Political Twelve Monkeys

[HoonDing]

Hundreds of shootings every day, it's like living in a hellhole.

[Pidesco]

[redneckdevil]

 

Moreover, a state monopoly on violence is something good.

 

It's a scary statement coming from a German I would say.

We all know that monopoly is always bad in the long run.

 

What I find wierd in US is that with all their culture of gun ownership they don't teach gun handling in school as a subject.

I think there should be a class that teaches how to handle guns safely and how to act in different circumstances involving guns.

Government runs what is taught at schools and the govt doesn't want people to use guns so they don't even allow them on the property even if u wanted to teach.

We have the right in case to overthrow our govt if we need to, the govt isn't gonna teach people to handle to the very weapon that by right we can aim at them.

[Guard Dog]

 

Moreover, a state monopoly on violence is something good.

It's a scary statement coming from a German I would say.

We all know that monopoly is always bad in the long run.

 

What I find wierd in US is that with all their culture of gun ownership they don't teach gun handling in school as a subject.

I think there should be a class that teaches how to handle guns safely and how to act in different circumstances involving guns.

 

Actually there used to be as late as the 1980's. I had gun safety in my Ag class in middle school.

[Elerond]

 

 

Moreover, a state monopoly on violence is something good.

It's a scary statement coming from a German I would say.

We all know that monopoly is always bad in the long run.

 

What I find wierd in US is that with all their culture of gun ownership they don't teach gun handling in school as a subject.

I think there should be a class that teaches how to handle guns safely and how to act in different circumstances involving guns.

Government runs what is taught at schools and the govt doesn't want people to use guns so they don't even allow them on the property even if u wanted to teach.

We have the right in case to overthrow our govt if we need to, the govt isn't gonna teach people to handle to the very weapon that by right we can aim at them.

 

 

They don't teach you how to use guns in schools? I had my first shooting class (with air pistols) in school when I was 9. And when I was 12 we went to actual shooting range to shoot with small caliber (.22) pistols and rifles and range owner's muskets.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Elerond

[Guard Dog]

There has never been a time in the history of this country where we haven't had at least 40% of the population owning firearms. There have been periods of greater restriction and greater liberty but they have always been around. But people going batsht crazy and shooting up concerts and churches and killing innocent people en masse with no prior motive or argument is a new thing. Individual acts of violent crime have actually been dropping in recent years and we are certainly in a period of increased liberty. So if the guns have always been there but the mass killings are new perhaps the guns are not the problem. After all, 300 million firearms hurt no one yesterday. I checked on mine, they are all still in the gun safe where I left them. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

 

What I find wierd in US is that with all their culture of gun ownership they don't teach gun handling in school as a subject.

I think there should be a class that teaches how to handle guns safely and how to act in different circumstances involving guns.

 

 

I agree with this. 

[Guard Dog]

From CNN:

 

 

He reportedly purchased the Ruger AR-556 rifle in April last year from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, according to CNN.

 

When he filled out the background check paperwork, he checked a box that indicated he didn't have a past criminal history, an official told said, adding that he listed an address in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

 

Obviously someone f----d up big time. It sounds like they made him fill out the forms but never did the background check. I strongly suspect this is going to get some scrutiny from law enforcement.

[smjjames]

There has never been a time in the history of this country where at least 40% of the population has owned firearms. There have been periods of greater restriction and greater liberty but they have always been around. But people going batsht crazy and shooting up concerts and churches and killing innocent people en masse with no prior motive or argument is a new thing. Individual acts of violent crime have actually been dropping in recent years and we are certainly in a period of increased liberty. So if the guns have always been there but the mass killings are new perhaps the guns are not the problem. After all, 300 million firearms hurt no one yesterday. I checked on mine, they are all still in the gun safe where I left them.

 

Well, there are no statistics on gun violence from the 19th century, so, we can't say for absolute certainty that individual acts of violence were greater in the 19th than the 20th, though I agree that the mass numbers are much more recent. Also, there IS one thing that wasn't readily available to the public 100 years ago, powerful guns like the AR-15 bushmaster type rifle that the shooter used, so, there are new types of guns, that didn't exist until relatively recently.

 

Anyway, Gov. Greg Abbott said that the gunman was denied a right to carry, don't know if that was concealed carry or a total inability to get guns.

 

Also, that terror incident in NY showed that the gun laws worked in that instance, a terrorist doesn't purchase a BB gun and a paintball gun if they're unable to buy a real gun.

[Guard Dog]

 

There has never been a time in the history of this country where at least 40% of the population has owned firearms. There have been periods of greater restriction and greater liberty but they have always been around. But people going batsht crazy and shooting up concerts and churches and killing innocent people en masse with no prior motive or argument is a new thing. Individual acts of violent crime have actually been dropping in recent years and we are certainly in a period of increased liberty. So if the guns have always been there but the mass killings are new perhaps the guns are not the problem. After all, 300 million firearms hurt no one yesterday. I checked on mine, they are all still in the gun safe where I left them.

Well, there are no statistics on gun violence from the 19th century, so, we can't say for absolute certainty that individual acts of violence were greater in the 19th than the 20th, though I agree that the mass numbers are much more recent. Also, there IS one thing that wasn't readily available to the public 100 years ago, powerful guns like the AR-15 bushmaster type rifle that the shooter used, so, there are new types of guns, that didn't exist until relatively recently.

 

Anyway, Gov. Greg Abbott said that the gunman was denied a right to carry, don't know if that was concealed carry or a total inability to get guns.

 

Also, that terror incident in NY showed that the gun laws worked in that instance, a terrorist doesn't purchase a BB gun and a paintball gun if they're unable to buy a real gun.

 

Not so actually. Up until the 1960's you could buy military surplus including the BAR & Thompson & even the M-14. Most of it completely outclasses the firepower of anything commercially available today. There is some nuance here just to note. Full auto weapons were actually banned in one of the first national gun control acts in the 1930's. But for whatever reason that did not apply to military surplus. They stopped selling surplus weapons in the in the '60's and closed the loophole altogether in the 1980's.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

Well at least he wasn't a Megadeth fan.

[smjjames]

@malcador: What does that have to do with anything?

 

@guard dog: Thing is, what changed? If powerful weapons capable of shooting clips of 20 at a time have been around for at least a hundred or more years, then why is it a recent phenomenon? Mental illness is an incomplete answer because we don't have more mentally ill on average than any other country and the numbers of mentally ill have likely been roughly constant through history.

 

Anyways, turns out that the guys in laws go to the church, but the in laws weren't there at the time, so a possible motive. Though one would think to check if the in laws were in fact there.

[Amentep]

There has never been a time in the history of this country where we haven't had at least 40% of the population owning firearms. There have been periods of greater restriction and greater liberty but they have always been around. But people going batsht crazy and shooting up concerts and churches and killing innocent people en masse with no prior motive or argument is a new thing. Individual acts of violent crime have actually been dropping in recent years and we are certainly in a period of increased liberty. So if the guns have always been there but the mass killings are new perhaps the guns are not the problem. After all, 300 million firearms hurt no one yesterday. I checked on mine, they are all still in the gun safe where I left them. 

 

Technically there were mass shootings that we know of going back into the 1920s in the US although they were typically crime related (St. Valentine's Day Massacre, for example).

 

But if you ignore crime violence, you still get something like the Kelayres Massacre in Pennsylvania in 1934 that killed 5.  And if you expand away from guns, you get the Bath School Bombing in 1927 that killed 45 and injured 48.

 

What is new, in a way, is the number.  You got one to three, roughly, a decade until 1972 or so when the frequency goes up to one or two every two-three years, and then by 1988 you get at least one a year.

[Malcador]

Couple of mass shooters end up being fans over the years.

 

As for mental illness, not sure it is likely to be the same, or at least not more likely than it being higher throughout history. Would be interesting to see, but doubt anyone would check

[smjjames]

Well, the number of untreated and undiagnosed (and incorrectly diagnosed) mental illnesses would increase the further back you go just because of the state of psychology as a science at the time, especially getting into the 19th century. So, it wouldn't be possible to reliably check beyond a certain point, and it certainly would have fluctuated with wars and social issues, etc.

 

Main point though is that right now, we don't have more mentally ill as a percentage of the population compared to other countries. We have more people by virtue of larger population, but not as a percentage.

 

As Guard Dog mentioned, enforcement of current laws would definetly help since someone screwed up big time with the background check.

[Gfted1]

^Yup, theres a mental illness, and accompanying medicine, for everything.

[smjjames]

I said roughly constant as in not being a huge number. Also not really possible to get a truly accurate picture for (most of) the 19th century and back due to the modern study of psychology and treatment being a relatively recent thing. Not that attempts at treatment in times past didn't exist obviously.

 

The whole visiting psychiatrists and on psycho drugs needs some context though, like is it just more people being diagnosed and treated and a decrease in the stigma rather than an actual increase in mental illness. Not disputing it, just needs some context and data.

 

Either way, the domestic assault alone should have precluded him from owning guns and Guard Dog noted that someone seriously screwed up the background check in Colorado.

Edited November 6, 2017 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

If the story about the botched background check is true that gun store is looking at, at the minimum, loss of their license and a monster of a wrongful death suit. More likely there is prison time coming. If it's true.

 

Apparently the target was his ex-wife's family: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5054531/Shooter-targeted-church-ex-s-laws-worshiped.html

 

@ smjjames you are asking the important question there. What has changed? I wish I knew. Mental health is an issue sure but even if we had the greatest mental health system in the world and it was all free they can't help anyone who does not ask for it. And we don't want to go down a road where the government identifies and forces people into treatment. And none of that may even apply to this bastard

 

Like Volo might say, sometimes evil is just evil.

[Hurlshort]

We used to force people into treatment quite regularly though. The deinstitutionalization of psych wards is a pretty complex case.

 

I want to see way more progress made in mental health care in this country and would love if that were the dominant conversation over gun control or Islamic extremism.

 

 

Personally I think we've become too focused on drugs over treatment and education.

[smjjames]

The press conference this morning confirmed that he didn't have a gun license (expired or otherwise), I assume that even at gun shows they at least check for a license? The reputable sellers at least. So, there are multiple failures here because he shouldn't have been able to get any of the guns in the first place.

 

Also, they said that there was a 'domestic situation in/with the family', so, this is an extreme form of domestic violence?

 

Sometimes evil is just evil, yes, but this also looks like a failure of current gun laws to do their thing.

Edited November 6, 2017 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

The press conference this morning confirmed that he didn't have a gun license (expired or otherwise), I assume that even at gun shows they at least check for a license? The reputable sellers at least. So, there are multiple failures here because he shouldn't have been able to get any of the guns in the first place.

 

Also, they said that there was a 'domestic situation in/with the family', so, this is an extreme form of domestic violence?

 

Sometimes evil is just evil, yes, but this also looks like a failure of current gun laws to do their thing.

He didn't have a carry permit. It's a different thing and would not apply to a rifle anyway.If you have a concealed carry you don't have to go through a background check because the State has already done one on you. In my State they took my fingerprints, DD-214, and criminal history. It was pretty thorough. But as long as I keep my license up I don't need to do a background check every time I buy something. You need that license to carry a loaded firearm concealed. But not to own one. Or even carry one as long as it's not loaded or concealed. But yes, if he bought that legally (and now multiple news sources are reporting he did) then it's probable the gun-decked his background check. Because if they hadn't it would have been caught. Someone is in big trouble

[smjjames]

Sounded to me like they said he didn't have any gun license, and more like several somebodies are in trouble because he bought the guns at different places in different states. We'll eventually find out the details of how he got the guns and whether he got them legally as the legality of the purchases seem unclear to me atm due to somewhat conflicting reports.

[Chilloutman]

sound to me someone done terrible choice to sell him firearm

[smjjames]

sound to me someone done terrible choice to sell him firearm

In hindsight, yes, but it's unclear (mainly because it's still early in the investigation) whether he got them legally or illegally/fraudulently.

[213374U]

Like Volo might say, sometimes evil is just evil.

 

Barring aberrant occurrences (Breivik), mass shootings seem to be a chiefly American phenomenon. Which means that either there's a greater concentration of "evil" people in the US -an absurd proposition- or there's a series of actual causes involved, which hopefully can be explained and tackled.