What has the US done to tackle gun shootings?

[rootX]

As a non-local, I have no clue what is been done in the US to prevent shootings from reoccurring. What keeps on happening in the US, most people up here call it insanity. The shooting news catch international attention yet prevention measures and actions from the governments don't come in the international news.

We had two shootings here recently. Politicians acted reasonably to tackle the violence issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/24/harper-toronto-gun-summit.html

"The fact of the matter is, most of the guns that end up in the hands of young criminals are illegal guns and they're coming from south of the border," McGuinty said, noting that the prime minister indicated "he's going to take another look at that."

The mayor, who has already met with Toronto's police chief and McGuinty regarding the recent shootings, declared a "huge victory" Monday after he was assured by the premier that the province would ensure that $5 million in permanent funding would be earmarked to fund a special police squad to curb violence.

McGuinty also pledged $7.5 million in permanent funding for the provincial anti-violence intervention strategy (PAVIS), the provincial extension of TAVIS, which funds similar units in several other Ontario municipalities.

Has US also pledged any money to reduce the gun violence or created organizations to prevent random shootings?

(P.S. This is not anti/pro guns discussion thread. It's nearly impossible to have the anti-pro discussion. But, I only wanted to know about if something is being done and how successful the government has been in tackling the gun-violence issue)

 

[DragonPetter]

I don't really see how throwing money at a problem means they are doing something about it, or that they are "acting reasonably". It is much less simple than that, and who is to know how effective that money will be? How could a special police squad prevent some of the shootings? I think they might be able to put resources into tracking purchase of ammunition and catch some (which I am guessing is already done to some extent), but that is certainly not going to stop every determined psycho. Also, people in the US call it insanity too, among other things as well.

Google found this pretty easily:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Public_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Prevention_programs

 

[rootX]

I don't really see how throwing money at a problem means they are doing something about it, or that they are "acting reasonably". It is much less simple than that, and who is to know how effective that money will be? How could a special police squad prevent some of the shootings? I think they might be able to put resources into tracking purchase of ammunition and catch some (which I am guessing is already done to some extent), but that is certainly not going to stop every determined psycho. Also, people in the US call it insanity too, among other things as well.

Google found this pretty easily:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Public_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Prevention_programs

I checked your wiki pages. These things have been there for few years or decades now.

It's always comfortable to see that they are at least doing something about it than nothing at all. It's impossible catch every psycho out there but that doesn't mean you accept these shootings as a new norm and don't do anything about them.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, we also have such an organization. It is also called 'the police'.

 

[Pkruse]

Any attempt to regulate guns in the US immediately runs into very strong and well funded political opposition. It would appear that many find the gun violence an acceptable cost of maintaining free and almost unrestricted access to them. Many do not feel that way, but those who do are better organized and better funded than the other side. Until that changes, I fear that nothing will change.

 

[rootX]

Yes, we also have such an organization. It is also called 'the police'.

Yes, we also have that but we don't run into these high profile shootings every year. We did have two this year and politicians treated it very seriously. As I said in the OP, I have yet to see any news on government doing something about this. It might be because I don't get to see many local-US news. As an outsider without seeing any strong response, it appears that the US government doesn't treats this as a serious issue.

 

[rootX]

Any attempt to regulate guns in the US immediately runs into very strong and well funded political opposition. It would appear that many find the gun violence an acceptable cost of maintaining free and almost unrestricted access to them. Many do not feel that way, but those who do are better organized and better funded than the other side. Until that changes, I fear that nothing will change.

I don't mind that but what bugs me is that mentally unhealthy people also appear to have unrestricted access. I am not sure if they tried to restrict the access to mentally unhealthy people after Virginia/Batman massacres.

 

[lisab]

I don't mind that but what bugs me is that mentally unhealthy people also appear to have unrestricted access. I am not sure if they tried to restrict the access to mentally unhealthy people after Virginia/Batman massacres.

Some places have stricter rules - it really varies, state to state. In the state I live (Washington), there is a waiting period before you can buy a gun from a gun store (three days, I think).

Recently there was a story where this rule may have saved lives. A guy was going through a nasty divorce, and had a restraining order against him from contacting his family. Well, he showed up at the family home very drunk with a box of bullets, apparently making threats.

He had tried to buy a gun earlier but because of the waiting period, he was not successful. Lucky for the family!

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/03/22/2078494/gig-harbor-principal-accused-of.html

The waiting period doesn't apply to buying guns from individuals, though .

 

[DragonPetter]

I don't mind that but what bugs me is that mentally unhealthy people also appear to have unrestricted access. I am not sure if they tried to restrict the access to mentally unhealthy people after Virginia/Batman massacres.

There are laws in place to prohibit sale to mentally unhealthy people. The application of the law is where there are issues. There are also grey areas and instances where someone may appear healthy or may even trick a mental health professional. How do you prevent someone who is healthy and then suddenly flips?

The problems and solutions may be more fundamental in culture, society, and human nature than superficial laws and policing (although they are important too). The question I think everyone asks is why do they do it, and calling them crazy is obvious but still does not answer why. There are a lot of crazy people who don't harm others.

 

[Skrew]

Yes, we also have that but we don't run into these high profile shootings every year. We did have two this year and politicians treated it very seriously. As I said in the OP, I have yet to see any news on government doing something about this. It might be because I don't get to see many local-US news. As an outsider without seeing any strong response, it appears that the US government doesn't treats this as a serious issue.

A holmes sized shooting could happen every week and it would still be insignificant overall. The US has over 300 million people.

Freedom which includes gun ownership has a price, sometimes people will die(although ironically holmes and similar would have killed more with bombs as has been demonstrated by attacks that have the highest deaths). The number of gun deaths that are actually homicides is surprisingly small, around 15k.

I don't mind that but what bugs me is that mentally unhealthy people also appear to have unrestricted access. I am not sure if they tried to restrict the access to mentally unhealthy people after Virginia/Batman massacres.

Things like "mental health" are completely subjective and restrictions on it will never be supported outside of someone actually having a violent mental breakdown beforehand.

You could base it on anyone who sees a counselor but I suspect that would result in many people not seeing counselors.

 

[SixNein]

Any attempt to regulate guns in the US immediately runs into very strong and well funded political opposition. It would appear that many find the gun violence an acceptable cost of maintaining free and almost unrestricted access to them. Many do not feel that way, but those who do are better organized and better funded than the other side. Until that changes, I fear that nothing will change.

Agreed...

I always looked at the issue as public safety vs self defense. But others look at it differently.

 

[Dembadon]

Yes, we also have that but we don't run into these high profile shootings every year. We did have two this year and politicians treated it very seriously. As I said in the OP, I have yet to see any news on government doing something about this. It might be because I don't get to see many local-US news. As an outsider without seeing any strong response, it appears that the US government doesn't treats this as a serious issue.

What, exactly, are you expecting to see that would qualify as a "strong response," and that you feel would be effective?

I don't mind that but what bugs me is that mentally unhealthy people also appear to have unrestricted access. I am not sure if they tried to restrict the access to mentally unhealthy people after Virginia/Batman massacres.

"Mentally unhealthy" people don't always appear to be mentally unhealthy until a tragic event. Many of them are capable of acting "normally" when they feel like it. The implication being, not everyone who claims to be mentally unhealthy is, in fact, mentally unhealthy. Many of them choose it as a defense since it's something that can often be feigned fairly effectively.

 

[rootX]

There are laws in place to prohibit sale to mentally unhealthy people. The application of the law is where there are issues. There are also grey areas and instances where someone may appear healthy or may even trick a mental health professional. How do you prevent someone who is healthy and then suddenly flips?
The problems and solutions may be more fundamental in culture, society, and human nature than superficial laws and policing (although they are important too). The question I think everyone asks is why do they do it, and calling them crazy is obvious but still does not answer why. There are a lot of crazy people who don't harm others.

Things like "mental health" are completely subjective and restrictions on it will never be supported outside of someone actually having a violent mental breakdown beforehand.

Mental diseases are just like any other disease and there are trained psychologists to recognize them. In both Virgin Tech and http://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-alerted-others-batman-shooter-053904143.html cases, it was known that they are not healthy. As news are emerging, even the Wisconsin guy shouldn't have had guns seeing his anti-social behavior or links to skinhead organizations. Even if guns are to be used for self-defense, how can a person self defend if he cannot distinguish between right and wrong?

Freedom which includes gun ownership has a price, sometimes people will die(although ironically holmes and similar would have killed more with bombs as has been demonstrated by attacks that have the highest deaths).

You cannot price innocent people lives who just are enjoying their day at their school, watching a movie and having a peaceful religious gathering. Lives of people who never did anything wrong to others are priceless and these lives shouldn't be compromised just to give some psycho or neo-nazi freedom to do whatever he pleases. But, of-course this is a personal opinion.

 

[rootX]

What, exactly, are you expecting to see that would qualify as a "strong response," and that you feel would be effective?

I seen some condolences from politicians after both US shootings this year but nothing more. And, I thought the state representative statement was bit non-serious. It appears as if they are seeing this just like another normal day in the US:

The state representative told CNN: "Unfortunately, when this type of stuff hits your area, you say to yourself, 'why?' But in today's society, I don't think there's any place that's free from idiots."

This is bit different from what was in the news after we had shooting in the Canada IMO.

 

[Pkruse]

I have serious doubts that any change in laws could have any real impact on the availability of guns and ammo. With the number of guns three times the population, it is pretty easy to buy a used gun completely outside of the legal system, with no paperwork to track it back to you. Even if you fill out the federal form at a legal gun shop, that stays in the shop. They only have to have it available if the feds ask for it, and in the majority of cases that never happens.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

With the number of guns three times the population, it is pretty easy to buy a used gun completely outside of the legal system, with no paperwork to track it back to you.

Where do you get the "three times the population" value? Last I read, the estimated number of privately owned guns in the United States is around 200 million (population of the United States being around 320 million). Are you claiming there are closer to 1 billion guns in the US, a factor of 5 higher than the FBI's estimates?

Even if you fill out the federal form at a legal gun shop, that stays in the shop. They only have to have it available if the feds ask for it, and in the majority of cases that never happens.

Are you referring to criminal background checks, which are electronically submitted to the FBI through the NICBCS system? People are subject to criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm in a store, although private-party sales are another matter.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) of 1993, Public Law 103-159, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was established for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact by telephone, or other electronic means, for information to be supplied immediately on whether the transfer of a firearm would be in violation of Section 922 (g) or (n) of Title 18, United States Code, or state law. The Brady Act is a public record and is available from many sources including the Internet at www.atf.gov.

 

[AlephZero]

Where do you get the "three times the population" value? Last I read, the estimated number of privately owned guns in the United States is around 200 million (population of the United States being around 320 million). Are you claiming there are closer to 1 billion guns in the US, a factor of 5 higher than the FBI's estimates?

I don't think it makes much difference to the argument whether there are 200m or 1bn. Scaling estimates of UK gun ownership to the size of the US population would give a figure of about 10m, but there isn't much evidence that it's hard for people who want to own a gun illegally to get hold of one, even at that "low" level.

 

[edward]

I have serious doubts that any change in laws could have any real impact on the availability of guns and ammo. With the number of guns three times the population, it is pretty easy to buy a used gun completely outside of the legal system, with no paperwork to track it back to you. Even if you fill out the federal form at a legal gun shop, that stays in the shop. They only have to have it available if the feds ask for it, and in the majority of cases that never happens.

We have probably reached a point of no return as far as any kind of laws restricting weapons. The large capacity magazines are more recent, but there is no way short of civil war that people would give them up.

The sheer number of weapons owned in this country makes it a matter of common sense that there we be no government agency coming around to take away weapons. The problem is too many people don't have the common sense to realize this. It is much easier to believe the many conspiracy theories floating around.

It is almost as if a certain portion of the population actually wants that civil war. It is mentioned constantly on gun forums.

It all boils down to the basic psychology that we all need an enemy. And it appears that we will indeed eventually follow the fear mongers into another civil war.

This
paper describes as an inescapable developmental phenomenon: man's
need to
identify some people as allies and others as enemies. This need evolves
from the individual's efforts to protect his sense of self, which is intertwined
with his
experiences of ethnicity, nationality, and other identifying circum-
stances. When threatened
by political or military conflict, man clings ever
more stubbornly to these circumstances in an effort to maintain and regu-
late his sense of self. Members of any given group revert to childhood ways
of reenforcing their bonding, developing shibboleths, and investing objects
with mystical value. Anyone trying to deal with interethnic or international
conflict must grasp the psychological cogency of man's need to have ene-
mies as well as allies, and his stubborn adherence to
identification with a
group when undergoing hardship and danger. This need is the basis of polit-
ical
psychology, connecting the public arena of political action with individual
psychological development. Political, economic, military, and historicalfac-
tors are
customarily weighed in any attempt to solve turbulence, but it is
necessary to consider also the profound effect of human psychology.

http://www.google.com/search?source..._pw.r_qf.&fp=e4db0aae11000409&biw=960&bih=414

The quote is from the second google link.

I have read through dozens of weapons forums and the most common enemy claimed appears to be President Obama. Especially according to the NRA.

So those who claim the man who can not accomplish anything is the same man who is going to have their weapons siezed?? Exactly what well organized militia do these people belong to?

While they are fighting supposed tyranny from within what is the U.S. military and national Guard going to be doing?

Shotgun firing dragon's breath shell for self defense ? do not fire in your home.



AR 15 with slide stock with 100 round magazine



Slide stock shotgun with 20 round magazine. One of these started a wild fire that burned over 40,000 acres in AZ this spring.



Ok OK so you deserve to Have every weapon that is available to enlisted military. Wait a minute, they usually are assigned to carry one or two specific weapons, not all of them.

I won't go into the phallic symbol theory.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't think it makes much difference to the argument whether there are 200m or 1bn.

I'm just trying to keep the facts straight, maybe closer to the point is about 1 in 10 people in the U.S. are lawful gun owners.

Scaling estimates of UK gun ownership to the size of the US population would give a figure of about 10m,

Scaling doesn't provide a particurally useful reference since pretty much all guns are illegal in the UK.

but there isn't much evidence that it's hard for people who want to own a gun illegally to get hold of one, even at that "low" level.

On the contrary, I would argue it's pretty hard for a criminal to get a gun illegally. They can't be purchased from gun stores or at a gun show without a background check, and are illegal to own if you're a felon or have certain civil or criminal court penalties.

The only real way to get one is buy it from an illegal arms dealer, which is off the books and already out of the reach of the law (hence the moniker "illegal"). If guns were outlawed by a new law tomorrow who would be most affected by it, people legally purchasing weapons through stores with background checks, or ones being sold illegally on the black market?

 

[CAC1001]

The vast majority of gun violence in the United States occurs with handguns in the inner cities. Usually in the cities that have the most restrictive gun laws (which results in only the criminals having guns).

Mental diseases are just like any other disease and there are trained psychologists to recognize them. In both Virgin Tech and http://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-alerted-others-batman-shooter-053904143.html cases, it was known that they are not healthy. As news are emerging, even the Wisconsin guy shouldn't have had guns seeing his anti-social behavior or links to skinhead organizations. Even if guns are to be used for self-defense, how can a person self defend if he cannot distinguish between right and wrong?

Remember that people can get guns illegally. Major Nidal Hasan used a hangun to kill all the people he did. In Norway (a country with a lot of gun control) last year, a man killed 90+ people. The other issue is that we, as a society, have also made another decision: that it is acceptable to have a lot of legitimately mentally unhealthy people walking around in order to not violate the rights of the few mentally healthy people who could accidentally be committed. This was due to a change in the civil rights laws back in the 1980s I think, where beforehand, people like a Jared Loughner, who everyone could see was nuts, would have been committed. The problem was if enough people thought you were nuts, and you really weren't, you could also be committed against your will. The modern law makes it where a person first must do something bad before they can be committed against their will.

You cannot price innocent people lives who just are enjoying their day at their school, watching a movie and having a peaceful religious gathering. Lives of people who never did anything wrong to others are priceless and these lives shouldn't be compromised just to give some psycho or neo-nazi freedom to do whatever he pleases. But, of-course this is a personal opinion.

Yes, but by the same token, that's why people should be allowed to be armed as well, so they can defend themselves. The problem with "reasonable gun laws" regarding mental health issues or crimes is that the people who are zealous about gun control would try to make such laws very unreasonable, where if you have so much as a traffic ticket in your background, you lose your gun rights. A determined criminal will always be able to harm people, whether getting the weapons illegally (like the guys in the 1997 North Hollywood shootout) or making bombs or whatnot.

 

[CAC1001]

We have probably reached a point of no return as far as any kind of laws restricting weapons. The large capacity magazines are more recent, but there is no way short of civil war that people would give them up.

"Large-capacity" magazine is an arbitrary term. To the gun control people, it means any magazine capable of holding more then ten rounds. A lot of people would disagree with that.

The sheer number of weapons owned in this country makes it a matter of common sense that there we be no government agency coming around to take away weapons. The problem is too many people don't have the common sense to realize this. It is much easier to believe the many conspiracy theories floating around.

When Hurricane Katrina happened, the police went around and confiscated the guns of citizens (because of course the citizens who would willingly tell the police where their guns are so they could go and take them away are the ones who cannot be trusted to hold firearms). The result was a lot of people were left defenseless as there was a breakdown of civil order.

So those who claim the man who can not accomplish anything is the same man who is going to have their weapons siezed?? Exactly what well organized militia do these people belong to?

While they are fighting supposed tyranny from within what is the U.S. military and national Guard going to be doing?

Don't know if they claim Obama can't do anything. People fear him seizing their weapons for reasons ranging from his anti-gun voting history as a Senator to his ability to change the structure of the SCOTUS to where it will be clearly anti-Second Amendment. The militia consists of every able-bodied male. There are also multiple state militias, some of which go all the way back to the revolution; they usually with work in with law enforcement and the military during times of crisis.

Shotgun firing dragon's breath shell for self defense ? do not fire in your home.



AR 15 with slide stock with 100 round magazine



Slide stock shotgun with 20 round magazine. One of these started a wild fire that burned over 40,000 acres in AZ this spring.



Ok OK so you deserve to Have every weapon that is available to enlisted military. Wait a minute, they usually are assigned to carry one or two specific weapons, not all of them.

I won't go into the phallic symbol theory.

Bump-fire weapons that simulate automatic fire capability are a bad idea IMO, as automatic fire weapons are illegal with a few exceptions. Civilians are not allowed to own every weapon that is available to enlisted military, they are allowed to own handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and shotguns. Whether these are used by the military or not is really irrelevant. So long as they meet what is legally allowed, then it's fine. Many a hunting rifle can do far more damage then a military rifle. There's also a lot of crossover between the two. The hunting variant of the AR-15 (a rifle used by Holmes), for example, fires a larger-caliber of ammunition and has a longer barrel to shoot over a longer distance, with better accuracy. The Remington 870 pump-action shot gun that Holmes also had is used in everything from hunting to law enforcement to military.

When the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, they also meant military weapons. It wasn't put in there for hunting purposes. That said, being how modern weapons are different, weapons like bombs, machine guns, battle tanks, and all that, are not covered under the word "arms."

 

[lisab]

When the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, they also meant military weapons.

In your opinion. If it was clear what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

 

[russ_watters]

In your opinion. If it was clear what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

Neither of those is correct. For most of the Constitution, there is historical record about the intent of the founders, so we do generally know what "they" intended (note however, "they" is not one person, so "they" didn't always agree with each other and "they" isn't one voice). On the narrow issue you were commenting on, the amendment was indeed intended for the populace to be able to defend themselves against government tyranny and also to help the government defend the country against invasion. That's a historical fact, not an opinion. See discussion in the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...ion#Drafting_and_adoption_of_the_Constitution

The reasons we need the supreme court (for this issue, anyway) is that technology has made military weapons a lot more powerful, causing concern over whether individuals should be allowed to have military grade weapons. In addition, there are always grey edges to rights that require interpretation -- the first Amendment would seem to be clearer, but there has been no shortage of litigation about it, for example.

[edit] Also, while the USSC certainly does exist partly to bring clarity, they've already ruled on the issue multiple times, doing just that.

 

[lisab]

Neither of those is correct. For most of the Constitution, there is historical record about the intent of the founders, so we do generally know what "they" intended. On the narrow issue you were commenting on, the amendment was indeed intended for the populace to be able to defend themselves against government tyranny and also to help the government defend the country against invasion. That's a historical fact, not an opinion. See discussion in the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...ion#Drafting_and_adoption_of_the_Constitution

The reasons we need the supreme court (for this issue, anyway) is that technology has made military weapons a lot more powerful, causing concern over whether individuals should be allowed to have military grade weapons. In addition, there are always grey edges to rights that require interpretation -- the first Amendment would seem to be clearer, but there has been no shortage of litigation about it, for example.

[edit] Also, while the USSC certainly does exist partly to bring clarity, they've already ruled on the issue multiple times, doing just that.

You've contradicted yourself a bit. Either the writers' intent is clear, or there is already precedent, or their intent is not clear. The very fact that they have ruled "several times" indicates the intent is not clear, or why would so many cases make it to the Supreme Court in the first place?

 

[EEH4]

It's fundamentally more complicated than any of the posts listed above.It has to do with the individual perpertrating the violence.Every thing counts mental health,genetics,the culture one was raised in,personal beliefs,erroneous information,personal experiences,and the lot.Anyone,under certain circumstances,is capable of such acts.How to fix this? I don't know.I'm confident people smarter than me could find many practical solutions.

 

[rootX]

Remember that people can get guns illegally.

The problem with "reasonable gun laws" regarding mental health issues or crimes is that the people who are zealous about gun control would try to make such laws very unreasonable, where if you have so much as a traffic ticket in your background, you lose your gun rights.

That doesn't mean you should just let the unfit people get the guns legally. It's as irresponsible to let the unfit people own guns or other lethal objects as let the children own them. People who cannot be committed for their crimes, like a normal healthy adult, shouldn't be allowed to have same freedom as an normal adult has in the first place. If the legal system want to distinguish them in the court, I don't think it's unreasonable to distinguish them before they do something stupid and get into the court.

The problem was if enough people thought you were nuts, and you really weren't, you could also be committed against your will. The modern law makes it where a person first must do something bad before they can be committed against their will.

If a nut carries guns illegally assuming he is not allowed to carry lethal weapons because of mental-ill-being, he has done a bad thing to be committed for against his will.

 

[AlephZero]

Scaling doesn't provide a particurally useful reference

I was simply scaling the UK numbers by US/RK populations, on the aossumption that not everybody on PF knows the population of the UK, and it gives a simple comparison with your US gun numbers.

since pretty much all guns are illegal in the UK.

If you are claiming that as a "fact", please give sme evidence. The number of legally held guns in the UK is almost 2 million, according to the police (who operate the gun licensing system, so they should know).

FWIW I don't care in the slightest how many US citizens shoot each other, so long as they do it in their own country and not in mine.

 

[CAC1001]

In your opinion. If it was clear what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

As Russ has said, the SCOTUS is mostly because of the way "arms" have advanced technologically (arms back then meant muskets and cannon and some handguns).

The reasons we need the supreme court (for this issue, anyway) is that technology has made military weapons a lot more powerful, causing concern over whether individuals should be allowed to have military grade weapons. In addition, there are always grey edges to rights that require interpretation -- the first Amendment would seem to be clearer, but there has been no shortage of litigation about it, for example.

The term "military-grade weapons" is another one that can mislead people when it comes to firearms. Generally, a gun is a gun. They're meant to kill things. There is nothing special about a human that makes it where you need a special gun to kill a person as opposed to an animal. Humans are animals, biologically. We are high-functioning animals, but still animals. A hunting rifle can kill humans just as much as it can kill animals and vice-versa.

One would not necessarilly adopt hunting rifles for military use because they are not necessarilly manufactured to withstand the rigors of war, but the practice of adopting military rifles for hunting is something that has been being done since the revolution. The AR-15 and the Remington 870 pump-action shot gun (both used by James Holmes) are used for hunting. Now if by "military," one means automatic fire weapons, bombs, battle tanks, and all that, those are not construed as being covered by the Second Amendment.

That doesn't mean you should just let the unfit people get the guns legally. It's as irresponsible to let the unfit people own guns or other lethal objects as let the children own them. People who cannot be committed for their crimes, like a normal healthy adult, shouldn't be allowed to have same freedom as an normal adult has in the first place. If the legal system want to distinguish them in the court, I don't think it's unreasonable to distinguish them before they do something stupid and get into the court.

Yes, but how does one go about determining just who is "unfit?" That's the problem. People can be committed for their crimes, the problem is you have to first commit a crime (such as shooting people) to show you're a nut.

 

[russ_watters]

You've contradicted yourself a bit. Either the writers' intent is clear, or there is already precedent, or their intent is not clear. The very fact that they have ruled "several times" indicates the intent is not clear, or why would so many cases make it to the Supreme Court in the first place?

Cases make it to the supreme court because we have a lot of lawyers who like to sue a lot and people like to argue. That doesn't implie one thing or another about what they are arguing over. Just because an issue is clear or already decided, doesn't mean it can't still be asked over and over again -- otherwise, there would be no such thing as "precedent"! (There'd never be a next case to ask the same question again, to need it.). But here's probably the prime piece of precedent on that issue:

In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Basically, it is saying that if you joined a militia, you'd typically be expected to provide your own, appropriate weapon.

In any case, the objection you raised isn't really a critical piece of the caselaw about the 2nd amendment. Most cases focus on if the right is individual or tied to a militia or the issue of incorporation. I don't see why you would bother arguing about it.

 

[russ_watters]

Mental diseases are just like any other disease and there are trained psychologists to recognize them. In both Virgin Tech and http://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-alerted-others-batman-shooter-053904143.html cases, it was known that they are not healthy. As news are emerging, even the Wisconsin guy shouldn't have had guns seeing his anti-social behavior or links to skinhead organizations. Even if guns are to be used for self-defense, how can a person self defend if he cannot distinguish between right and wrong?

It isn't as simple as you imply, unless you favor a "Minority Report" world where people are declared criminals based on a prediction that they will commit a crime. A country that values rights can't work that way. Can we improve detection of people with emerging issues? Probably. Can we ever prevent all freshly blooming nuts from getting guns? No chance.

You cannot price innocent people lives who just are enjoying their day at their school, watching a movie and having a peaceful religious gathering. Lives of people who never did anything wrong to others are priceless and these lives shouldn't be compromised just to give some psycho or neo-nazi freedom to do whatever he pleases. But, of-course this is a personal opinion.

It is a popular cliche/platitude to say that human life is priceless, but it isn't and even people who say it is don't actually treat it that way -- it isn't possible to be a functional human being and try to seriously apply that view. Life is an endless stream of compromises of safety; we face death on a continuous basis and are constantly making compromises in the face of it. Just this weekend, I went to the beach, choosing to face a possible death by car accident, shark attack, skin cancer, concussion, bungee-ball slingshot accident and drowning, in addition to the daily dangers of bathing and walking downstairs. Oh, and I also recently bought a car that doesn't have lane exit notification, adaptive cruise control or blind spot monitoring. The added safety wasn't worth the extra money to me.

So the question really is how far are you willing to compromise on the issue of life versus freedom. Early Americans said "give me liberty or give me death" and soldiers today still buy-in to that. Civilians don't tend to think in those terms, but virtually all engage in risky actions. Sure, the scales are generally tipped far toward life, but not all the way. We still lean them a little toward liberty and happiness too.

You're also exaggerating to imply that innocent lives are purposely being compromised in favor of giving neo-nazis and psychos unlimited freedom.

 

[Pkruse]

This is an interesting thread, but I've seen all this before. Many places.

But to give non US people an idea of how many guns people have here, I talked with a number of my friends, two dozen in all. Most are professional people over 50 years old. A few welders and machinists. One an eight year old boy with 8 eight of them under his bed and access to more than a hundred more in the house. I confirmed that with his grandma who said he has become an excellent marksman and has used all of them, including the very old black powder and flint lock weapons. During the family's last hunting trip he was the only one who shot anything and he filled the family's freezers for the year.

I do not pretend that this poll is in any way scientific, but everyone I talked to had at least 2 or 3 guns. Several had that many either in their car or on their person. Three of the older ones had more than 200. One told at 78 told me he has carried a gun every day of his life since he was 12 years old, but never had to fire one at anyone.

None of these people have ever been arrested. They are all just normal law abiding people that you might see on the street.

As for me personally, I have two in storage somewhere. I'd have to hunt for them to find them. Haven't fired them in years.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

If you are claiming that as a "fact", please give sme evidence. The number of legally held guns in the UK is almost 2 million, according to the police (who operate the gun licensing system, so they should know).

The point is the UK's gun laws are much more restrictive than the US, so obviously there are less firearms. You can probably help with a better summary of UK firearms laws than I can, but according to what I've read the only guns legal to own in the UK (with licensing certificate, more on that lengthy process below) are single-action hunting rifles, single or double barrel shotguns, and black powder (antique) firearms. This is very restrictive when compared to US law; from what I understand UK gun law is among the most restrictive in the world.

According to Wikipedia's summary of UK gun laws:

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued, which has to be renewed every 5 years.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Just this weekend, I went to the beach, choosing to face a possible death by car accident, shark attack, skin cancer, concussion, bungee-ball slingshot accident and drowning, in addition to the daily dangers of bathing and walking downstairs.

Around 33,000 people in the US die in car accidents each year, of which 17,000 die in alcohol-related vehicle accidents. It seems to me this is a worse scourge than "mass shootings," and in the same order of magnitude as total homicides (far higher than "mass shootings") by firearm in the US.

In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States#Statistics

For reference, gun related deaths:

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

And also in reply to the original poster's question as to what's being done to prevent it, a quick summary:

Policies at the federal, state, and local levels have attempted to address gun violence through a variety of methods, including restricting firearms purchasing by youths and other "at-risk" populations, setting waiting periods for firearm purchases, establishing gun "buy-back" programs, targeted law enforcement and policing strategies, stiff sentencing of gun law violators, education programs for parents and children, and community-outreach programs. Research has found some policies such as gun "buy-back" programs are ineffective, while Boston's Operation Ceasefire, a gang violence abatement and intervention strategy, has been effective. Gun policies are also highly influenced by debates over the interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court took a position for the first time on this issue in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the second amendment secures an individual right to own firearms.

 

[rootX]

It isn't as simple as you imply, unless you favor a "Minority Report" world where people are declared criminals based on a prediction that they will commit a crime. A country that values rights can't work that way. Can we improve detection of people with emerging issues? Probably. Can we ever prevent all freshly blooming nuts from getting guns? No chance.

I never said declaring people criminals based on a prediction. Rather, all I said that taking guns from hands of people who shouldn't have them. The people who are unhealthy can unlikely use them for their protection or for any other intent that American founders had.

If these people can escape their punishments for being schizophrenia[1] why they should be given lethal weapons that can be used to harm innocent lives. It's similar to letting a blind person drive a car.

Yes, it will never be possible to prevent all freshly blooming nuts (looking at all past incidents however none of them was freshly bloomed when they went on rage) from getting guns. But at least, the mental health should be given a consideration when legally handing person a gun.

It is a popular cliche/platitude to say that human life is priceless, but it isn't and even people who say it is don't actually treat it that way -- it isn't possible to be a functional human being and try to seriously apply that view. Life is an endless stream of compromises of safety; we face death on a continuous basis and are constantly making compromises in the face of it. Just this weekend, I went to the beach, choosing to face a possible death by car accident, shark attack, skin cancer, concussion, bungee-ball slingshot accident and drowning, in addition to the daily dangers of bathing and walking downstairs. Oh, and I also recently bought a car that doesn't have lane exit notification, adaptive cruise control or blind spot monitoring. The added safety wasn't worth the extra money to me.

So the question really is how far are you willing to compromise on the issue of life versus freedom. Early Americans said "give me liberty or give me death" and soldiers today still buy-in to that. Civilians don't tend to think in those terms, but virtually all engage in risky actions. Sure, the scales are generally tipped far toward life, but not all the way. We still lean them a little toward liberty and happiness too.

I don't understand why freedom of a nut is more valuable than innocent lives. Reason I said innocent lives are priceless because they are more way more valuable than these nuts freedom or lives from my personal opinion as you already said "the scales are generally tipped far toward life".

You're also exaggerating to imply that innocent lives are purposely being compromised in favor of giving neo-nazis and psychos unlimited freedom

Yes I might have been exaggerating because of the anger. Seeing these shootings one after another and yet complete inaction from the government, why wouldn't you be angry? Government inaction was the main reason I started this thread. I feel occurrence of the same cause behind these incidents is bit too much to be ignored. You likely will have different ways to dealing with the issue but yet you and others seem to be ignoring that there is an issue.

 

[rootX]

Yes, but how does one go about determining just who is "unfit?" That's the problem. People can be committed for their crimes, the problem is you have to first commit a crime (such as shooting people) to show you're a nut.

Cannot same people who determine whether a person is fit for punishment also determine who is unfit? There will be mistakes but ignoring the mental health issue just seems absurd to me after seeing a series of consecutive massacres all sharing the same root cause.

On positive side:
1) There will be more awareness among Americans about mental health
2) You would less likely to see a mad person shooting in public places
3) People who are not healthy will not live in denial but rather seek help than just ignoring and wasting all their life in dark