The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[blackchubby38]

Best states for gun owners according to Guns and Ammo July 21st, 2015:

Nevada- ranked #22
Oregon- ranked #28
Texas- ranked #15
South Carolina- ranked #14
Arizona- ranked #1
Florida- ranked #12
Minnesota- ranked #39
Kansas- ranked #8

Editor’s note: State-specific gun laws are a complicated, frustrating and fluid subject. We have consulted sources such as the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and state and law enforcement agencies to compile these rankings. Some states are very hazy on certain statutes, so our data reflects those confusions with general statements based on our understanding of the law. All information is current as of July 2015.

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-t...#ixzz4xbT4S200

[Ts RedVeX]

I will only note that the church was a gun-free area. What, wait... Did the gunman not respect the law? No way...

In the US most psychos use guns which they probably got into possesion illegay anyway. In Europe they use cars or acid, or home-made bombs. Nonetheless, we also have had some shootings over here. One by Brevik was probably the most recent.

[broncofan]

Nonetheless, we also have had some shootings over here. One by Brevik was probably the most recent.

That was more than six years ago and in a different country.

[Ts RedVeX]

Well there were shootings in France in 2015. The point is that gun control is useless

[slave2u]

for all intents and purposes a gun ban just isn't going to happen in the usa.
what is most often asked for is stricter controls on gun sales and what types of weapons are available. however it seems that sensible restrictions (to those of us not in a gun culture) are met with cries of horror that the state is trying to restrict fundamental freedoms.
the practical necessity for an overhaul of the rules, regulations and laws just get lost in ideological and fundamentalist fear and rantings.

[broncofan]

Well there were shootings in France in 2015. The point is that gun control is useless

Again, that was in another country, but we've already been over this in another thread. We looked at gun death rates by country and then just to be thorough looked at homicide rates to make sure there weren't sufficient number of people displacing guns for other deadly instruments. Finally, when you saw the disparity you sort of abandoned the argument that guns make people safer and instead said that there should be no restriction on their ownership regardless of the effect because of their importance.

[blackchubby38]

The point I have been trying to make is that mass shootings can happen anywhere. Not just in states that have stricter gun laws. The issue then becomes what can we do to stop them from happening. Considering how many have happened in the past six years, nobody seems to know the right answer to that question. Instead we just continue to do the same song and dance we do every time after one of these incidents occur:

Outrage....Outrage......Thoughts and Prayers.....Thoughts and Prayers.....Everybody to a neutral corner.....Bell rings and the fight begins for a few days.....Bell rings again....Fight ends in draw.....Until the next mass shooting....Repeat.

Think about it. This thread was started 5 years ago after Sandy Hook and guns haven't been banned. NOR SHOULD THEY BE BANNED AND I CAN'T STRESS THOSE WORDS ENOUGH. But has any progress been made in trying to find a way to make sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental disabilities. Nope.

[broncofan]

But has any progress been made in trying to find a way to make sure guns don't wind up in the hands of people with certain mental disabilities. Nope.

There's no such thing as regulation that makes sure of something. Only legislation that increases or decreases probabilities. Passing laws that make sure people with diagnosed psychoses cannot buy a gun would help. It would have to go further than only prohibiting ownership by people who have pleaded the insanity defense which is an incredibly high threshold. It can be done, but it requires the passage of laws to do it. There is a battleground over whether misdemeanor domestic violence is enough to prohibit gun ownership, but in the one circuit that okay'd such laws, they could pass such a prohibition until the supreme court adjudicates it. We could make sure that guns never get into the hands of felons with better background checks. We could ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines to reduce the carnage when someone does go on a rampage. We could make bump stocks illegal.

Finally, we could take away the immunity from suit that the gun industry has that other industries do not. In fact, if you look at the way alcohol is regulated, there are laws called dramshop acts. These are actually laws that increase the liability of places that sell alcohol to those who are intoxicated. And their liability is increased beyond what it is at the common law by these statutes. On the other hand, gun manufacturers are insulated from liability by federal statute. Now some may think that strict liability for gun manufacturers is not fair, but this law means that liability at the state level cannot even develop the way it otherwise would. It is strictly a consequence of lobbying and protection against lifesaving developments in weapon safety.

[Stavros]

In the US most psychos use guns which they probably got into possesion illegay anyway.

Again, if you did some elementary research you would find that not only have mass killings been done by men with legally purchased weapons, in the past few months the Obama era ruling that made it harder for people with mental health problems to purchase weapons has been rescinded so that it is now easier for a nutter to buy guns. Just out of idle curiosity, do you own a gun?

[filghy2]

The point I have been trying to make is that mass shootings can happen anywhere. Not just in states that have stricter gun laws. The issue then becomes what can we do to stop them from happening. Considering how many have happened in the past six years, nobody seems to know the right answer to that question.

It's only a mystery to those who refuse to see the obvious. Higher rates of gun ownership are clearly associated with higher rates of gun deaths, both across countries and across US states. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts

Almost anything that makes it harder to acquire guns could be expected to reduce the rate of gun deaths over time. An obvious starting point would be to stop people from acquiring arsenals of military-style weapons that allow them to quickly kill large numbers of people. The fact that you avoid this is a good indicator of how disingenuous your response was.