@zoosermom: I presume you meant that if the gun restrictions that have been suggested here are put into effect and there’s another mass killing, how will we cope?
The same way successful coping with tragedy tends to happen in general: By ultimately figuring out what lessons can be learned from it, and figuring out what should be done to prevent something similar in the future.
I don’t think anyone here is claiming that restricting guns will eliminate all mass killings.* However, it would make them harder to conduct—and yes, humans being human and all, I’m sure another mass killing would eventually happen despite that,** and so once it did we would need to figure out what the next step would have to be.
TL;DR: The perfect need not be the enemy of the good.
Though Australia's experience could be instructive in this regard. Just sayin'.
** Even in Australia. :)
What do I say when someone dies of lung cancer from smoking? What do I say when someone dies in a car crash? What do I say when a drunk driver kills somebody?
I say, that’s terrible. But I also say, I’m so glad we’ve enacted measures so that fewer people smoke, cars are safer, and there are fewer drunk drivers.
I don’t need the number of smokers, traffic deaths and drunk drivers to go to zero to be glad that we’ve reduced those dangers. Some mother is still going to have her daughter this Christmas, because we’ve reduced drunk driving. Some husband is not going to see his wife dying of lung cancer, because she stopped smoking. Somebody (actually me, come to think of it) is going to be thinking of what to buy her best friend for Christmas, instead of where to spread his ashes, because the legally mandated air bag in his car deployed when he wrapped the car around a tree.
I’m not looking for perfection. I can rejoice that I’m not at my best friend’s funeral, even though someone else is at their best friend’s funeral. I don’t let the good be the enemy of the best.
What am I going to do, if we reduce the number of gun deaths from 30,000 a year to 27,000 a year? I’ll be glad those 3000 people are still alive, and work to reduce the number more.
CardinalFang, that’s a really good question and the answer is very hard to find. There is data that shows between 90% and 97% of gun crime is committed with illegal guns. You can look around for it. There is a particularly fascinating study done at Cook County jail over a number of years, (for some reason every time I try to provide a link, I get booted out of CC). What that study talks about is disrupting the black market. Genuinely fascinating.
I respectfully submit that if the number of crimes that were committed was reduced so negiligibly, you wouldn’t be happy because you wouldn’t notice. There’s no way to go up to someone and say I’m so happy you weren’t killed today. As I said yesterday, I completely support a lot of the things you favor and I love LasMa’s insurance, but (a) terrorists are here and some will succeed, and (b) most crimes aren’t committed with legal guns, so I think the focus in the specific context of this thread on the NRA is misplaced.
I would certainly notice if gun deaths went down 10% in the first couple of years after enactment of stricter gun controls, because I look at statistics and that would be a dramatic drop. Same as I look at traffic deaths (going dramatically down in my lifetime, probably because of safer cars) and traffic deaths of bicyclists (also going down in my lifetime).
For myself, I think it makes sense to focus on making assault rifles illegal. Let’s get that much done.
Look at the casualty rates of bombs versus AR weapons in the most recent cases.
Pressure bombs at the Boston Marathon killed three people.
Assault rifles in Newton and Aurora and now San Bernardino delivered casualty rates in the double digits of killed and wounded.
In Paris, the most lethal of the attacks **by far came from the terrorists who were firing assault rifles. They were horrifically efficient. The bombers in some cases only blew themselves up.
Zoosermom, there’s limited data on gun violence because the government won’t allow that research to take place because of the influence of the NRA. However, most gun deaths are the result of legal guns. There are the guns that are legal in one state funneled into another with stricter gun laws, there are the guns purchased online or at gun shows, and then there are the far too many accidental and suicidal deaths. One of the most predictive factors in whether a suicide attempt results in death is whether there are guns in the home of the suicidal person. You’d be surprised the number of gun owning families who refuse to remove guns from their home even when advised to do so by a family member’s psychiatrist. Yes, people can kill themselves or others via other means but guns are remarkably and distinctly effective.
I’m enraged by a lack of gun control, not because I think that gun control will avert all mass shootings, but because it is so decidedly irrational not to institute reasonable measures to protect our citizens. With regards to many, if not most, other issues that divide our country politically, I can understand the opposing viewpoint. I’m pro-choice, but I can understand someone feeling that the lives of the unborn must be protected for example. I cannot understand why anyone needs to own a military style weapon capable of shooting through walls and bullet-proof vests. I cannot understand why gun owners can’t be expected to demonstrate competency and safety understanding before being issued a lethal weapon while we require drivers to pass competency and safety tests before getting behind the wheel of a car. I cannot understand why a reasonable waiting period to purchase a gun violates someone’s constitutional rights. I cannot understand why people should be able to transfer guns at a gun show or via a straw man and circumvent regulations. I cannot understand why a gun owner shouldn’t be held legally and financially responsible if the gun that he owns is used to cause injury or death to another. It is this that causes my anger.
Other countries that experienced mass shootings instituted strict gun control and those shootings stopped. It’s at least worth a try where there is no downside to doing so and it would definitely reduce the number of tragic accidental deaths and suicidal deaths.
Related to a previous poster who commented that the male shooter in this situation had become very religious before the shootings, we really don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg in his particular situation. Had his increased religious sentiment drove him to violence or had his attraction to ISIS or ISIS type groups led him to become more religious to justify his commitment? We simply don’t know. Despite the fact that non religious people are attracted to ISIS that doesn’t mean that they don’t then become attracted to what they perceive as their spiritual entitlement. Their martyrdom will send them to paradise after their death. (And, for what it’s worth, apparently that applies to their family members as well so that by their deaths, they are ensuring that their baby also will end up in paradise).
“Zoos, the fact is that there are people with radical beliefs in every developed country, as well as mentally ill people. Only in the US do they kill so prolifically. And that is undeniably because only in the US can they get their hands on guns so easily”
Only in the US do people with radical beliefs kill so prolifically? Take a brief look at this list, we haven’t even gotten started:
I’d say that people with radical beliefs have already killed many, many thousands of innocent people all over the Middle East. And even though they seem to have easy access to guns, they’re doing a lot of damage using knives to separate people’s heads from their bodies. Bombs also appear to be quite popular with radicals.
"I don’t think that is true, and I’d like to see the statistics. Hint: suicide is illegal. I would guess that most suicides by gun are done with legally owned guns.
I’d also like to see statistics, if they are available, about shootings in specific. That is, while I’m concerned about armed robbery, and would like to get guns out of the hands of robbers and muggers, in this discussion we are talking about reducing death and injury from shooting. What percent of all shootings involve illegal guns?"
I believe that the majority of deaths caused by guns, were suicides.
Busdriver, sorry, I assumed it was clear that I was talking about our peer nations. Yes, the Middle East is soaked with blood. Is that the group we’re trying to join?
About 20,000 gun deaths are suicides every year in the US, about 10,000 are homicides, about 1000 are accidents.
It’s going to be difficult to keep people from using their own legal guns to kill themselves (although even then, having to unlock the gun and load it, instead of drunkenly grabbing and firing, will stop some people). But we should be able to stop potential suicides from using someone else’s gun; the owner should have made it impossible for someone else to use the gun.
And we can stop some homicides by making it more difficult for people who shouldn’t have guns and ammunition to get guns and ammunition.
And we can stop some accidents by requiring owners to secure their weapons, by emphasizing and requiring gun safety, and by taking guns away from drunks.
I don’t have a problem with tougher screening for gun sales and licensing , nor do I think most people do. I just question how well it can be done.
I don’t have a lot of faith in our government since they really seem to repeatedly drop the ball when it comes to background checks.
The female terrorist was granted a visa with false information. I realize that DHS isn’t the governing agency issuing gun permits , but while I see the anger and frustration of many who are calling for stricter gun control, I also understand why gun sales are on the rise in this country.
People don’t feel safe.
If things DO change and it becomes more difficult to obtain guns , how will gun violence be curbed in cities such as Chicago , Detroit , Baltimore ?
“Busdriver, sorry, I assumed it was clear that I was talking about our peer nations. Yes, the Middle East is soaked with blood. Is that the group we’re trying to join?”
I believe you wrote, “developed nations”. There are an awful lot of developed nations on that Wikipedia list that I posted.
I’m certainly hoping that the desire isn’t to join in the violence of the Middle East, however, I think many people are conveniently ignoring that part of the world, when it comes to acts of Islamic terror. As if the most recent act of violence happened in a vacuum.
"@rockvillemom It is disgusting. I wonder what the reaction would have been if a Muslim had said the same words about Christians.
Wait, I don’t need to wonder. I know."
Sure, you know because it is the norm in some Middle Eastern countries. Kill the Jews, Kill the Americans. Infidels must die. Isn’t it a lovely day out there. Pass the salt.
I don’t need to defend, as I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe you could tell me what you believe is wrong with “Sharia law”.
No. But it seems to be the norm in America. Only it’s : Kill the Arabs. Kill the 'Muzzies. Kill the Blacks. Kill the Doctors (at abortion clinics). Kill the children at school. Kill the Latinos. Intern the Japs. Refuse entrance to the Jews. Kill the Churchgoers. Kill the toddlers. It goes on.