If not now, when? If not us, then who?

jag1993 wrote: You outlaw rape and murder and they still happen. Prohibiting the act does not remove the act from existing.

It certainly drastically reduces it.

I appreciate that the US has a long history with the being able to bare arms and all that but, as someone that comes from a country that used to have guns and has now banned them, the solution seems pretty simple to me, just ban assault weapons (and IMO handguns too). I realise that is a very controversial opinion to express to certain US citizens. But that's the solution.

People have spoken in other threads about now not being the time because people are too 'emotional'. I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but this tragedy evoked very little emotional response from me. I should clarify that statement, of course this is a massive tragedy, and my heart goes out to all that have been involved/effected by this, but barely a week (and in some cases a day) goes by where I'm not hearing about an individual or a group of people that have been shot and/or killed in the US. From the perspective of an outsider looking in, this is what I've come to expect from America (all be it that this is on a larger scale).

And as for what is and is not effective policy, I can assure you that a blanket ban on guns IS an effective policy. We used to be relatively relaxed on gun control in the UK (I use that term loosely as we were always stricter than in the US in the fact that 'assault weapons' have never been legal to my knowledge), then in 1996 we had the Dunblane School Massacre and the direct result of that was an outright ban of all hand guns and tighter regulations on sporting rifles and shotguns.

As a result of these regulations, Dunblane is the ONLY school shooting that has ever occurred in the UK, and we've only had one other killing spree , which was 14 years later and a legally owned shotgun was used. We have one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world (only 2.4% of all homicides in the UK involve guns) and we also have one of the lowest rates of Police officers being fatally shot (only three in England and Wales in the eleven-year period from 2000 to 2011)

So 'what is or is not effective policy' really isn't up for debate, the facts speak for themselves.

What will we do about the mental stability of individual's who commit these acts?

I remind us that 9/11 was committed with 747's
The Boston Marathon bombing was committed with bombs.

I'm not saying these people are "crazy", but what are we growing in our garden concerning life that people consider it of so little value?

Edit: this is not an argument against stricter laws concerning arms. But I think the two need to happen together.

We may need to change the messages we send as a society. We are somehow teaching that violence is an answer to conflict.

Our most popular videogames are pretty violent as well, and while that doesn't have an effect on all players, perhaps it may with some

What are our religions teaching such that some people believe that violence is the best way to either rid the world of their enemies or gain more to their side?

How is the lack of freedom and trust in government and buracracy creating a feeling if helplessness, hopelessness in our wider society?

All these things in our societal garden contribute to individual gardens as well

There are several traps we're getting stuck in. The question is NOT whether or not we should do something. The question is what should we do.

Secondly, many people with mental health issues don't volunteer to get diagnosed. Even when they are diagnosed they often don't take their medication. The mental health system in America is HORRIBLE. Horrible.

Third, we're playing a dangerous game of talking around the real issue by debating about how possible solutions (that have already been debated) will not work because of X, Y, Z.

The truth is that even if you had tighter regulations on who can LEGALLY purchase a gun, the people who want to do illegal things with guns will not be stopped by these regulations. Why? Because there are too many ways to legally or illegally obtain what they want.

The fact that you can legally obtain a weapon by simply a family member buy it for you is ridiculous. THAT should not be allowed. We don't let people vote without valid ID so why not have the same standard to own guns? Isn't voting a constitutional right??

It's easy to say "Gun regulations don't work because look at Chicago"... This argument is sadly lacking because people from Chicago get guns from "the street". Where does "the street" get them from? All they have to do is drive to another state where it's easy to get guns. Because those guns purchased in State X do kill citizens in State Y, State X can be like "oh well... I guess regulations don't work because look at State Y." Are you kidding me?

The argument that the NRA is somehow not an effective lobby because there are other lobbies with more money is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Politicians can be bought on multiple issues. That means they can take money from multiple lobbies. And if you're waving a million dollars at someone (NRA lobby is over $90 MILLION) don't act like it's monopoly money. People sell out for less.

The idea that you are taking away people's defense by taking away semi-automatic weapons, to me, is like saying you're taking away a person's ability to work because you suspended their driver's license. Semi-automatics are the only guns they can shoot? Seriously? Come on, people. We live in the information age. If a person wants to learn how to make their deadly weapon even more deadly there are probable 101 youtube videos to teach them how. No one needs semi-automatic weapons.

The idea that you need your own personal arsenal... is insane. I remember when people were talking about how, if you checked out certain books from the library, the FBI would know about you. You'd get on some kind of list. But you can buy 40+ guns and no one knows?! Ridiculous.

I remember when David Koresh's compound got raided with tanks. The justification was the illegal possession of firearms. We're acting like this is rocket science when it's not. If you have certain activity/behavior surrounding weapons you should at the very least get on some kind of list.

If we really wanted to we could put a tracking device embedded into every gun. Tracking signal is interrupted? Gun will not fire. And maybe if you're not on a list because you own 10+ guns then your tracking signal is only active when gun safety is off. Otherwise, the police department should know when 10+ guns owned by one person are all in motion. And if the tracking signal (like ankle monitors) tells them the type of weapon it is then they would know something was about to go down as soon as they ended up in a hotel room. This would have prevented the mass shooting. I would make all guns without tracking illegal. You want to use a gun? You're not being tracked. Your gun is being tracked. You have rights, but your gun is not a person that is entitled to any rights.

And interestingly enough, there are plenty of places where the police can just confiscate your stuff if they think it could be used in a crime. People traveling with large amounts of cash have had it taken by police. I think this is wrong but police don't think to use the same tactics against the millions and millions of guns that are just floating out there, waiting to be used to kill someone.

But people act like guns are people with rights. Why is it that the NRA can afford to spend $90+ Million on congress? Why do they have so much money to give away and what do you think they're paying for? And if they're weren't getting what they were paying for then why would they pay so much money? Because Ted Cruz is such a likeable guy?

All mental illnesses are not the same. I agree. Why does it need to be all or nothing? If someone has been diagnosed as a sociopath, psychopath, I really don't want them to easily obtain a weapon. Call me crazy. If someone has paranoid schizophrenia... and I know people who do... I really don't want them to easily obtain weapons. I have an aunt in Canada who gets paid by the government to take care of people like that in her house. They need real help. And in America the person I know with paranoid schizophrenia has attacked people before because in his mind they are out to get him. He has to have a payee in order to receive is social security benefits because the government can't trust him with money. So why would anyone be in favor of him being able to legally own guns?

To fight terrorists it's mostly a battle of information. These guys aren't running around in America. Saddam was found in a hole! These guys are being found in other countries even while they're trying to blend into the local population. But somehow we find them and next thing they know there's a drone overhead. These terrorists kill less Americans than some of these mass shooters but they get hunted down at great expense because we link them with the common threat of terrorism. Can anyone deny today that "mass shootings" aren't a threat like if not greater than Islamic Terrorism? And let's be honest with ourselves if not each other. Did we not arm some of the very people who hate us? Did none of these terrorists get their weapons from the same companies that sell to mass shooters? And these guys aren't Stark Industries. They're not looking for other products to sell that would help mankind. They simply want to sell as many guns as humanly possible because as much as there are those of us who defend them they don't care about you. A teenager bringing multiple guns into my house is all the proof of this I need. They're not going to solve this problem because it benefit them.

More things we can do.

If you rob a bank and jump in my car and you're not holding me hostage I can be charged as an accessory. If you rob a bank and hide at my house that's aiding and abetting.

If a person commits a crime with a gun that the person who bought the gun or the person who sold the gun should share responsibility. I don't think it should be equal responsibility. Just enough to discourage people from playing hot potato with a firearm. The person who bought the gun should have to serve a year for each count. The person who sold the gun should get fined for each count.

Serial numbers should be duplicated inside the gun in such a way that opening that section of the gun would cause it to no longer work. If law enforcement needs it to work for testing they can simply test first, then open to find and document the serial number. Illegal guns tend to have their serial numbers filed off so that they cannot be traced. This means that in most cases a crime may be prevented if the gun can be traced to the shooter.

Everything we do to regulate guns, the black market will seek a way around, just like hackers. Hackers don't stop just because you blocked one door into your computer. You have to keep updating your software, keep updating your security. There is no silver bullet to the crimes performed by these guns because the ability for people to adapt. But you can make it harder to hack a computer. And many hackers found out the hard way that it wasn't worth it when they got caught.

The danger of semi-automatic weapons isn't over. So let's not pretend it is. There will be another shooting and another until we're forced to do something. The problem is that we keep treating it like an act of God or like global warming; like it's just too hard of a problem to tackle. China is talking about banning gasoline cars altogether. Guess what? That's forcing automakers to invest in EVs. Market forces.

What if there was a bounty on illegal guns that was less than the cost of the trial, funeral, and paid by the person caught with the gun? What if there was a million dollar bounty on illegal gun sellers or smugglers? No one would turn them in? No one would become an informant to the ATF? Market forces.

What if undercover ATF started selling fake guns on the black market with tracers just to find out how they were moving and whose hands they were touching? Even if they were real guns, if they had a hidden tracer they could be found before lives are at risk. Maybe if the gun tracer is disabled it release ink. It amazes me that we can embed products with RFID to protect them against theft but no one knows how to protect guns.

My drivers license expires before people's gun permits do. Does that make sense? 31 states allow you to openly carry a gun without a license or permit. There is no comprehensive system of national gun registration. In fact, federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners. There are no background checks performed at all gun shows, a permit or license is not necessary, and there are no limits on purchases.

What if, instead of owning guns, it was like Blockbuster? What if you could only rent certain types of guns? What if you could only rent all but rifles and shotguns? What if you could rent a gun for 30 days and then you have to at least scan it or something to continue the rental? This way, the rental agency knows exactly who you are even if the government does not. If that gun isn't checked in you have a grace period of 10 days before police come looking for you. And maybe you need a cosigner to rent the gun. This way if something happens you and someone else is liable. Maybe you need this plus a special permit for more destructive weapons that require under oath character witnesses. What if you needed insurance on your gun? Wouldn't insurance companies create policies and guidelines to protect themselves from having to pay out if you "went crazy"? You have to take an eye test to get a driver's license. Why not require psychological exams for gun owners or for special licenses or permits for more destructive weapons? If a person refuses the test then they simply refuse their right along with it. In most cases ex felons cannot vote. We protect voting more than human lives?

How would this stop someone determined to kill a bunch of people? Maybe not. Would it deter a person by making them jump through more hoops? Yes. Would it empower people they know to stop them from stockpiling weapons by not cosigning? Would insurance companies figure out new ways to restrict access to guns if they had to insure them? Yes. If insurance companies had to insure guns right off the assembly line would so many of them fall into the wrong hands? Doubtful.

Do any of these suggestions make any sense?

The evidence is not refutable. Just like healthcare, all we need to do as Americans is look to the rest of the world. Countries with less guns have less gun related crime. Countries with strict gun control have less gun related crime. The number of terrorist attacks involving guns is not higher in countries with strict gun control. Crime rates in general are not higher in countries with strict gun control.

To Ros' point, could responsible gun owners stop the Boston Marathon Bombing? Could they stop a guy from driving a vehicle into a crowd? Could they stop someone from wearing a backpack bomb into a concert? Could they stop a disturbed young man from shooting up an elementary school? Could they stop people from flying planes into buildings or crashing them on purpose? Could they stop one man from firing more than a thousand rounds into a concert crowd? The answer is always no. Semi-automatic rifles do not defend anyone in any of these cases, yet they are used over and over by people committing similar horrific crimes. The NRA and owners of semi-automatic rifles can argue the 2nd Amendment and personal liberties all they want, but it doesn't change the reality. They are wrong, and the laws will eventually change with or without them. They either need to participate in the conversation as "responsible gun owners", or get out of the way. If the NRA has a reasonable solution to mass shootings other than arming every American with a machine gun that they can carry at all times, I'd love to hear it.

The scariest part of the NRA's argument is the constant blame placed on the shooters for being "mentally ill". It is true, some are, but the more that comes out about many of these crimes, the more one has to question this excuse. Stephen Paddock was not ever considered "crazy". He was calculating. He had no criminal or mental health record. He had no obvious "beef" with the government or anyone else. He has no known ties to terrorist organizations. He was financially stable. He had a girlfriend. His family had no idea anything suspicious was going on. What he had is a very detailed and ultimately very effective plan. He purchased guns and ammo legally. He hauled hundreds of pounds of weapons into a strategic location undetected over four days in a hotel and a city filled with surveillance of every kind. He apparently modified those weapons to make them more efficient at killing. He placed cameras inside and outside of his rooms to monitor hotel staff and law enforcement. He wasn't crazy, and that is the scariest part of all of this. He was an apparently sane person using guns to murder or injure hundreds of people. We may not know why, but simply calling him "crazy" is ignoring the evidence and taking the easiest way out of addressing the role that gun control policy played in this tragedy.

Throughout this entire conversation, I have asked multiple times for one simple piece of information. When is a semi-automatic rifle EVER more necessary than any other weapon to defend yourself, your home, or your family? I haven't received an answer because there isn't one. Outside of military and law enforcement, there is never a need for a semi-automatic rifle in civilian hands. So it follows that they should be illegal. Until this argument can be met with a reasonable counterpoint, no "responsible gun owner" should ever be defending the right to own one. Otherwise, they are part of the problem and shouldn't own any guns at all.

Atticus wrote: I don't accept the premise that there has to be some mandatory waiting period on debate after yet another incident like what happened in Las Vegas (Orlando, San Bernadino, Newtown, pick one). Believe it or not, we can do both.

I believe that everything has a time and place. In a thread who's topic and premise is largely one of grief.....we should (in my own opinion) honor that grief and offer respectful condolences and support.

That doesn't mean you can't take two second's to turn around, start a new thread, and debate the crap out of the political stances right after.

I notice Jedi tend to forget that they can multi task several threads at once Its really quite easy!! Just say'in....

MadHatter wrote: I would like to pose a real-life situation that I encountered. Since we are discussing the need for regulation let me put what happened to me and then I would like the opinion of what I tools I should or should not have been able to have to defend against this situation. One day riding the bus home I took the bus one stop too far after dark. This put me in an area of my hometown that you do not go into after dark if you do not live there. I got off the bus and was trying to get myself out of the area and back to the main street asap.

About 30 seconds into this I hear " Snuff that white boy" and turn to see four people approaching me and one pointing me out. Two of the people coming at me had a pipe or stick of some kind in hand. I was being pointed out to be beaten down as part of a gang initiation. All because I went one stop too far

Now I am five foot two. So I am not out running four ( or five if the guy pointing me out joins in ) guys that are close to or over six foot in a short sprint. Pepper spray is not always effective, might not have the volume I need and takes time to kick in. So that tool may or may not work. A taser or other electrical stun weapon is a one-hit deal. A knife is not really a great option here for obvious reasons. So that leaves me with what? A rifle or shotgun is not sensible to carry outside the home. 911 will not be there for a few minutes even if I can dial and give my location while fleeing and hoping I am not chased down. So if I have a small capacity magazine pistol that is 8 rounds or less that is two shots a person IF all of them hit and the fifth guy does not join int. The reality is that I might miss or two shots a person might not stop them all depending on shot placement.

So in your opinion should I just be out of luck? Should I really hope that I dont miss and all my shots are placed to be fight stoppers? Is it likely that merely presenting my firearm will stop them? Sure. In my case it did. But if it had not, if they decided to attack, I want all the ammo that my firearm can hold because I have no interest in being dead or damaged for life after a club to the side of my head. But I want your opinion. What would you feel I should have available? Keep in mind the facts I gave and the fact that a firearm is not a best case situation tool. Its a tool for the worst day of your life and that means we have to look at the worst case potential outcomes.

Upon reading this story I have a few questions. Note that I am not trying to be insulting or questioning your intelligence.

If you knew this bus stop one beyond your usual stop was in a potentially dangerous neighborhood, why did you get off there in the first place? Why not go beyond that to another stop and then catch a bus going back the other direction? Or, assuming the more safer stop is still within walking distance of your home, why not walk back from another stop in a less dangerous area?

The whole situation, from what I can see from your story, Hatter, could have been avoided completely. Now, to be fair, some other person walking through that area may have been targeted by these individuals in your place, but you wouldn't have known that at the time.

As far as walking around armed with a gun? Well, how often does it really come down to a matter of self-defense? And, furthermore, how often are those guns (whether obtained legally or illegally) used in violent crimes?

Maybe we should be focusing on making gangs unnecessary instead of saying "if you go into this area you better go armed." Just maybe.

Edit: To be clear, I am not necessarily anti-firearm or anti-second amendment. I think the second amendment is a fundamentally sound right granted to us by the constitution. However, I do think we should re-examine and re-evaluate our understanding of the second amendment.

Lykeios wrote:

MadHatter wrote: I would like to pose a real-life situation that I encountered. Since we are discussing the need for regulation let me put what happened to me and then I would like the opinion of what I tools I should or should not have been able to have to defend against this situation. One day riding the bus home I took the bus one stop too far after dark. This put me in an area of my hometown that you do not go into after dark if you do not live there. I got off the bus and was trying to get myself out of the area and back to the main street asap.

About 30 seconds into this I hear " Snuff that white boy" and turn to see four people approaching me and one pointing me out. Two of the people coming at me had a pipe or stick of some kind in hand. I was being pointed out to be beaten down as part of a gang initiation. All because I went one stop too far

Now I am five foot two. So I am not out running four ( or five if the guy pointing me out joins in ) guys that are close to or over six foot in a short sprint. Pepper spray is not always effective, might not have the volume I need and takes time to kick in. So that tool may or may not work. A taser or other electrical stun weapon is a one-hit deal. A knife is not really a great option here for obvious reasons. So that leaves me with what? A rifle or shotgun is not sensible to carry outside the home. 911 will not be there for a few minutes even if I can dial and give my location while fleeing and hoping I am not chased down. So if I have a small capacity magazine pistol that is 8 rounds or less that is two shots a person IF all of them hit and the fifth guy does not join int. The reality is that I might miss or two shots a person might not stop them all depending on shot placement.

So in your opinion should I just be out of luck? Should I really hope that I dont miss and all my shots are placed to be fight stoppers? Is it likely that merely presenting my firearm will stop them? Sure. In my case it did. But if it had not, if they decided to attack, I want all the ammo that my firearm can hold because I have no interest in being dead or damaged for life after a club to the side of my head. But I want your opinion. What would you feel I should have available? Keep in mind the facts I gave and the fact that a firearm is not a best case situation tool. Its a tool for the worst day of your life and that means we have to look at the worst case potential outcomes.

Upon reading this story I have one question. Note that I am not trying to be insulting or questioning your intelligence.

If you knew this bus stop one beyond your usual stop was in a potentially dangerous neighborhood, why did you get off there in the first place? Why not go beyond that to another stop and then catch a bus going back the other direction?

The whole situation, from what I can see from your story, Hatter, could have been avoided completely. Now, to be fair, some other person walking through that area may have been targeted by these individuals in your place, but you wouldn't have known that at the time.

As far as walking around armed with a gun? Well, how often does it really come down to a matter of self-defense? And, furthermore, how often are those guns (whether obtained legally or illegally) used in violent crimes?

Maybe we should be focusing on making gangs unnecessary instead of saying "if you go into this area you better go armed." Just maybe.

I've answered this but ill do it again. This was my last bus home late from work. The only other stops were deeper into the problem area. At the end they kick off all passengers and go the garage. My best option was to get off at a stop that was about a block and a half from where I wanted. A gun is not an every day tool its a worst case situational tool. As for you question of crime vs legal uses far more guns are used legally for various reasons in the US daily then in crime. I am alive not once but twice thanks to owning firearms. You think you are going to make gangs unnessicery? We have had gangs of some sort since the first code of law was written. Evil men will not go anywhere. Evil government won't ever stop poping up. Tools in the hands of free men to defend against such thing are the last line of defense.

He was calculating. He had no criminal or mental health record. He had no obvious "beef" with the government or anyone else. He has no known ties to terrorist organizations. He was financially stable. He had a girlfriend. His family had no idea anything suspicious was going on. What he had is a very detailed and ultimately very effective plan. He purchased guns and ammo legally. He hauled hundreds of pounds of weapons into a strategic location undetected over four days in a hotel and a city filled with surveillance of every kind. He apparently modified those weapons to make them more efficient at killing. He placed cameras inside and outside of his rooms to monitor hotel staff and law enforcement. He wasn't crazy, and that is the scariest part of all of this. He was an apparently sane person using guns to murder or injure hundreds of people. We may not know why, but simply calling him "crazy" is ignoring the evidence and taking the easiest way out of addressing the role that gun control policy played in this tragedy.

And yet after some time to process all of the evidence and circumstances........WE...... The public......Are starting to find out information that indicates that "He" isn't entirely accurate.

Simply put - this isn't a Gun Control problem but a much larger concern here in America.

But before I add anything more to that statement....lets give it a little more time to learn more about the actual truth of things

It's easy to say "Gun regulations don't work because look at Chicago"... This argument is sadly lacking because people from Chicago get guns from "the street". Where does "the street" get them from?

If I may ...
I grew up on the street. Literally . I am one of many . The street ... gets a lot of useless static. Coming from 5 years in Illinois and knowing those gangs and actual people who have illegal guns ... they didn'ti find them on the street just laying there. They buy and have bought them from others with ...please forgive me ... NO regulation care or even regulation standard. Stolen from homes or transferred from one hand to another. Been that way for years. (confession) First gun I had was " given to me" after I " earned " it. Gladly that is not me or my family dynamic any longer ... the exact opposite actually . Those type of practices and daily active living ways are still in effect today.everywhere ! Regulations have little offset in those cases and in many cases till the very end... during sentencing and such. Regulations, like locks don't keep the extreamist out, never. I found my solution to my own problem and I would recommend most to do the same , you can talk till your blue in the face about laws and rega but the meat and potatoes say ... for me only ... what am I doing about it in ----my world--- this is in no way shape or form a diss at any answer or statement here. Most of life is directly to us ... the individual to decide what to do with our own stuff... when we all start doing that .... then Chicago will have to find else where to suit their needs ... not ... the streets. Force be with you