The Gun Issue thread

[MrG]

As I was saying.

Mass Killers Often Rely on Past Perpetrators’ Blueprints
The New York Times
By ERICA GOODE and BENEDICT CAREY

As mass shootings have become ever more familiar, experts have come to understand them less as isolated expressions of rage and more as acts that build on the blueprints of previous rampages.

Experts in violence prevention say that many, if not most, perpetrators of such shootings have intensively researched earlier mass attacks, often expressing admiration for those who carried them out. The publicity that surrounds these killings can have an accelerating effect on other troubled and angry would-be killers who are already heading toward violence, they say.

The killing of nine people at an Oregon community college last week was a textbook example. Before opening fire, the gunman, Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, had uploaded a video about the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Sign Up For NYT Now's Morning Briefing Newsletter

The perpetrator of the Sandy Hook murders was himself a student of earlier shootings — in 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado, where 13 people were killed, and in 2011 in Norway, where 77 people were killed.

And three days after the Oregon shootings, the F.B.I. warned colleges and universities in Philadelphia of a threat posted on the same website used by Mr. Harper-Mercer.

The potential for cultural contagion, many experts say, demands a public health response, one focused as much on early detection and preventive measures as on politically charged campaigns for firearm restrictions. But in some cases, efforts to identify and monitor potentially violent people can raise concerns about civil liberties.

“You’re balancing public welfare and personal privacy,” said J. Reid Meloy, a forensic psychologist in San Diego who consults on threat assessment for schools and corporations.

Some people have also suggested changes in the way the news media covers mass attacks.

“If you blast the names and faces of shooters on news stations and constantly repeat their names, there may be an inadvertent process of creating a blueprint,” said Dr. Deborah Weisbrot, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Stony Brook University, who has interviewed hundreds of mostly teenage boys who have made threats.

More at:
Mass Killers Often Rely on Past Perpetrators? Blueprints

[rickschoppers]

Things will not change easily and removing the right for citizens to keep and bear arms will never happen without a revolution IMO.

And no one is talking about removing the right to have guns. The debate is about regulation and control. The existing laws are clearly not working. New controls are needed.
Every time new gun control laws are proposed people such as yourself use the NRA's agrument that the ultimate goal is to remove guns from the public's hands.

Excuse me Humbert, but I seem to remember reading posts by members who suggest just that. To basically remove the right to have guns. No guns, no crime is what I have seen in many posts.

Either way, I would agree with looking closer at individuals who are allowed to purchase a weapon, partiularly if they are mentally ill. It is difficult in the US due to the HIPPA law. All would need to understand this law before discussing tighter control with regard to those having mental illness. Correct or not, HIPPA would be a very large roadblock to this solution.

One of the worries is that once you open the door for the US government, even a crack, they will force it open. Very similar to all the tax deductions that existed a couple of decades ago. The government began taking away deductions one by one until they were all gone except the real estate deduction, and they tried to take that as well. This has happened time and time again and so yes, many are concerned it will happen again with gun control and it has nothing to do with the NRA.

[rickschoppers]

Humbert, the US Constitution and all its amendments were written to be broad in nature to allow them to be interpreted many different ways. To put a specific meaning to the second amendment other than a US citizen's right to keep and bear arms is debatable. It is this debate that seems to be misunderstood by many when they think the 2nd amendment only refers to militias.

The Constitution is as uncertain in nature as the debate about gun control. Things will not change easily and removing the right for citizens to keep and bear arms will never happen without a revolution IMO.

I am pretty sure the smart fellas who wrote the constitution and subsequent ammendments, did not intend for them to be abused, debased or misunderstood, much less allow them to be interpreted in different ways. Surely clarity of purpose and certainty were their main aims?
Or are you saying they failed, and are therefore dumb?

No, and I am not the only person who states the ambiguity of the Constitution, Amendments and Bill of Rights. This ambiguity is taught in all law schools within the US and is the theme behind any law writing.
The Ambiguity of the Constitution > Southern National Congress
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDi...ns_amendments/

[rickschoppers]

Do any of these people who thinks anyone should have all the guns and ammunition they want, actually think the USA government is going to turn tyrannical in their lifetime?

Can you guarantee it wont?

I can't guarantee the sun won't go out tomorrow, but I'm not stocking up on flashlights just in case.

That is just paranoid.

Very poor analogy misskit. At least you admitted to not being able to guarantee anything.

[harrybarracuda]

Do any of these people who thinks anyone should have all the guns and ammunition they want, actually think the USA government is going to turn tyrannical in their lifetime?

Can you guarantee it wont?

I can't guarantee the sun won't go out tomorrow, but I'm not stocking up on flashlights just in case.

That is just paranoid.

Very poor analogy misskit. At least you admitted to not being able to guarantee anything.

Actually it's an almost perfect analogy, which is probably why you don't like it.

[chassamui]

No, and I am not the only person who states the ambiguity of the Constitution, Amendments and Bill of Rights. This ambiguity is taught in all law schools within the US and is the theme behind any law writing. The Ambiguity of the Constitution > Southern National Congress https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDi...ns_amendments/

This link is about the ambiguity of sovereign states powers v federal powers.
It has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the Constitution in general, and the 2nd ammendment in particular, was written in such a way as to be deliberately vague, in order that it might be liberally interpreted.
Given the power and weight of the constitution and its ammendments, the exact opposite would be true.
The underlying problems leading to these matters are social weaknesses within society. Far too many kids grow up with little or no parental guidance, drift into bad habits and suffer from poor quality education and low self esteem. Some will self harm, and others will use inadequate regulation and easy availability of guns to make their statement about what society has failed to do for them.
The longer the country prevaricates over gun regulation and the mental welfare of young disadvantaged citizens, the more deaths will follow.
Your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is just a red herring which ignores the causes, and wishes to maintain the status quo.
Selfish attitudes like yours will not solve this crisis, just prolong it.

[Black Heart]

Well, here is one strategy:

How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps

Guns - and the Second Amendment - won't just disappear.
Austin Bragg | October 7, 2015

Want to create a gun-free America in 5 easy steps?

Here's all there is to it:

Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side.

Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.

Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change.

At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.

Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform.

You can try to do what Australia did and...ban all guns? That's not at all what they did, but whatever, fuck it. Go big or go home, right?

It will have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Great! The law is passed and guns are now illegal. The only thing left to do is...

Step 5: Enforce. Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans.

Sure, you can try a buy-back program like Australia, but like Australia that will still leave behind anywhere from 60 percent to 80 percent of privately owned firearms.

The rest you have to take.

You'll need the police, the FBI, the ATF or the National Guard—all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take guns, by force, from thousands, if not, millions of well-armed individuals. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

So inevitably gun violence, which is currently at a historic low, will skyrocket.

But that is how you get a gun-free America in five easy steps.

(For more in that vein, read this piece by Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review.)

Produced by Austin Bragg.

About 2 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Video at link:
https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/...merica-in-5-ea

[chassamui]

Well, here is one strategy:

How to Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps

Guns - and the Second Amendment - won't just disappear.
Austin Bragg | October 7, 2015

Want to create a gun-free America in 5 easy steps?

Here's all there is to it:

Step 1: Elect. For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress. So elect a minimum of 67 Senators and 290 Representatives who are on your side.

Step 2: Propose. Then, have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.

Step 3: Ratify. Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that change.

At this point, the Second Amendment is history, but you've done nothing to decrease gun violence. All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to act.

Step 4: Legislate. You need to enact "common sense" reform.

You can try to do what Australia did and...ban all guns? That's not at all what they did, but whatever, fuck it. Go big or go home, right?

It will have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Great! The law is passed and guns are now illegal. The only thing left to do is...

Step 5: Enforce. Guns won't just disappear because you passed a law. You need to confiscate some 350 million guns scattered among 330 Million Americans.

Sure, you can try a buy-back program like Australia, but like Australia that will still leave behind anywhere from 60 percent to 80 percent of privately owned firearms.

The rest you have to take.

You'll need the police, the FBI, the ATF or the National Guard—all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take guns, by force, from thousands, if not, millions of well-armed individuals. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

So inevitably gun violence, which is currently at a historic low, will skyrocket.

But that is how you get a gun-free America in five easy steps.

(For more in that vein, read this piece by Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review.)

Produced by Austin Bragg.

About 2 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Video at link:
https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/...merica-in-5-ea

Just proved my point Milky, with yet another massive whoosh moment. No desire or intention to repeal the 2nd ammendment so that deals with 90% of your post.
Deal with the problems in society and control/regulate who can have weapons and under what circumstances.
Remove the current free for all on access and availability. You will end up dealing with a similar problem that Thatcher encountered when she closed down the UK coal industry.
1. Fix society and the causes of mental impairment among youth.
2. Control and regulate guns.

Job jobbed.

Sorry no you tube link. I don't need everything explained for me in pictures. We are not all self taught socially inept halfwits like you.

[rickschoppers]

No, and I am not the only person who states the ambiguity of the Constitution, Amendments and Bill of Rights. This ambiguity is taught in all law schools within the US and is the theme behind any law writing. The Ambiguity of the Constitution > Southern National Congress https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDi...ns_amendments/

This link is about the ambiguity of sovereign states powers v federal powers.
It has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the Constitution in general, and the 2nd ammendment in particular, was written in such a way as to be deliberately vague, in order that it might be liberally interpreted.
Given the power and weight of the constitution and its ammendments, the exact opposite would be true.
The underlying problems leading to these matters are social weaknesses within society. Far too many kids grow up with little or no parental guidance, drift into bad habits and suffer from poor quality education and low self esteem. Some will self harm, and others will use inadequate regulation and easy availability of guns to make their statement about what society has failed to do for them.
The longer the country prevaricates over gun regulation and the mental welfare of young disadvantaged citizens, the more deaths will follow.
Your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment is just a red herring which ignores the causes, and wishes to maintain the status quo.
Selfish attitudes like yours will not solve this crisis, just prolong it.

Chass, since I doubt you even read the link, I will post just part of it only to show that others believe that the Constitution is ambiguous. Before you rebut a link, at least read it first.

"It was definitely the intent of the founding fathers to have ambiguity in the language so that it could be interpreted that more rights and power is placed in the hands of the people; the 9th and 10th amendment are both simple sentences, lacking any specificity, that state "we don't have time to write down every right; assume that the people have it."
This can be advantageous in some respects; for example, any right to privacy you have is derived pretty much entirely from the 4th amendment. The 2nd amendment example you cited is another demonstration of that same vagueness in action.
Whether or not this is a good thing depends on whether the courts have interpreted these rights in a way you agree with. In my opinion, the lack of any right to privacy is very unfortunate (not that the founding fathers could have predicted modern lifestyle); now we have the NSA collecting every single on of our electronic messages, and there's little we can do about it to stop it without paying money and ending up on some automated watchlist somewhere. Specificity might have helped in this case.
But were it not for this vagueness, free speech might not be so free; there's very little we can get in trouble for for saying. Sure, what we can get nailed for will nail us hard, but the stuff anyone can spew out here in the States would mean jail time in a place like France, where hate speech is a crime.
So, up to you whether it's advantageous or not. Some cases, sure, others, maybe not. The problem is that situations come and go, and with them moments where you would prefer strict interpretations and others where you would rather a looser interpretation."

[Humbert]

^Oddly, Scalia believes in the concept of 'originalism' which purports that the constitutions meaning was fixed at the time of it's writing. This is totally opposite of the concept of 'ambiguity' that you are arguing for. I guess you want it both ways.

[panama hat]

I think Rick is one of those "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" muppets to be honest.

A whole fucking school full of dead toddlers wouldn't sway him.

It would be laughable, were it no so sad

^Oddly, Scalia believes in the concept of 'originalism' which purports that the constitutions meaning was fixed at the time of it's writing. This is totally opposite of the concept of 'ambiguity' that you are arguing for. I guess you want it both ways.

Nah, he just wants it his ways . . .

[rickschoppers]

^Oddly, Scalia believes in the concept of 'originalism' which purports that the constitutions meaning was fixed at the time of it's writing. This is totally opposite of the concept of 'ambiguity' that you are arguing for. I guess you want it both ways.

And many did not agree with Scalia, so what do you say now?

[misskit]

Do any of these people who thinks anyone should have all the guns and ammunition they want, actually think the USA government is going to turn tyrannical in their lifetime?

Can you guarantee it wont?

I can't guarantee the sun won't go out tomorrow, but I'm not stocking up on flashlights just in case.

That is just paranoid.

Very poor analogy misskit. At least you admitted to not being able to guarantee anything.

Not so. Stocking up on guns and ammunition to fight the US government is just as futile as stocking up on flashlights for a sun outage. It is just a gun fetishist's fantasy.

[rickschoppers]

If you say so misskit.

[AntRobertson]

It's a little hard for me to get my head around the mentality of even being the slightest bit worried that your own government would come to forcibly take your guns / enslave you / whatever.

It's just such a completely foreign and bizarre notion to me.

Here's what would happen, verbatim, in my country:

- Govt: Hey military, go and round up those citizens
- Military: Nah, go fuck yourself eh
- Citizens: Yeah Govt, go fuck yourself! By the way you're getting voted the fuck out!
- Govt: O.K., soz!

[hazz]

well lets see, when things go wrong in the america's

1861 the southern states want to leave the union and are prevented as a result of loosing a civil war with the federal government.

1933 a bunch of us businessmen approached a general butler about organising a coup, presumably because the country was less of a plutocracy than it had been and has become... and they were unhappy. He ratted them out to the government.


2nd amendment rights didn't have much effect on the outcome of these events. And to be honest i cannot see some gun toting american who's not got the bottle to walk out of their house without a gun down their pants is going to be much use when one if fighting the us marines.

[rickschoppers]

It's a little hard for me to get my head around the mentality of even being the slightest bit worried that your own government would come to forcibly take your guns / enslave you / whatever.

It's just such a completely foreign and bizarre notion to me.

Here's what would happen, verbatim, in my country:

- Govt: Hey military, go and round up those citizens
- Military: Nah, go fuck yourself eh
- Citizens: Yeah Govt, go fuck yourself! By the way you're getting voted the fuck out!
- Govt: O.K., soz!

Ant, if you are having trouble getting your head around that, try getting it around this portion of the US mindset.

"As Western civilization tumbles toward a mess of a magnitude not seen in our lifetime, anyone could be forgiven for freaking out and getting a little irrational. But comfort yourself with the fact that however you're feeling right now, at least you haven't sunk to the disturbing depths of a new breed of survivalists, who, Details informs us, are known as "preppers," and who are quietly growing in numbers as a result of the economic crash, rising fuel costs, the terrorism threat, global warming, you name it. Unlike the erstwhile stereotype of a survivalist—the unsocialized, grizzled guy living in a bunker with just a shotgun for company—preppers pass as normal members of society, with jobs and families and nice clothes and houses: They're just obsessively hoarding freeze-dried meals, water (and water-purification tablets), camping gear, wine and vodka, and laptops "in ammunition canisters," so that when Armageddon descends, they'll be all set.

"I don't think the government is out to get me," insists a non-paranoid 34-year-old named Jason, who runs the survivalist website SHTFblog, "but I do think it'll be inept at delivering help should I and much of the nation need it during a time of disaster. Then there's SARS, global warming, increased food and fuel costs... Watch the evening news—why wouldn't you prepare?"

One important facet of the preppers' mindset: Keep your best laid plans secret. Firstly, you don't want people thinking you're crazy, but more importantly, when society breaks down, anarchy is reigning, and people are dying in the street, the last thing you want is friends knocking on the door hoping for a sip of water and a freeze-dried cookie."
Modern Survivalists Exist Among Us

[AntRobertson]

I can see the historical context for it - post revolution and still being a bit sus of foreign Kings and their nasty taxes and all that - but almost 250 years later anything that goes beyond a natural and healthy suspicion of governments and politicians (because they're all unmitigated cnuts) and veers into 'they're gonna enslave us all!' is still odd.

[AntRobertson]

"As Western civilization tumbles toward a mess of a magnitude not seen in our lifetime, anyone could be forgiven for freaking out and getting a little irrational. But comfort yourself with the fact that however you're feeling right now, at least you haven't sunk to the disturbing depths of a new breed of survivalists, who, Details informs us, are known as "preppers," and who are quietly growing in numbers as a result of the economic crash, rising fuel costs, the terrorism threat, global warming, you name it. Unlike the erstwhile stereotype of a survivalist—the unsocialized, grizzled guy living in a bunker with just a shotgun for company—preppers pass as normal members of society, with jobs and families and nice clothes and houses: They're just obsessively hoarding freeze-dried meals, water (and water-purification tablets), camping gear, wine and vodka, and laptops "in ammunition canisters," so that when Armageddon descends, they'll be all set.

"I don't think the government is out to get me," insists a non-paranoid 34-year-old named Jason, who runs the survivalist website SHTFblog, "but I do think it'll be inept at delivering help should I and much of the nation need it during a time of disaster. Then there's SARS, global warming, increased food and fuel costs... Watch the evening news—why wouldn't you prepare?"

One important facet of the preppers' mindset: Keep your best laid plans secret. Firstly, you don't want people thinking you're crazy, but more importantly, when society breaks down, anarchy is reigning, and people are dying in the street, the last thing you want is friends knocking on the door hoping for a sip of water and a freeze-dried cookie."

That I definitely get. The area that I come from is known for its geo-thermal activity and the country in general for being on a major fault-line so being prepared (and having items at the ready) is something that has always been drummed into us.

That's a long step from genuine paranoia about your own government though.

[panama hat]

2nd amendment rights didn't have much effect on the outcome of these events. And to be honest i cannot see some gun toting american who's not got the bottle to walk out of their house without a gun down their pants is going to be much use when one if fighting the us marines.

Retired gun-loving pharmacists who hide out in some Thai backwater spouting big words regarding tyrannical government . . . and he has the nouse to tell everyone they have no right to discuss US topics as they are 'innate' to Americans. (And has the audacity to tell us to look up the word 'innate' - which one does and it makes the pharmacist look stupid)

So innate that a child born to recently naturalised Nigerians in Lagos has more knowledge of US topics than any non-American.

Yea, scary folks'

[misskit]

One important facet of the preppers' mindset: Keep your best laid plans secret. Firstly, you don't want people thinking you're crazy, but more importantly, when society breaks down, anarchy is reigning, and people are dying in the street, the last thing you want is friends knocking on the door hoping for a sip of water and a freeze-dried cookie."

Now we move from fighting the government to surviving when society breaks down, in our lifetime. This time by a bunch paranoid grown-up boyscouts. No harm there.

Still, it is the same futility as arming against the government or stocking up for the sun outage. It's going to take a big group effort to fend against global warming or pandemic. No man is going to defend his little tribe against the onslaught of anarchy for more than a few days or weeks when his food runs out. Can't eat those guns.

Nutters.

[rickschoppers]

Misskit, maybe you need to come to the US and give lectures to all the nutters on why they are wasting their time. It seems your disbelief has made you numb to reality and possible outcomes for our future society.

[panama hat]

One important facet of the preppers' mindset: Keep your best laid plans secret. Firstly, you don't want people thinking you're crazy, but more importantly, when society breaks down, anarchy is reigning, and people are dying in the street, the last thing you want is friends knocking on the door hoping for a sip of water and a freeze-dried cookie."

Now we move from fighting the government to surviving when society breaks down, in our lifetime. This time by a bunch paranoid grown-up boyscouts. No harm there.

Still, it is the same futility as arming against the government or stocking up for the sun outage. It's going to take a big group effort to fend against global warming or pandemic. No man is going to defend his little tribe against the onslaught of anarchy for more than a few days or weeks when his food runs out. Can't eat those guns.

Nutters.

Is more like this . . .




. . . and

[misskit]

Pitiful, really.

[AntRobertson]

'The fact that (some) Americans find a Muslim boy with a clock more threatening than a White man with a gun says a lot about how weak-minded America is as a country'.