Another School Shooting

[Otern]

I misspoke, there is nothing you can do to prevent further massacres. There are many ways to reduce them though.

Agree. But the gun control activists keep beating the dead horse.

The whole approach after Sandy Hook was going after the guns. And it backfired horribly, with more guns being sold the following year than ever before.

Time to start a new approach, look into other areas than gun control. Plenty of room for improvement without stepping on too many toes in the mental health care sector, the correctional system, actually enforcing the laws already in effect, improving the schools.

[Otern]

Cultures change. Recent polls suggest a two to one majority in favour of banning ''assault rifles'' and a similar majority in favour of tighter gun controls.

I will stop suggesting ways to cut gun deaths in the US when Americans stop telling me how to control immigration and stop terrorist attacks in my country.

Checks should be made to include mental illnesses but should be decided on an individual basis whether or not the illness should restrict the ability to own guns.

The right to damage your own health though mis-use of alcohol is not equivalent to the right to own firearms and risk the health of others.

You can make a polls say whatever you want. Don't trust them.

Also, "assault rifles" count for a minority of the annual gun deaths in the US. Rifles in total, semi automatics included, count for about 300 each year, of around 30 000.

If the solution to the "gun problem" is going after those, it's not really a solution. Compared to other types of firearms, rifles, and semi auto rifles are way less of a burden on society.

Mass shootings rile up emotions, but they're not a problem. 40 dead annually is nothing.

[StCapps]

Cultures change. Recent polls suggest a two to one majority in favour of banning ''assault rifles'' and a similar majority in favour of tighter gun controls.

I will stop suggesting ways to cut gun deaths in the US when Americans stop telling me how to control immigration and stop terrorist attacks in my country.

Checks should be made to include mental illnesses but should be decided on an individual basis whether or not the illness should restrict the ability to own guns.

The right to damage your own health though mis-use of alcohol is not equivalent to the right to own firearms and risk the health of others.

Americans don't want assault rifles banned, Clinton already tried that, and America didn't like it, hence Newt Gingrich.

[Montegriffo]

I misspoke, there is nothing you can do to prevent further massacres. There are many ways to reduce them though.

Agree. But the gun control activists keep beating the dead horse.

The whole approach after Sandy Hook was going after the guns. And it backfired horribly, with more guns being sold the following year than ever before.

Time to start a new approach, look into other areas than gun control. Plenty of room for improvement without stepping on too many toes in the mental health care sector, the correctional system, actually enforcing the laws already in effect, improving the schools.

Agree. Many avenues should be explored but to simply imply gun control never works is to fly in the face of evidence from countries such as Australia and the UK where mass shootings have been all but eliminated.

The problem in the US is not that people don't want gun reform it is that the pro-gun lobby is louder and more powerful than those who think it will make a difference. Politicians are bought off with donations from manufacturers and the likes of the NRA.
Banning donations from gun lobbyists might be a good place to start.

[Otern]

The right to damage your own health though mis-use of alcohol is not equivalent to the right to own firearms and risk the health of others.

This is where you lose me.

Gun deaths in America: 20 000 suicides, 10 000 homicides.
Most of the gun deaths are self inflicted. Like alcohol.

BUT, most of the murders in the US, is done under the influence of alcohol. Same is true for Norway, Britain, and probably every other western nation. Alcohol is evidently NOT just a risk to your own health.

Then there's the accidents. Drunk drivers are not only a danger to themselves.

And then there's the rapes. Most rapes are done with both the victim, and the perpetrator being under the influence.

And I'm not really making a case towards a new prohibition era either. It's just strikes me as totally hypocritical when people are defending their own drinking culture, which has way larger death rates than whatever they conceive of as the "American gun problem".

Having a beer requires the same mental gymnastics as buying a gun. Of course most people can handle it, some can't, people die as a result. And we keep drinking and shooting, because it's so damn fun.

[StCapps]

Agree. Many avenues should be explored but to simply imply gun control never works is to fly in the face of evidence from countries such as Australia and the UK where mass shootings have been all but eliminated.

Not by gun control laws. The evidence in the UK and Australia does not prove that America could all but eliminate it's mass shooters if they just adopted Australian or UK style gun control.

[Montegriffo]

.

Mass shootings rile up emotions, but they're not a problem. 40 dead annually is nothing.

Mass shootings appear to be on the rise though. At what point would you consider them to be a problem? At what point do you think a parent of a dead student considers them a problem?

Peanut allergies don't kill many either is that an argument against clear labelling on food products?

[Montegriffo]

The right to damage your own health though mis-use of alcohol is not equivalent to the right to own firearms and risk the health of others.

This is where you lose me.

Gun deaths in America: 20 000 suicides, 10 000 homicides.
Most of the gun deaths are self inflicted. Like alcohol.

BUT, most of the murders in the US, is done under the influence of alcohol. Same is true for Norway, Britain, and probably every other western nation. Alcohol is evidently NOT just a risk to your own health.

Then there's the accidents. Drunk drivers are not only a danger to themselves.

And then there's the rapes. Most rapes are done with both the victim, and the perpetrator being under the influence.

And I'm not really making a case towards a new prohibition era either. It's just strikes me as totally hypocritical when people are defending their own drinking culture, which has way larger death rates than whatever they conceive of as the "American gun problem".

Having a beer requires the same mental gymnastics as buying a gun. Of course most people can handle it, some can't, people die as a result. And we keep drinking and shooting, because it's so damn fun.

I'm also in favour of regulations to mitigate the damage done by the mis-use of alcohol.
Age limits,drink drive laws, minimum price per unit of alcohol, the right to refuse sales to those already excessively drunk, the right to refuse sales to known problem drinkers. All measures passed into law in the UK.
Banning drink or guns altogether....no. Mitigating the damage done through legislation...yes

[Otern]

The problem in the US is not that people don't want gun reform it is that the pro-gun lobby is louder and more powerful than those who think it will make a difference. Politicians are bought off with donations from manufacturers and the likes of the NRA.
Banning donations from gun lobbyists might be a good place to start.

NRA is not powerful because of donations from manufacturers. Gun control lobby groups exist too, getting insane amounts of money from a few extremely rich individuals, like Bloomberg, and a lot of Hollywood.

NRA is powerful because they're able to activate their members. 5 000 000 paying members, and the membership is not cheap.

Simply put; the people wanting guns, want them more than the people not wanting guns, want them gone.

I'm totally in favor of keeping money out of politics, as far as it's possible. But NRA would STILL be extremely powerful. They would probably be more powerful, since they're much better at rallying the troops, so to speak, than the gun control lobby groups.

People in favor of gun control will put this whole ordeal behind them in a few weeks, and focus on other, more pressing matters; #metoo, kony2012, or some stupid shit Trump do or say. Meanwhile, the gun nuts will go shooting together with other gun nuts, have a good time, and keep writing their congressman or whatever.

It's event triggered activism vs a culture of well organized people who never rests. A few weeks after a mass shooting, people still like their hobby, and the ones not partaking, have a life other than fighting them. It will lose steam, until the next mass shooting, and then it'll repeat itself, and lose steam again. While the gun rights activism never loses steam, as it's more of a way of life.

[Otern]

I'm also in favour of regulations to mitigate the damage done by the mis-use of alcohol.
Age limits,drink drive laws, minimum price per unit of alcohol, the right to refuse sales to those already excessively drunk, the right to refuse sales to known problem drinkers. All measures passed into law in the UK.
Banning drink or guns altogether....no. Mitigating the damage done through legislation...yes

And those things are already in place in the US, regarding guns.

There's age limits, carrying laws, taxes, right to refuse sales, background checks, both criminal, and mental, some types requiring special permits. All passed into law in the US.

They have PLENTY of gun regulations, just less than we do. But that makes sense, because they put a much larger cultural value on firearms than we do in Norway or Britain.

It looks so easy from over here, just impose stricter regulations. But keep in mind, this is what the Saudis think of the drinking culture in Norway and Britain too. We have regulations. Less than the Saudis. And we're never, EVER going to listen to Saudis telling us how our alcohol laws should be.