It is important to look beyond the case by case individual situation. Stopping one person is a nice goal, but the bigger goal, as that NYT article discusses,is to see this as a public health issue, and address it on a broader scale, from multiple directions.
Whelp. Gun nuttiness out in force on this thread, as usual in these situations. No civilian needs a gun that shoots more than a couple of rounds for any reason.
I’m not through the whole topic yet but I’ve yet to see one idea that is both implementable and would conceivably stop mass shootings. There are ideas that may do other good things but not a single one that sounds like it would have any effect on mass shootings.
So one month we look at Oregon’s laws, the prior its Louisiana, then Colorado, or Virginia. These micromanaging issues are not effective. Instead of one person treating the runny nose, another the aches and pains, and a third the fever, someone needs to treat the flu. (Hope that analogy is clear).
3 people are shooting at me and I’m trapped where I cannot run away.
Jym626, read the NJEM article summary. They compared households with guns to households without guns. All the households had about the same non-gun suicide rate. And in addition, the gun households had gun suicides. So we can see that those guns suicides don’t seem to be people who would have killed themselves anyway. They ended up dying because they were able to grab a gun and pull the trigger. If no gun was available, most would not have died.
CF, there is a lot of literature in suicidality that says suicide is not typically an impulsive act. I agree with you that it is the most lethal weapon, and also agree that there are clearly fewer suicides when guns are taken away. I totally agree. Just pointing out that many suicidal people have been formulating a plan, giving away possessions, struggling so intensely with depression , hopelessness and worthlessness that the decision to end their life seems like a relief and lifting a burden off of others. Dr. Thomas Joiner has written a lot of excellent articles on this. Worth a read.
Guns are also fast. (warning, next sentences are blunt: Skip if you don’t want examples): Having to stockpile and take pills (which are often not able to be held down, and are regurgitated), cutting oneself, or trying to use carbon monoxide asphyxiation it timely and less efficient. Guns are fast and efficient. Not much time for second thoughts or regret,
I’m all for preventing accidental deaths and murders (although I lean to V’s side on the suicide issue), but I am very much against passing laws that don’t work to address the issues we are talking about.
Preventing accidental deaths? Is that like preventing pedestrians from crossing outside the crosswalk? Or are we talking the shooting of innocent victims caught in the crossfire. A 15 year old was shot in the head in the parking lot outside her home last night. In today’s news. She did nothing to get shot in the head. I don’t consider that an “accidental death” (well it technically is but I consider it manslaughter or murder) and access to, and functional use of these weapons needs better control. What does it take to get people to stop sticking their head in the sand and pretending it isn’t a problem.
Find me the example where some civilian packing defended themselves against 3 shooters. You are dreaming of Die Hard, and the odds are a lot higher that someone will be shot accidentally or commit suicide with your gun. But compensators gotta compensate…
How about a situation where someone defended themselves against 1 shooter but had to use more than 2 bullets to do it?
^^^Oh, I saw that one. Julia Roberts had escaped her abusive husband by pretending to drown in the ocean, where her body could never be found. Unfortunately, he figured it out when he saw her wedding ring in the toilet (she always forgets to flush, damn her). So he tracked her down. She ended up shooting him and then dropped the gun. Of course, he wasn’t really dead and when he sat bolt upright, she had to shoot him a couple more times. Thank goodness she had multiple rounds!
People aren’t perfect shooters. First 2 rounds can easily miss.
Clearly, I have more to protect than you.
You know people have lost the argument when they resort to calling people nutty for having a different point-of-view. Case-in-point of the person one might need a gun to protect against. Only God know what else they would like to mandate and think that they know what you need better than you.
You do not need 3 people; you just need one duly authorized, but rogue person with a gun that has more rounds than you and who has made sure that your gun is mandated to shot no “more than a couple of rounds for any reason.”
Authorized does not mean correct, and authorized does not mean that what they do is lawful. This is exactly why a civilian does have the potential need to protect himself.
And they can hit innocent victims nearby
You are going to have to show us where I said that.
And they could not.
Where are we going down this line? Because the only logical conclusion from this attitude I can see is that people shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves, for fear that they might hit bystanders. And if that’s the attitude I can’t really debate that, it’s a difference in what we believe human rights are.
You flatter yourself.
vlad,
You said they can’t hit with one bullet. Was simply pointing out what they could hit. You took the leap from there.
The biggest point is that pretty much nobody who thinks they will use their macho mad gun skillz to defend themselves ever does. They shoot an intruder who turns out to be their grandkid. The visiting 5 year old shoots their little brother. A teenager swipes the gun and shoots someone at school. The kid sitting in the shopping cart gets it out of his mom’s purse and shoots her. You develop mental health issues years after getting the gun, and use it on yourself (like my brother did). Odds are so much higher of somebody getting shot that is not who you intended. But men in particular gotta have their powerful guns. Idiots.
No one single legislative action is going to impact every single mass or accidental shooting, which is why we need to examine the problem thoroughly.
The shooting in Oregon would not have been stopped by smart guns, since the shooter owned the guns. However, the Newtown shooting would have been prevented, since Lanza took his mother’s guns out of her gun case. Smart gun technology would also keep toddlers and little children from shooting themselves and their families. Just stopping the accidental shootings by non-owners and people like Lanza would be worth it, as far as I’m concerned. It would be huge. It has the added plus that it has no affect on the 2nd Amendment.
Anyone who tries to argue that the NRA has just been defending the 2nd Amendment is blowing smoke, though. Defending the Second Amendment doesn’t require that we make it illegal to collect data, or make it illegal for doctors to discuss access to guns in homes with small children.