Gun Culture and Responses to Mass Shootings

[The Admiral]

I agree with bobjr. Nothing will happen until any meaningful gun control legislation gets passed, so you might as well just kick back, relax, and watch the bodies pile up.

At the very least, apparently the Senate has agreed to vote on universal background checks and closing the terror gap, after Chris Murphy's fourteen-hour-plus filibuster.

 

[Auraninja]

For the record, here is the wording of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If guns were used against the "security of a free state", I would argue that the lack of gun control ruins the purpose of the second amendment.

Also, gun right activists are needlessly defensive about gun control.

"You can't take away our guns!"- You have the ability to own guns. The second amendment has no bearing on highly destructive guns that didn't exist yet.
"What would happen in a gun free zone."- Let me tell you what happens in a gun allowed zone. A person loaded with a gun going somewhere to shoot people is technically not disobeying the law until he takes the gun out and shoots. It's a law break in a matter of seconds.
"Criminals will always own guns."- To an extent, that is true, but our system makes it a lot easier for them to obtain it. There doesn't need to be an underground market if any aspiring terrorists have no legal trouble with guns.
"People would be dying less if they were armed."- I don't see how bullets flying from many places makes places safer. People who are trained to own potentially lethal guns can still make mistakes. The lack of any knowledge of guns puts that person in some potential danger.

 

[SBaby]

For the record, here is the wording of the Second Amendment:

If guns were used against the "security of a free state", I would argue that the lack of gun control ruins the purpose of the second amendment.

Also, gun right activists are needlessly defensive about gun control.

"You can't take away our guns!"- You have the ability to own guns. The second amendment has no bearing on highly destructive guns that didn't exist yet.
"What would happen in a gun free zone."- Let me tell you what happens in a gun allowed zone. A person loaded with a gun going somewhere to shoot people is technically not disobeying the law until he takes the gun out and shoots. It's a law break in a matter of seconds.
"Criminals will always own guns."- To an extent, that is true, but our system makes it a lot easier for them to obtain it. There doesn't need to be an underground market if any aspiring terrorists have no legal trouble with guns.
"People would be dying less if they were armed."- I don't see how bullets flying from many places makes places safer. People who are trained to own potentially lethal guns can still make mistakes. The lack of any knowledge of guns puts that person in some potential danger.

The problem is this. When it comes to gun control and stopping shootings, it's a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Let's say there is a complete and outright ban on all firearms in the future (hypothetical scenario, SOMEHOW the planets align and Congress agrees to this). The general consensus among gun control advocates seems to be that this would make the US like Canada and reduce the crime rate, leaving guns only in the hands of the military and maybe the police.

The problem is this would cause cartels that sell illegal drugs to start selling illegal firearms (some of them already do). And unlike the current system which does at least SOMETIMES employ background checks and other security measures, cartels don't care about any of that as long as they make money. Cartels are already doing other things illegally, so doing this as well wouldn't be that much different from what's already going on with them.

On the same note, if you ban individuals under investigation from purchasing firearms, that's well and good. But then you run into the issue that they could just have their family members or friends buy the weapon instead. They may be under investigation, but that doesn't mean those people are too.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with the prospect of gun control (I don't disagree with it. We definitely need tougher gun laws.). I'm just saying it's very difficult to police this, because there are so many ways around it. And that's IF everyone's willing to enforce it. As history has shown us, this is not always the case.

 

[1rkhachatryan]

You know, I hate when people use the criminals will still do it excuse because it's BS. It's like saying we should get rid of the drinking age all together because underage people still do it or cigarette laws, or drunk driving laws like it sounds absolutely ridiculous but somehow for gun laws it makes complete sense.

Let's just get rid of all laws since criminals are gonna do it anyways like the stupidity is strong here. These laws are here to stop everyday people from harming themselves or others, not criminals. These kids or everyday gun users aren't criminals, these laws have nothing to do with criminals.

Criminals are gonna do whatever the hell they want, laws or not.

 

[SBaby]

You know, I hate when people use the criminals will still do it excuse because it's BS. It's like saying we should get rid of the drinking age all together because underage people still do it or cigarette laws, or drunk driving laws like it sounds absolutely ridiculous but somehow for gun laws it makes complete sense.

Let's just get rid of all laws since criminals are gonna do it anyways like the stupidity is strong here. These laws are here to stop everyday people from harming themselves or others, not criminals. These kids or everyday gun users aren't criminals, these laws have nothing to do with criminals.

Criminals are gonna do whatever the hell they want, laws or not.

Kind of sounds like what you're saying is the only people that will benefit from laws banning firearms would be the people that have the intent to harm others, because there won't be that extra deterrent in the possibility that the victims could be armed.

 

[U.N. Owen]

The guy was investigated by the FBI. Just, how do you miss that on a background check? That should be jumping off the record with neon flashing lights saying "THIS IS A BAD IDEA TO GIVE THIS GUY A GUN!"

 

[lemoncatpower]

You know, I hate when people use the criminals will still do it excuse because it's BS. It's like saying we should get rid of the drinking age all together because underage people still do it or cigarette laws, or drunk driving laws like it sounds absolutely ridiculous but somehow for gun laws it makes complete sense.

Let's just get rid of all laws since criminals are gonna do it anyways like the stupidity is strong here. These laws are here to stop everyday people from harming themselves or others, not criminals. These kids or everyday gun users aren't criminals, these laws have nothing to do with criminals.

Criminals are gonna do whatever the hell they want, laws or not.

I completely agree. And all the people who get defensive about gun control act as if they'll NEVER be able to own a gun. It's just gun control, and if one is actually wanting the gun then they'll go through all the processes. Is that how lazy we are that we think we have the right to own a weapon that can kill a bunch of people at once in public without any processes? Personally I think that's messed up.

I am quite sure the criminal organizations buy guns illegally like crazy already so any gun control will just make it harder for them, but they'll still go out of their way to do it because it is a necessity for them. Which honestly, the real scary people are the random people with mental issues who own guns, not the organizations. Well I personally don't hear about mass murders by organizations compared to crazy individuals or pairs murdering a bunch of random people ( which is again, super messed up in my opinion that the criminal organizations seem to be less in the public for doing bad than random individuals).

 

[Pokemon Fan]

The guy was investigated by the FBI. Just, how do you miss that on a background check? That should be jumping off the record with neon flashing lights saying "THIS IS A BAD IDEA TO GIVE THIS GUY A GUN!"

And they determined he had broken no laws or done anything warranting having such information supplied for background checks. The question is if laws should be changed so that one's speech (i.e. expressing sympathies for terrorists in this case) allows for one to not be allowed to buy guns.

<><><>

Honestly the gun debate so often ignores that the gun control laws that get advocated for usually would have done NOTHING to stop the shootings that inspired talk of those laws.

 

[Auraninja]

The problem is this. When it comes to gun control and stopping shootings, it's a situation where you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Let's say there is a complete and outright ban on all firearms in the future (hypothetical scenario, SOMEHOW the planets align and Congress agrees to this). The general consensus among gun control advocates seems to be that this would make the US like Canada and reduce the crime rate, leaving guns only in the hands of the military and maybe the police.

I never suggested an outright ban on all firearms. I mentioned more of a drastic legislation (which as you mentioned, is a tough act to follow).

The problem is this would cause cartels that sell illegal drugs to start selling illegal firearms (some of them already do). And unlike the current system which does at least SOMETIMES employ background checks and other security measures, cartels don't care about any of that as long as they make money. Cartels are already doing other things illegally, so doing this as well wouldn't be that much different from what's already going on with them.

I don't doubt that underground markets could exercise themselves. My argument is that we make it too easy for firearms to be in the hands of the wrong people.
Also, why didn't right wing lawmakers ever consider this for marijuana? If you outright ban marijuana, then you have an underground market. Plus, marijuana hasn't killed nearly enough people than gun assisted homicides. I guess the mentality is that guns can be good while marijuana always bad?

On the same note, if you ban individuals under investigation from purchasing firearms, that's well and good. But then you run into the issue that they could just have their family members or friends buy the weapon instead. They may be under investigation, but that doesn't mean those people are too.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with the prospect of gun control (I don't disagree with it. We definitely need tougher gun laws.). I'm just saying it's very difficult to police this, because there are so many ways around it. And that's IF everyone's willing to enforce it. As history has shown us, this is not always the case.

There is not a perfect way to prevent all acts of gun violence. There are ways around everything. Tougher legislation would abate the violence, not purge it out of existence.

Wayne LaPierre is not helping anything by shifting blame and using a childish mentality.

Also, from my personal experience, people are allowed to bring guns to the University. When I lived in apartment, a policeman told me that a person was allowed to bring a gun near our premise.

 

[Zora]

I'm not so much contributing to the discussion as much as trying to get myself involved with it. I haven't looked into these articles too deeply. If you want, you can probably skip the last paragraph under the horizontal line; the rest is just explaining my motivation for asking a question.

This one of those cases where both sides seem superficially justified in their position because their narratives make sense. By narratives, I mean "America faces more mass shootings compared to (other developed) countries due to lax access to gun" and "gun control won't solve anything because people with access to guns can access it." When both narratives sound compelling, I prefer to let data be jury on which one is right and delve into the research. However, even while doing some research on my own this week (no more than maybe an hour or two cumulatively), I'm finding a hard time finding any literature about gun control. Whatever literature there decisively corroborate either story. Like, for example this study would suggest and also this one suggest gun control can reduce (firearm-assisted) deaths. Moreover this article also suggests gun ownership and homocides are correlated (not necessarily firearm-assisted) by looking at an international level. On the other hand, we have an article like this which conclude there's no apparent correlation in their study (paywall-free version of last article, courtesy of one of the authors.

The biggest difference I see between the first three articles and the last one is the inclusion of suicide in the former group. This isn't to suggest suicide isn't a legitimate problem--that's certainly an angle to take--but, since this topic is explicitly being discussed int he context of mass shootings--I'm honestly not sure how relevant. The last article, being the only one I read in-depth has a laundry list of reasons of why their studies would have almost no correlation while gun control still being a legitimate problem. Yes, it's speculation; but intellectually honest speculation that would require ruling out other variables. The other issue I have with all articles, the primary reason I haven't read them, is they're all over 20 years old. I don't believe society is atemporal--what works in one period of time may not translated to another. For example, if mental illness is an underlining problem, we'd need to consider how often mental illness is used today compared to previous populations.

My post can't be made without pointing out that the CDC has been disallowed from doing research on gun control and crime, a move symbolic enough to make people unwilling to engage in research. A quick google search on gun control articles since 2012 is depressing. The only one that seems worth considering is the first result ("More Guns, Less Crime") except it's an updated edition of a work originally published in 1998--again, going back to the atemporal issue; notwitstanding opposition in the academic community. The other book that seems worthwhile "Gun Culture or Gun Control?" is also an updated edition of a book that was originally published in 2000. My point isn't to say these are invalid based on data alone, but rather to point out how starved this field of research has been since the CDC ban in 1996.



Additionally, I didn't write this post to summarize my research--which quite frankly isn't that informative. The only reason I'm sharing is that, inasmuch as I can tell, much of the discussion is happening without sound evidence backing it up; in response I want to what aggregate evidence is there that clearly supports one narrative over the other?

 

[nel3]

to be honest, ive grown immune to the reports of the rampant gun violence that USA suffers from. its insane, they make protests after each event and hope it changes the laws. which it obviously fails to do so. the definition of insane is doing the same action and hoping for a different outcome after each attempt.

unless the united states puts their foot down they will keep having more of such events. there are crazy people out there and there are also mentally unstable people out there. there must be tougher new gun laws and background checks for all users/owners. its very unfortunate they have to suffer this pain but they need to be willing to accept the societal blame and take steps to correct it. each new event never surprises me, its just a repeating cycle of violence.

 

[Mr. Reloaded]

Good old Senate. Always showing us how much they care.


Guess it was silly to assume anything would happen after Sandy Hook.

 

[Remix2]

Good old Senate. Always showing us how much they care.

And this is why congress has a approved rating of only 4 percent, well one of MANY reasons.

I mean we can't even get a bill pass that make people on the terrorist watch list can't get guns legally.

 

[1rkhachatryan]

Good old Senate. Always showing us how much they care.

Meh, lets not even blame them at this point. The NRA have them all by the balls so it's really their fault. Plus were we really expecting the same senate that has blocked everything Obama has tried to do to finally grow a heart??

 

[bobjr]

This is why people need to vote in downturn elections, and for the politicians who will fight for this stuff. The president can only do so much, and they need help to get this stuff passed, so anyone who refuses to vote to "make a statement" really needs to reevaluate their priorities because honestly I have no respect for people like that.

 

[The Admiral]

The NRA profits from the murder of innocents, and therefore so does any politician who accepts their money. They want these things to happen because it's good for business.

It's to the point where something would have to actually happen in the houses of Congress for them to act, probably.

 

[Remix2]

Boy the response the gop got was pretty brutal and very deserving

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/the...-online-for-blocking-gun-bills-after-orlando/

 

[lemoncatpower]

Boy the response the gop got was pretty brutal and very deserving

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/the...-online-for-blocking-gun-bills-after-orlando/

love the tweets against them. Well I don't love that tweets like those had to be made.

Honestly the simplest way I can put their thought process into words is:
"If one kid is hitting the other kids on the playground with a stick, do you take the stick away from that kid? No, of course not, you give all the kids sticks instead."
oh and..
"money money money"

 

[Auraninja]

love the tweets against them. Well I don't love that tweets like those had to be made.

Honestly the simplest way I can put their thought process into words is:
"If one kid is hitting the other kids on the playground with a stick, do you take the stick away from that kid? No, of course not, you give all the kids sticks instead."
oh and..
"money money money"

The only person who can beat a bad person with a stick is a good person with a stick!

One other argument I've seen that ticks me off is the argument that gun control is like "getting rid of cars because of drunk drivers".

People don't think this out. Also, Wayne LaPierre needs to be fired. No, nothing particularly new from him, because it is the same blame-shift.

 

[lemoncatpower]

The only person who can beat a bad person with a stick is a good person with a stick!

One other argument I've seen that ticks me off is the argument that gun control is like "getting rid of cars because of drunk drivers".

People don't think this out. Also, Wayne LaPierre needs to be fired. No, nothing particularly new from him, because it is the same blame-shift.

Yeah people are silly. Because yknow, we don't have controls on cars and anyone can just get them.... not.
The arguments they use are so contradictory it hurts a little on the pinky toe.

Didn't know who Wayne LaPierre was based just on the name, but the NRA, yeah just dumb.
I am not sure how he even has a job, or how that can even just be a job. is the NRA government funded or something or does he really get money from association fees and ****?