School shooting today. At least 3 kids dead.

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And yet other comparable countries have nowhere near the level of gun crime that the US has. Unfortunately, the US is head and shoulders above the rest in this regard. Tragedies will continue until (or if) there is the political will to make changes.

I agree. Is this just a result of people owning guns or something else?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the mean time everyone else is out of luck I guess,

Are they?
Tell me, when's the last time a "responsible non-criminal citizen" stopped a gang shoot out? A mafia hit? A bank robbery?
On average, how much gun crime (actual crime - I'm not even talking about mass shootings by confused / desperate / whatever otherwise non-criminal citizens) is prevented by "responsible non-criminal citizens" with "civilian guns" as opposed to gun crime that just runs its course?

Talk about non-arguments................

IN FACT....

Of the thousands of deaths as a result of gun violence in the us, is actually done by gangsters / professional criminals?
What's the % rate here? Do you even know?

Also, criminals who want guns will get them.

As has been explained multiple times now: they'll have a hard time getting them.
They will cost loads of money and be hard to come by.

In countries where there's 1 civilian gun for every 100 citizens, it's a LOT harder and more expensive to get your hands on one of those illegally then it is when in a country that has 120 such guns for every 100 citizens.

How do you not get that?

There's another flip side here....
If it's that hard to come by and so expensive, then it will be handled with a lot more care and only be really available to the select few.

Meaning actual professional gangsters / criminals. And those guys understand that keeping a low profile is how you don't get caught. So you can forget about those guys going a killing spree in some school or whatevs. In fact most likely, they'll only use those guns to kill their own (rivals, traitors, etc). They'll also use them to threaten people when robbing. And they'll prefer not to use them to shoot then either, since that brings so much more heat.

What I'm saying is that loads of guns in civilian hands is WORSE then a couple guns in a couple gangster hands.
It leads to MORE innocent deaths, not less.

What will prevent guns and ammo from coming across the border like drugs do now?

Price. Guns and ammo are much larger and heavier and therefor harder to move.
You seem to conveniently forget a big part of the distribution channel.

So a truck manages to get to some warehouse without being checked...
What then? Is the job done now? Nope. Those goods still need to get into the hands of the dealers and eventually the customers.
With drugs, this is easy to do. You can break it up in ever smaller packages. Can't do that with an AR15.

A small package of cocaine can serve hundreds of customers. To serve hundreds of customers with guns, you need several trucks instead of a single backpack.

How can you not understand the difficulty (ie: added risk) of this not-so-small logistical issue?

How do you prevent 3D printing of guns or just people making their own?

Good luck with that.
I'm not too worried about the black market being flooded with "home made guns". Especially not made by a 3d printer.
You might want to check out what such a printer capable of such actually costs.
You might want to check what is involved in creating a gun that way, how long it takes and -again- what it costs.

Limiting magazine size makes sense to me but banning a gum we determine is ab assault weapon does not make sense.

Why not?
How about the flip side?
How does it make sense that any average joe can just go into a store and buy a friggin AR15???

Please define assault rifle. I am for a more rigorous background check and even mental screening

No amount of background checks or screenings will eliminate the problem that is caused by having 120 guns for every 100 citizens.

However, checks and balances need to be instituted and no one needs to give the government a reason to own a gun. It is a right. I don't need to give the government a reason to exercise my right to free speech etc.

So why stop at guns then?
Why not tanks? Bazooka's? Rocket launchers? Surface to air missiles? Torpedo's? ICBM's? Nukes?

What's the difference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the mean time everyone else is out of luck I guess, Also, criminals who want guns will get them.

If they're able to pay for them.

When it comes to guns, the illegal gun market is fed almost entirely by the legal gun market. Cut off that supply to the legal gun market and market forces will drive costs up.

We may never be able to stop a billionaire from buying a gun that he's obsessed with owning, but it's very possible to price, say, a burglar out of carrying a handgun "just in case."

Also, remember that firearm deaths in the US are mostly about suicide, and most of those involve guns that are legally in the home.

What will prevent guns and ammo from coming across the border like drugs do now?

It'll be tricky. About half the guns used in crime in Canada are smuggled in from the US.

Still, as I touched on earlier, you don't have to stop every gun to have an effect. The more enforcement, the fewer guns. The fewer guns, the fewer the criminals who will have guns.

How do you prevent 3D printing of guns or just people making their own?

3D printed guns just barely exist right now. I'm not sure how someone would ever print a cartridge complete with gunpowder, though.

It's kind of a side point, though: even if it's technically possible for a very motivated person with the right skills and equipment to make a gun in their basement, most people who use guns in crime don't have the motivation, skills or equipment. Even if homemade 3D-printed guns do end up sneaking onto the black market in numbers big enough to worry about, we're still way better off than the current situation with guns flowing into the black market on an industrial scale from modern firearm manufacturers.

Limiting magazine size makes sense to me but banning a gum we determine is ab assault weapon does not make sense. All guns are deadly and there is no definition of assault rifle. Most guns are semi automatic weather it be a pistol or rifle.

Indeed. That's why I support making all handguns and all semi-auto firearms restricted weapons: you can own them (with the proper license and training) and you can use them at the range, but they stay securely stored at the range and can't come home with you.

Please define assault rifle. I am for a more rigorous background check and even mental screening; However, checks and balances need to be instituted and no one needs to give the government a reason to own a gun. It is a right. I don't need to give the government a reason to exercise my right to free speech etc.

Gun ownership isn't any sort of fundamental human right. It's been deemed a right by current US law; that's it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you prevent someone from getting a gun illegally? What is proper gun control to you?

Step one would be making sure there aren't an average of >1 gun in every household.

Tight control on how guns are stored.
Tight control on where you can have your gun.
Tight control on who can have a gun.
Tight control on the entire chain of distribution of guns.


I challenge you to come to Belgium and get your hands on an AR15 or equivalent. Legal or otherwise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"And driving and drinking are heavily regulated and taxed."

You forgot illegal. Those laws sure stop people from driving drunk huh?

Do you think drunk driving laws punish responsible drivers?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I wouldn't say they won't have guns. But I would say they would have a much tougher time to get their hands on them.
I don't think this is an argument against tougher gun legislation.

I am not against tougher gun legislation, I am against banning them.

It's kind of like saying "users would still have drugs". There exists an illegal black market for EVERYTHING that is banned legally.
But never is that considered any kind of argument to then instead make everything readily available for pretty much anyone who wants it.
It is never considered any kind of argument to flood the market with an abundance of that stuff.

So why would it be relevant when it comes to guns?

Because criminals with drugs generally don't affect others in the same way criminals with guns do. If a criminal has a gun how do I defend myself, especially when the criminal knows I don't have one. There is an argument to be made that illegal drugs should be made legal with common sense regulation.

I guarantee you that your average kid over here in Belgium would find it near impossible to get a hold of the type of assault weapons that are used in US mass shootings every other day.

Even a simple handgun. Any kind of gun, really...

Ok, why do you think that would be the same here? My kids can go get illegal drugs here pretty easily, why wouldn't it be the same for illegal guns? BTW, What is an assault weapon?

I always find this so baffling...
Be honest now... how and in what way is having 120 firearms for every 100 citizens ever a "good idea"?

I never said it was. My argument is we are in this situation and banning guns at this point makes common people less safe. Did Belgium have 400 million guns in the country already when they banned them?

Why does it surprise anyone that overflooding the masses with guns, turns the country into a place where gun violence is one of the leading causes of death?

Death by a gun is not even in the top 10 leading causes of death in the US.

FastStats

FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why isn't zero a realistic goal?

How will we get rid of $400 million guns in the US that exist, how do you stop illegal guns and ammo from coming over the border, how do you prevent 3D printing of guns. What is your plan to get rid of all of them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a false choice. We can have both. I disagree that we can disarm the US to a point where criminals have rare access to guns. Why wouldn't guns and ammo come across the border like drugs do now? We need to address the reasons behind daily shooting in Chicago, LA, NY etc. for example. Taking away guns is like taking away aspirin because some use it to overdose. The root cause is rarely considered.

Guns do cross the borders. But it's the other way around.

"Every year, half a million weapons enter Mexico illegally from the U.S., and many of them are military-style weapons that end up in the hands of drug cartels and other violent criminals, said Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, legal adviser of the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“In addition to prosecuting criminals and seizing guns that are illegally in Mexico, we decided to go to the source of the problem. Like if this were a toxic river, in addition to cleaning the river, we need to go to the source and stop the toxic waste from being dumped at the river,” said Celorio Alcántara, referring to the landmark lawsuit the Mexican government filed against 10 U.S. gun manufacturers in U.S. federal court last summer. It is the first time that a foreign government has sued American gunmakers."

Stopping toxic flow of gun traffic from U.S. to Mexico

Mexican officials, Harvard health policy scholars, and Georgetown law professor discuss a landmark lawsuit targeting U.S. firearm firms.

news.harvard.edu

"Canada's gun homicide rate in 2020 was an eighth of the rate in the United States, where rules on buying firearms are looser, but it's higher than the rates of many other rich countries and has been rising, according to data from Statistics Canada.

Exclusive data obtained by Reuters for Ontario, Canada's most populous province, shows that when handguns involved in crimes were traced in 2021, they were overwhelmingly - 85% of the time - found to have come from the United States.

Furthermore, 70% of all traced guns used in crimes in Ontario came from the United States, while so far this year the U.S. share has risen to 73%, according to the data from the Ontario police's Firearms Analysis and Tracing Enforcement (FATE) program.

Ontario is the only province with a special tracing program that seeks to identify the source of all guns used in crimes, said Scott Ferguson, head of FATE. The rest of Canada traced only 6%-10% of guns involved in crimes, according to 2019 data from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), a federal agency."

Insight: In fighting gun crime, Canada has an American problem

A Texas man bought dozens of guns from licensed dealers in the state before illegally reselling at least 16, U.S. officials say. Twelve were traced to crimes committed in America. The other four were traced to crimes in Canada.

www.reuters.com

As to Chicago...

"According to gun trace data, a significant number of firearms recovered in Chicago originate outside Chicago and are illegally trafficked into the city. The strike force has strengthened coordination between law enforcement in Chicago and counterparts in the locations where many of the firearms originate. In providing the update on the strike force’s efforts, U.S. Attorney Lausch was joined by U.S. Attorneys from around the Midwest."

U.S. Attorney’s Office Provides Update on Chicago Firearms Trafficking Strike Force

U.S. Attorney’s Office Provides Update on Chicago Firearms Trafficking Strike Force

www.justice.gov

The US seems to be contaminating the entire continent with its massive supply of guns. And they seem to be supplying the Mexican drug cartels with a lot of weapons.

 

[Secret Chief]

I agree. Is this just a result of people owning guns or something else?

Owning guns is the result of something/s else.

 

[F1fan]

In the mean time everyone else is out of luck I guess, Also, criminals who want guns will get them. What will prevent guns and ammo from coming across the border like drugs do now? How do you prevent 3D printing of guns or just people making their own? Limiting magazine size makes sense to me but banning a gum we determine is ab assault weapon does not make sense. All guns are deadly and there is no definition of assault rifle. Most guns are semi automatic weather it be a pistol or rifle.

We have to look at decades of conservatives not only offering no help to curb gun violence, but contributing to more guns in society, thus more guns in the hands of criminals. Then I read these kinds of comments as if the xprevalence of guns is a total mystery, and some organic effect of nature that never could be stopped. No, conservatives helped cause the proligeration of guns in American society. So any solution that comes now is way too late. In fact, we see many conservatives not only offer no plan to reduce guns, but adding more guns like suggesting we should arm teachers all over America. Seriously? Conservatives don't trust teachers with certain types of books but will trust them with a loaded gun in a room full of their kids?

I wonder how many conservatives in political office home school so it's not their kids caught in the crossfire of any school shooting.

Please define assault rifle.

Any time I see this request it is a disengenous delay tactic. We all know what this means.

I am for a more rigorous background check and even mental screening; However, checks and balances need to be instituted and no one needs to give the government a reason to own a gun. It is a right. I don't need to give the government a reason to exercise my right to free speech etc.

All rights have conditions. Even you acknowledge this by noting background checks. The real question is the nature of the right to own and bear arms. The context and basis for this right no longer exists. Warren Burget said this in 1991:

“The very language of the Second Amendment,” wrote Burger, “refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. … The Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.”​

Lawrence O’Donnell Airs Old Clip of Republican Chief Justice Calling the Second Amendment a ‘Fraud on the American Public’

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell turned back the clock by airing video of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger excoriating the Second Amendment.

www.mediaite.com

This is what gets brushed under the rug in these debates, the purpose of this right. It's clearly an empty right and obsolete, but it has been given an unnatural life for the sake of cultual identity and politics.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I think all schools need windowless doors now. Maybe even no windows on the first floor either.

It sounds like a prison. There's gotta be a way to provide security and access to natural light too.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Hope there’s no attacks on the Tran community in retaliation.

I can only assume there will be. They are the current scapegoats.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Excellent idea. We are pretty much done with Trump here. We could send him to you guys where he could champion "gun reform" for you guys. An AR15 under every Christmas tree could be his campaign slogan.

Ron De Ahmadinejad is still present and worse than Trump.

 

[F1fan]

That is a false choice. We can have both. I disagree that we can disarm the US to a point where criminals have rare access to guns. Why wouldn't guns and ammo come across the border like drugs do now?

Where are THOSE guns coming from? The USA is the big manufacturer. As noted guns are smuggled INTO mexico from the USA. Why? Because the USA is where guns are produced.

We need to address the reasons behind daily shooting in Chicago, LA, NY etc. for example.

You mean social inequality and the consequences of racism isn't a good enough reason? And you want to avoid asking about the indifference by conservatives to implement more restrictions on the production and transfering of guns? Republicans have been wanting less government oversight including the IRS and BATF. The net result is fewer officials to check on crimes. So when conservatives point to crime levels, well, look at who is being elected.

Taking away guns is like taking away aspirin because some use it to overdose. The root cause is rarely considered.

Wow, talk about a shallow attempt to minimize a problem. It's more like Fentanyl.

The root cause is too many guns. Humans are not a perfect biological specimen, there are many with serious mental health problems. And the more of a drug or weapon that is available to the general population the more likely that criminals and the mentally unstable will get access. There's your root problem: prevalence and accessability.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How will we get rid of $400 million guns in the US that exist, how do you stop illegal guns and ammo from coming over the border, how do you prevent 3D printing of guns. What is your plan to get rid of all of them?

That is ...

You can't stop the slaughter of all of these children,​

so damn reasonable efforts to mitigate that slaughter.​

It's nothing more than the thoroughly stupid, agenda-driven whimpering of the complicit.

 

[metis]

Also, criminals who want guns will get them. What will prevent guns and ammo from coming across the border like drugs do now?

But we can make those that get caught really pay a high price.

After WWII, the homicide rates in France and the UK began to climb, so they cracked down on it whereas in the UK one could get up to 10 years in prison if caught with an illegal weapon or carrying a legal weapon that they were unauthorized to carry. Needless to say, it worked even though the max penalty was only rarely given.

 

[metis]

The root cause is too many guns.

And the stats bear that out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How will we get rid of $400 million guns in the US that exist,

You think we would need to get rid of every gun that exists to eliminate firearm deaths? That's quite the indictment of "safe and law-abiding" gun owners.

how do you stop illegal guns and ammo from coming over the border, how do you prevent 3D printing of guns. What is your plan to get rid of all of them?

I think you're speaking to something different than I was getting at. There's a difference between a goal and an outcome.

When we're talking about a goal, we're talking about the point where we can be complacent: if we hit our goal, we can say "that's good enough. We don't need to do any more."

So where's that point for you with gun deaths? What number of fatalities per year is acceptable to you? What number of fatalities among your loved ones is acceptable to you?

For me, the answer is that no firearm fatalities are acceptable. If the number is greater than zero, this means we should do more to address gun violence. The fact that addressing gun violence can often be difficult doesn't change this.

 

[Jimmy]

Most school shooters are suicidal. You have a suicidal group of people in the world unfortunately then you have the another group which is nothing like them. They are suicidal and murderers. Sad st

It sounds like a prison. There's gotta be a way to provide security and access to natural light too.

dont hold class on first floor. Maybe administrative with small windows with bars

 

[Jimmy]

I can only assume there will be. They are the current scapegoats.

Nice outlook