Everything I don't know about guns

[cletus1]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.

By Will Oremus


Another mass shooting—this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon—has reignited the long, fractious debate over gun control in America. After the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012, Will Oremus highlighted the lessons of Australia’s strict gun laws and the resulting success in preventing subsequent mass shootings there. The post is reprinted below.

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

[cletus1]

Hold on for a minute. I got it, I really do. Let's encourage black men in the cities to open carry. I bet we find a way to restrict access to guns pretty damn quick. Waddaya think? Remember when the Black Panthers started caring guns and Saint Ronald Reagan inacted some serious gun control. 

[orygunluvr]

Sorry clete but you are wrong again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQp2WJE...r_embedded

[orygunluvr]

Here you go clete, state and federal gun laws violated, 55 counts in all, and the BLACK guy gets a year probation. Did you know that sometime between February and march the us district attorneys told local law enforcement jurisdictions to law off of blacks and illegals? Tell us again when you had an epiphany and white Christian lives started to matter to you. 

If Obama had a son

Here's what this poor guy looks like. 

[SFLiberal]

If it is a mental Heath issue then there is a simple solution. We already have enough gun laws, get rid of the HIPPA laws. Then if a person is crazy those that know it can let authorities know.

[orygunluvr]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

[cletus1]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

Just so you know, I read that article twice and looked at the data to see if I could determine what information they relied on for the study. 

I'll give you this: I can't draw any conclusions that are certain, but this study has confused the hell out of me. I will add that a study, that has a goal is no study at all. "Facts", can be misleading when cherry picked. As you well know, when some facts are omitted whether from the gun safety side or the gun rights side the conclusions are tainted. IOW, picking the data you want to include in the study is key to getting the results that you want. 

I will look at this again later. 

[tvguy]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

I posted the same info and apparently no one wants to admit it's true and that Obama's comments were wrong.

Wonky doesn't think it matters. Our president is lying or he's stupid. One or the other. And what he is saying to the masses is that we need to get rid of guns just like they have in other places.
And he's lying about facts to get his point across.

[Cuzz]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

Perhaps you could have found a more slanted source, but I doubt it. A lot of the points the article contends is a lie appears to be due to differences in definition. The most obvious is "frequency" as apposed to "number of attacks per some number of population". To compare numbers you really should define them the same way.

Oh, and you should choose your words better. You sound like a nut that just might start shooting any minute. 

[Valuesize]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

I posted the same info and apparently no one wants to admit it's true and that Obama's comments were wrong.

Wonky doesn't think it matters. Our president is lying or he's stupid. One or the other. And what he is saying to the masses is that we need to get rid of guns just like they have in other places.
And he's lying about facts to get his point across.

I listened to his speech at the time he gave it and I didn't hear him say anything you or OGL claim he did. I'll see if I can find the transcript and get back to you. 

I'm guessing we are all reading between the lines differently.

[tvguy]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

Perhaps you could have found a more slanted source, but I doubt it. A lot of the points the article contends is a lie appears to be due to differences in definition. The most obvious is "frequency" as apposed to "number of attacks per some number of population". To compare numbers you really should define them the same way.

Oh, and you should choose your words better. You sound like a nut that just might start shooting any minute. 

Regardless Cuzz when Obama said The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs do you think that is true?

[Valuesize]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

Perhaps you could have found a more slanted source, but I doubt it. A lot of the points the article contends is a lie appears to be due to differences in definition. The most obvious is "frequency" as apposed to "number of attacks per some number of population". To compare numbers you really should define them the same way.

Oh, and you should choose your words better. You sound like a nut that just might start shooting any minute. 

Regardless Cuzz when Obama said The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs do you think that is true?

With the frequency it happens here,  no. 

[Cuzz]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

Perhaps you could have found a more slanted source, but I doubt it. A lot of the points the article contends is a lie appears to be due to differences in definition. The most obvious is "frequency" as apposed to "number of attacks per some number of population". To compare numbers you really should define them the same way.

Oh, and you should choose your words better. You sound like a nut that just might start shooting any minute. 

Regardless Cuzz when Obama said The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs do you think that is true?

So you want me to disregard facts and go with a gut feeling? OK.

I don't know if we are the "only advanced country" but we're no doubt right up in the lead. You'd have to define the question better for me to give a better answer. I'm kind'a literal by nature that way.

[tvguy]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

Perhaps you could have found a more slanted source, but I doubt it. A lot of the points the article contends is a lie appears to be due to differences in definition. The most obvious is "frequency" as apposed to "number of attacks per some number of population". To compare numbers you really should define them the same way.

Oh, and you should choose your words better. You sound like a nut that just might start shooting any minute. 

Regardless Cuzz when Obama said The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs do you think that is true?

So you want me to disregard facts and go with a gut feeling? OK.

I don't know if we are the "only advanced country" but we're no doubt right up in the lead. You'd have to define the question better for me to give a better answer. I'm kind'a literal by nature that way.

 The whole premise of what Obama and most others are saying is that we have a problem that other country's don't.

OH wait, lets throw in the disclaimer and change that comment to "with this kind of frequency."


But wait.......  "But, even if one puts it in terms of frequency, the president’s statement is still false, with the US ranking 9th compared to European countries."


I just need to know what is the answer according to Obama?

Obama..... “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”


 
 



In  Britain Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned.  in 1996.

And Australia had a massive mandated gun confiscations.

Its OBVIOUS what Obama wants.

 

[Scrapper]

AbsoStinkinLutely!  Truth!  

http://www.facebook.com/chad.g.prather/v...125841334/

Edit: Still can't post embedded videos from Facebook. Just click the damn link.

[Valuesize]

I listened to his speech at the time he gave it and I didn't hear him say anything you or OGL claim he did. I'll see if I can find the transcript and get back to you. 

I'm guessing we are all reading between the lines differently.

Here is the transcript. I'm headed out for awhile so I'll comment later. 


Statement by the President on the Shootings at Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
6:22 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  There’s been another mass shooting in America -- this time, in a community college in Oregon.
That means there are more American families -- moms, dads, children -- whose lives have been changed forever.  That means there’s another community stunned with grief, and communities across the country forced to relieve their own anguish, and parents across the country who are scared because they know it might have been their families or their children.  
I’ve been to Roseburg, Oregon.  There are really good people there.  I want to thank all the first responders whose bravery likely saved some lives today.  Federal law enforcement has been on the scene in a supporting role, and we’ve offered to stay and help as much as Roseburg needs, for as long as they need.
In the coming days, we’ll learn about the victims -- young men and women who were studying and learning and working hard, their eyes set on the future, their dreams on what they could make of their lives.  And America will wrap everyone who’s grieving with our prayers and our love.  
But as I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough.  It’s not enough.  It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel.  And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America -- next week, or a couple of months from now.
We don't yet know why this individual did what he did.  And it's fair to say that anybody who does this has a sickness in their minds, regardless of what they think their motivations may be.  But we are not the only country on Earth that has people with mental illnesses or want to do harm to other people.  We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.  
Earlier this year, I answered a question in an interview by saying, “The United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense gun-safety laws -- even in the face of repeated mass killings.”  And later that day, there was a mass shooting at a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.  That day!  Somehow this has become routine.  The reporting is routine.  My response here at this podium ends up being routine.  The conversation in the aftermath of it.  We've become numb to this.
We talked about this after Columbine and Blacksburg, after Tucson, after Newtown, after Aurora, after Charleston.  It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.  
And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation.  Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out:  We need more guns, they’ll argue.  Fewer gun safety laws.  
Does anybody really believe that?  There are scores of responsible gun owners in this country --they know that's not true.  We know because of the polling that says the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws -- including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.  
There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America.  So how can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer?  We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths.  So the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.  Friends of ours, allies of ours -- Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.  So we know there are ways to prevent it.  
And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue.  Well, this is something we should politicize.  It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.  I would ask news organizations -- because I won't put these facts forward -- have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports.  This won't be information coming from me; it will be coming from you.  We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so.  And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths.  How can that be?
This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America.  We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.  When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer.  When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer.  When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities.  We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives.  So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense.
So, tonight, as those of us who are lucky enough to hug our kids a little closer are thinking about the families who aren't so fortunate, I’d ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws, and to save lives, and to let young people grow up.  And that will require a change of politics on this issue.  And it will require that the American people, individually, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an independent, when you decide to vote for somebody, are making a determination as to whether this cause of continuing death for innocent people should be a relevant factor in your decision.  If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views.
And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners -- who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families -- to think about whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it's speaking for you.
And each time this happens I'm going to bring this up.  Each time this happens I am going to say that we can actually do something about it, but we're going to have to change our laws.  And this is not something I can do by myself.  I've got to have a Congress and I've got to have state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this.  
I hope and pray that I don't have to come out again during my tenure as President to offer my condolences to families in these circumstances.  But based on my experience as President, I can't guarantee that.  And that's terrible to say.  And it can change.
May God bless the memories of those who were killed today.  May He bring comfort to their families, and courage to the injured as they fight their way back.  And may He give us the strength to come together and find the courage to change.
Thank you.  
END

[Cuzz]

It's a real shame when this stuff happens the first thing Obama, and the shrunken head libtards do is lie. The bodies hadn't even bled out yet and your messiah was spewing lies to make you think that 300,000,000 guns killed people that day, that 85,000,000 gun owners killed people that day, that places like Chicago are examples of how America should be. Alas you shrunken head libtards stand waiting for the spittle to run from your messiahs chin so you can act like lapdogs eating your masters puke from a drunken night. 

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compari...nd-europe/

Perhaps you could have found a more slanted source, but I doubt it. A lot of the points the article contends is a lie appears to be due to differences in definition. The most obvious is "frequency" as apposed to "number of attacks per some number of population". To compare numbers you really should define them the same way.

Oh, and you should choose your words better. You sound like a nut that just might start shooting any minute. 

Regardless Cuzz when Obama said The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs do you think that is true?

So you want me to disregard facts and go with a gut feeling? OK.

I don't know if we are the "only advanced country" but we're no doubt right up in the lead. You'd have to define the question better for me to give a better answer. I'm kind'a literal by nature that way.

 The whole premise of what Obama and most others are saying is that we have a problem that other country's don't.

OH wait, lets throw in the disclaimer and change that comment to "with this kind of frequency."


But wait.......  "But, even if one puts it in terms of frequency, the president’s statement is still false, with the US ranking 9th compared to European countries."


I just need to know what is the answer according to Obama?

Obama..... “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”


 
 



In  Britain Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned.  in 1996.

And Australia had a massive mandated gun confiscations.

Its OBVIOUS what Obama wants.

 

I share your frustration on the subject of gun control. I grew up with guns and in a hunting family. I don't want to see them banned completely as in some other countries. I mean that.

What I hear from a lot of gun owners when it comes to trying to find solutions to this issue in particular is... nothing. I can only assume they believe this is the price we have to pay and we should get used to it. My belief is gun owners themselves and their organizations need to get into the conversation and come up with something they can live with. If they don't they are going to eventually get run over and a solution is going to be imposed upon them regardless.

I don't have a good answer but I don't think the only solution is to take all the guns away. That's just the easiest answer not the best. The answer likely involves some shooter safety requirements, maybe licensing (just maybe, don't shoot me), mental health program improvements... I don't know. It's not a one subject fix that's for sure.

My point is if the people most affected don't stand up and contribute ideas they aren't going to like the results. I think I can safely guarantee that.

edit to add; I forgot to ask y'all, what do you have to suggest?

[tornado]

deleted

[tvguy]

Perhaps you could have found a more slanted source, but I doubt it. A lot of the points the article contends is a lie appears to be due to differences in definition. The most obvious is "frequency" as apposed to "number of attacks per some number of population". To compare numbers you really should define them the same way.

Oh, and you should choose your words better. You sound like a nut that just might start shooting any minute. 

Regardless Cuzz when Obama said The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs do you think that is true?

So you want me to disregard facts and go with a gut feeling? OK.

I don't know if we are the "only advanced country" but we're no doubt right up in the lead. You'd have to define the question better for me to give a better answer. I'm kind'a literal by nature that way.

 The whole premise of what Obama and most others are saying is that we have a problem that other country's don't.

OH wait, lets throw in the disclaimer and change that comment to "with this kind of frequency."


But wait.......  "But, even if one puts it in terms of frequency, the president’s statement is still false, with the US ranking 9th compared to European countries."


I just need to know what is the answer according to Obama?

Obama..... “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”


 
 



In  Britain Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned.  in 1996.

And Australia had a massive mandated gun confiscations.

Its OBVIOUS what Obama wants.

 

I share your frustration on the subject of gun control. I grew up with guns and in a hunting family. I don't want to see them banned completely as in some other countries. I mean that.

What I hear from a lot of gun owners when it comes to trying to find solutions to this issue in particular is... nothing. I can only assume they believe this is the price we have to pay and we should get used to it. My belief is gun owners themselves and their organizations need to get into the conversation and come up with something they can live with. If they don't they are going to eventually get run over and a solution is going to be imposed upon them regardless.

I don't have a good answer but I don't think the only solution is to take all the guns away. That's just the easiest answer not the best. The answer likely involves some shooter safety requirements, maybe licensing (just maybe, don't shoot me), mental health program improvements... I don't know. It's not a one subject fix that's for sure.

My point is if the people most affected don't stand up and contribute ideas they aren't going to like the results. I think I can safely guarantee that.

edit to add; I forgot to ask y'all, what do you have to suggest?

You said, "The solution". I'm positive there isn't one short of getting rid of every single gun. So there isn't one.

What you mentioned " some shooter safety requirements" I don't see how that helps anything other than accidenst.



"maybe licensing (just maybe, don't shoot me ," I'm pretty sure several if not most of our mass shooters could have gotten a license.


 ""mental health program improvements..."" sure, better methods to find and expose people who are whacked. But that doesn't mean we would know until it's too late.

[Cuzz]

Regardless Cuzz when Obama said The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs do you think that is true?

So you want me to disregard facts and go with a gut feeling? OK.

I don't know if we are the "only advanced country" but we're no doubt right up in the lead. You'd have to define the question better for me to give a better answer. I'm kind'a literal by nature that way.

 The whole premise of what Obama and most others are saying is that we have a problem that other country's don't.

OH wait, lets throw in the disclaimer and change that comment to "with this kind of frequency."


But wait.......  "But, even if one puts it in terms of frequency, the president’s statement is still false, with the US ranking 9th compared to European countries."


I just need to know what is the answer according to Obama?

Obama..... “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”


 
 



In  Britain Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned.  in 1996.

And Australia had a massive mandated gun confiscations.

Its OBVIOUS what Obama wants.

 

I share your frustration on the subject of gun control. I grew up with guns and in a hunting family. I don't want to see them banned completely as in some other countries. I mean that.

What I hear from a lot of gun owners when it comes to trying to find solutions to this issue in particular is... nothing. I can only assume they believe this is the price we have to pay and we should get used to it. My belief is gun owners themselves and their organizations need to get into the conversation and come up with something they can live with. If they don't they are going to eventually get run over and a solution is going to be imposed upon them regardless.

I don't have a good answer but I don't think the only solution is to take all the guns away. That's just the easiest answer not the best. The answer likely involves some shooter safety requirements, maybe licensing (just maybe, don't shoot me), mental health program improvements... I don't know. It's not a one subject fix that's for sure.

My point is if the people most affected don't stand up and contribute ideas they aren't going to like the results. I think I can safely guarantee that.

edit to add; I forgot to ask y'all, what do you have to suggest?

You said, "The solution". I'm positive there isn't one short of getting rid of every single gun. So there isn't one.

What you mentioned " some shooter safety requirements" I don't see how that helps anything other than accidenst.



"maybe licensing (just maybe, don't shoot me ," I'm pretty sure several if not most of our mass shooters could have gotten a license.


 ""mental health program improvements..."" sure, better methods to find and expose people who are whacked. But that doesn't mean we would know until it's too late.

Yep, I think you're probably right. People by nature want to do something to fix everything though. So, they will do something. I think a "solution" would be a reduction in the numbers of people killed and hopefully the number of killers. I don't see anything that will completely eliminate bad things happening.

I was just throwing out ideas that may or may not be part of a discussion. I don't hear anybody else doing it so it has to start somewhere.