensive, that is for sure. I do know that LA often has gun buybacks that get a lot of guns back. A recent one had an RPG turned in!

 

Along those lines, I am of the strong opinion that gun rights do not extend to ANY kind of weapon.

If I wanted to have a bazooka or an RPG, that would be illegal, and rightly so. I also don't think that we need the right to own an AR-15 (which is only made for killing lots of people very quickly), because it is more than you need for personal protection, hunting, etc... If it is constitutional for people to be prevented from having bazookas, it is also constitutional to draw the line at AR-15s with high capacity magazines. This doesn't mean that all weapons will be eventually banned----since we already have SOME limits.

 

I also support universal background checks nationwide for all gun sales. This would also be complicated and expensive, but worth it in my opinion. Because it wouldn't involve taking anyone's guns any from them, it would also be much more politically do-able (this is relative, of course because the NRA makes everything impossible).

[Lexinverts]

You stated in your pm that mental health wasn't a cause, when I stated to look at the statistics on how many of these people were on anti depressants or mind altering pharmaceuticals. Now you're saying it is a problem? You go back and forth a lot with your arguments here man. Just like you said you won't carry a gun because you don't want to end up shooting someone in a road rage incident. YOU seem to be much more likely to act out in an unsafe, brash manner than anyone else in this thread.

You're correct they are not lumped into the homicide numbers they are still lumped into GUN deaths. They seperate the numbers now to show that suicides hold about 50 percent of the gun related deaths not homicides. What part of that did you not understand?

 

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

 

PowderBlue, I stated that antidepressent use was not the root cause. You suggested that antidepressent CAUSED people to become murderers.

 

People being being mentally ill does make them more likely to grab a gun and shoot people. To reduce this risk we need to improve mental health care AND make it less easy for them to get their hands on guns.

 

Improving mental health care does not mean not using antidepressents, which are an effective treatment for many mental health problems. Does this make sense now?

 

Untreated mental health problems --> more likely to do something irrational

Mental health problems + antidepressents ---> Many people are well treated and less likely to be irrational. Some people still might not be effectively treated and still might do something irrational. That doesn't mean the antidepressants caused the irrational behavior.

 

We need to improve mental health so that everyone is treated in some way who needs to be. We also need to be better at identifying people with untreatable issues and keep them from getting guns. Does that help?

 

Regarding the suicide numbers, I do understand. What I am saying is that homicide numbers when we compare the US to other countries do not include suicides. You can't explain the difference in "gun deaths" between the US and other countries with suicides. Does that make sense?