The US broke another record this year.

[ToddNotTodd]

What is easier and less expensive - to control access to guns or to tackle the complex psychological issues that cause people to kill.

The answer is, I suggest, rather obvious.

And this isn’t even an either/or situation. Do both things.

 

[Desk trauma]

What is easier and less expensive - to control access to guns or to tackle the complex psychological issues that cause people to kill.

The answer is, I suggest, rather obvious.

The answer is blatantly obvious, do neither. The calls to address mental illness are just hot air.

 

[Whyayeman]

The answer is blatantly obvious, do neither. The calls to address mental illness are just hot air.

That is the present situation - doing nothing, while the body count keeps on rising.

Your Constitution provides the answer. The Second Amendment allows for citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. If you want to have a gun, join one, otherwise you are liable to the force of the law.

There you are. Sorted by a Limey!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

One does not need a gun to do a mass murder.
Mass Murder without Guns

The fianl graph tells the truth better than I. If we get distracted by the mode, we miss the cause. You can continue to blame the inanimate object if you choose, but you will not solve the real problem.

"In the U.S., the core problem underlying most mass murders is people with severe mental illness, who in 1960 would have hospitalized before chalk marks had to be drawn around bodies. If we solve the mental illness issue, the guns do not matter. And focusing on the guns directs the severely mentally ill to other weapons."

 

[SavedByGrace3]

That is the present situation - doing nothing, while the body count keeps on rising.

Your Constitution provides the answer. The Second Amendment allows for citizens to bear arms in a well regulated militia. If you want to have a gun, join one, otherwise you are liable to the force of the law.

There you are. Sorted by a Limey!

Something to think about...
Crime Rate Lower in United States, Canada Than in Britain

 

[SavedByGrace3]

What is easier and less expensive - to control access to guns or to tackle the complex psychological issues that cause people to kill.

The answer is, I suggest, rather obvious.

There is more to it than ease and expense. You are also violating the rights of millions of innocent people in the process.
I suppose you could eradicate all "evil" speech by muzzling everyone. But I would not call injuring hundreds of millions to prevent a relative handful a solution. Why not just go all the way and put every single human being in their own 3x3 metal cage? They would all be very safe. Not a good solution.

 

[Whyayeman]

One does not need a gun to do a mass murder.
Mass Murder without Guns

The fianl graph tells the truth better than I. If we get distracted by the mode, we miss the cause. You can continue to blame the inanimate object if you choose, but you will not solve the real problem.

"In the U.S., the core problem underlying most mass murders is people with severe mental illness, who in 1960 would have hospitalized before chalk marks had to be drawn around bodies. If we solve the mental illness issue, the guns do not matter. And focusing on the guns directs the severely mentally ill to other weapons."

Well. I agree about the need to deal with mental illness, of course. Many mass shooting incidents can be linked to untreated or undiagnosed mental illness. A good health service would go a long way in ameliorating the problem.

However, I think there is more to it than that. Mental health care is a problem in a great many countries but the plague of mass killings is an American phenomenon. They do happen elsewhere, of course, but they are comparatively rare. Most countries which have experienced even one such event have tightened up their gun laws as a response.

 

[expos4ever]

One does not need a gun to do a mass murder.
Mass Murder without Guns

As I suspected, the article never makes the case that people always, or even usually, substitute another means to kill if they are denied a gun. All the article proves is that people sometimes do kill with something other than a gun.

Well no kidding, we all know this.

What you really need to give us is evidence that people generally find some other means. That they sometimes do is obvious and does not challenge the argument that guns are the problem.

You can continue to blame the inanimate object if you choose, but you will not solve the real problem.

You cannot possibly not know that this is a bad argument. First, it is beyond obvious that if you give an effective weapon, even though that weapon is inanimate, to a person with murderous intent, you have made things worse. It is time to get real - you have to know that the "it's animate" argument is fatally flawed.

Second, even if mental illness is a major problem, it is patently false logic to frame this the way you are doing - even if mental illness is the 'real cause', how is it not obvious that denying the mentally ill the "tools" to kill would not reduce the risk that they will act on their impulses. And remember - the article never proves that people who are denied gun will always, even usually, find a substitute means to kill.

 

[Whyayeman]

One does not need a gun to do a mass murder.

I think it is worth pointing out that although the assertion is only too obvious the National Review article seems to struggle to make its case. It takes us all round the world through many decades in order to find a mere handful of examples. In my view it is written with the intention of bolstering the cause of gun ownership, not an unbiased examination of the issue. It lumps together a wide range of events like the sarin killings of Japan, Islamist terrorist attacks and IRA bombings.

The American problem is unique, as is the massive degree of gun ownership. Perhaps Americans should examine themselves, rather than seek false comparisons abroad.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I think it is worth pointing out that although the assertion is only too obvious the National Review article seems to struggle to make its case. It takes us all round the world through many decades in order to find a mere handful of examples. In my view it is written with the intention of bolstering the cause of gun ownership, not an unbiased examination of the issue. It lumps together a wide range of events like the sarin killings of Japan, Islamist terrorist attacks and IRA bombings.

The American problem is unique, as is the massive degree of gun ownership. Perhaps Americans should examine themselves, rather than seek false comparisons abroad.

But you make our point! It is not guns; it is Americans. Other countries have millions of guns also. What about the general absence of mass shootings by their guns? What is going on with Americans that they want to do mass harm to people? What has changed in the last 4 or 5 decades?

 

[expos4ever]

But you make our point! It is not guns; it is Americans. Other countries have millions of guns also. What about the general absence of mass shootings by their guns? What is going on with Americans that they want to do mass harm to people? What has changed in the last 4 or 5 decades?

Other countries have millions of guns??!!!

From US News and World Report (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-01-30/how-the-u-s-compares-to-the-world-on guns#:~:text=and%20firearm%20deaths.-,In%202017%2C%20U.S.%20civilians%20held%20an%20average%20of%20120.5%20firearms,project%20located%20at%20the%20Graduate)

In 2017, U.S. civilians held an average of 120.5 firearms per 100 people, the highest rate in the world by a factor of more than two, followed by Yemen (52.8), Montenegro (39.1), Serbia (39.1) and Uruguay (34.7), according to data from the Small Arms Survey, an independent research project located at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. In other words: The United States was the only country with more civilian-held guns than citizens.

 

[Whyayeman]

But you make our point! It is not guns; it is Americans. Other countries have millions of guns also. What about the general absence of mass shootings by their guns? What is going on with Americans that they want to do mass harm to people? What has changed in the last 4 or 5 decades?

It is Americans with guns. I agree that America has a unique problem to address - actually two. The killings and the over-abundance of firearms are connected. Both aspects need to be addressed.

There is no apparent urgency about either of these. No other countries in the world have anything approaching the death rate from mass killings. Perhaps that makes three unique problems.

 

[Ragdoll]

I'm an active member and donor of the NRA and I'm a Golden Eagle. I believe that "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. I believe America is a better country with the 2nd Amendment. Who wants to invade a country where there is a gun behind every blade of grass?

I'm with the rest of you on mass-shootings. I don't like them anymore then anyone else here. But people like me, who were raised with the gun-culture and grew up in the country, are not the people doing these horrific shootings. A person has to be very sick mentally and loss all morality to go out and commit a mass shooting, especially to shoot down little children! The issue here is not guns. The real issue is morality. America has lost a great deal of morality since atheism has risen. People are no longer raised in Christ and no longer inheret the morals of their Christian parents. We live in different times and these are scary times for everyone.
Now for those who say they don't want to ever own a gun I will respect your views. I will speak only for myself here. I own guns. I do not own an AR Platform but do own a few carbines in pistol calibers. I plan on buying the new Ruger LC Carbine in 45 acp and buying a Glock drum with it. The ultimate homesteader! I have a concealed carry license and carry everywhere I can legally go, which in my state is everywhere except in schools or government buildings including court houses etc. I carry to church and my church is safe to attend since many people carry there including the Pastor. Feel sorry for a mass shooter who wants to shoot up my church. Won't be a good day for him. I don't believe in going to the grocery store and getting killed buying food. So I carry a full size 1911 to assure my accuracy if ever such a threat presents itself. I refuse to become the next victim of some crazy persons rampage. I am well armed and often carry more then one gun on me along with extra mags. I'm ready for the worst case scenario. In fact, there are many citizens where I live also carrying. We have no mass shootings around here. Is it just luck? Maybe we just haven't had one yet? Who knows. Maybe the thought of going into a gun carrying zone just doesn't have the appeal for the mass shooter type that soft targets in gun free zones do.
Last but not least. Criminals will always get guns. Why punish good law abiding citizens like me and so many others for the violent crimes committed by people with nothing in common with us law abiding citizens? Morality is our problem...not the guns. Take away the guns and you still get mass shootings. Criminals still get guns. Morality is the question here. Now why has America become a nation where morality has decreased so much? Ask yourself that and go from there. Don't blame people like me who will never commit a violent gun crime. I'm merely protecting myself, my home, and innocent people from violent criminals who have been empowered by our own Federal government. When a nation becomes lawless and innocent people are viewed as criminals and crminals are set free, then we have a serious moral problem.
In California recently there was a woman who stabbed her boyfriend to death and then stabbed a dog to death. She was given a 100 hours of community service for her crime. Keep in mind she stabbed her boyfriend multiple times. It was murder and a far cry from self-defense. So why did she get off of the hook for murder? Its because she smokes pot and to rule her crime in relation to her psychosis due to marijuana use would place into question the very nature of marijuana use. Instead of placing marijuana use into serious question, they dismissed the crime in defense of marijuana. That is California law for ya.
Its a moral issue. Our country has drifted away from Jesus Christ which is why there is so much crime and why our current leaders do nothing to curb the crime wave in our country. Taking guns away only increases crime.

 

[Ragdoll]

Better to have a gun and not ever need to use it then to need a gun and not have one.

 

[stevil]

We're #1!

It was well earned too.
Lots of effort from grass roots communities building a strong gun identity/culture, to a wealthy and well funded rifle association, to strong lobbying, donating millions to presidential campaigns, to a highly politicized and ingrained identity for true conservatives, to a distrust and paranoia about rogue governments, to memes about good guys with guns and guns don't kill people, to they would have died anyway, to deflections about video games or mental health.

 

[Ragdoll]

It was well earned too.
Lots of effort from grass roots communities building a strong gun identity/culture, to a wealthy and well funded rifle association, to strong lobbying, donating millions to presidential campaigns, to a highly politicized and ingrained identity for true conservatives, to a distrust and paranoia about rogue governments, to memes about good guys with guns and guns don't kill people, to they would have died anyway, to deflections about video games or mental health.

Which is better: to donate to a wealthy and well funded rifle organization that defends your 2nd Amendment right, or to donate to a poor and underfunded organization that will take on the super wealthy organization who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment?
Yes, distrust of the government is a real issue now. Most of us see the government as completely corrupt and without a moral conscience. Its not that we are paranoid either. We see what they say and the policies they put forward that lead us to think the things we do.

 

[Whyayeman]

Ragdoll, you were completely open about your membership and enthusiasm for the NRA. You have put your case in some detail. It will be apparent that our views are very different. I live in a country where the very rare mass shootings that have occurred have resulted in changes to the law making gun ownership even more difficult.

Allow me to comment on some assumptions you have made.

America has lost a great deal of morality since atheism has risen.

It appears that you blame atheism for mass shootings and for a general decline in morality. I think there are two massive assumptions right there. It would be very difficult (I think impossible) to show a decline in morality either in America or anywhere else in the world. It is a claim regularly made by every generation for the one that comes after.

Atheists are not less moral than believers. I wonder how anybody could come to such a conclusion, or state it without evidence.

We have no mass shootings around here. Is it just luck? Maybe we just haven't had one yet? Who knows. Maybe the thought of going into a gun carrying zone just doesn't have the appeal for the mass shooter type that soft targets in gun free zones do.

More properly 'You have had no mass shootings so far.' That is as you suggested, just luck. I think it is another (demonstrably wrong) assumption that mass shootings occur only in place where people do not carry guns everywhere.

Last but not least. Criminals will always get guns

True but irrelevant. Mass shootings are typically carried out by people who have no criminal record and are not known to the police. They commit their crime (It is only ever one criminal event) with weapons they have obtained specifically for the purpose, either by having easy access at home or through the lax application of the gun laws that have somehow got past the obstructions put up by the NRA.

Most of us see the government as completely corrupt and without a moral conscience.

No, not most of us. Another whopping great assumption!

 

[Paulos23]

Who wants to invade a country where there is a gun behind every blade of grass?

The fact there are two big oceans and neighboring countries we have good relations with has more to do with that.

In the meantime, we are killing each other waiting for that invasion. We need to change how we deal with guns.

I believe that "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Read the whole 2nd Amendment. I think there is a good reason for regulation, but good regulation. More education for gun ownership, spelling out the responsibilities and safety measures need to be. And then having gun owner be held responsible for their weapons, charged for any accidental discharges in a crowded area, and reporting when they are stolen.

We have a long way to go for us to turn this around and still keep our guns. The reason people want to take away guns is that gun owners as a whole have not shown they are responsible, even though most are. Gun owners need to help fellow gun owners to be safe and responsible.

 

[Whyayeman]

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.

On the issue of the Second Amendment to the American Constitution it has to be remembered that there is no 'well regulated Militia' in existence in the USA. Indeed there is very strong opposition to such an idea. My own view is that possession of arms by civilians should be restricted to registered members of such a militia. All bearers of arms would have to undergo rigorous training and all weapons fully accounted for.

All firearms in other hands would then be outside the law. It does not solve the issue of guns held illegally but it would be a start.