Now, Es. You know better than to bring this up.
Clearly, only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Since people don't change, bad guys are always bad guys and good guys are always good guys.
Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

snipped

They did it Australia, so why not in the US?

Yeah, you snipped it and TOTALLY changed the meaning of the post which you clearly did NOT understand.

We must accept random shootings if we expect to remain a free society.

For the last 30 years, 569 people have died from mass shootings. That's about 19 people per year.

Every year, more than 300 people die from drowning in a bathtub; therefore, we must ban bath tubs before we ban guns.

Every year, more than 500 people die from slipping, tripping or falling; therefore, we must ban floors before we ban bathtubs.

Every year in America, more than 10,000 people die in drunk driving crashes; therefore, we must ban cars before we ban floors.

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/06/heres-what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-mass-shootings/

You missed one.

On-duty police officers have shot and killed more than 700 people this year - Sept 17 2015 therefore by your rules - ban the police.

At the very least you take their guns off them until they learn to behave.

---

Reality Internet Personality

We must accept random shootings if we expect to remain a free society.

For the last 30 years, 569 people have died from mass shootings. That's about 19 people per year.

Every year, more than 300 people die from drowning in a bathtub; therefore, we must ban bath tubs before we ban guns.

Every year, more than 500 people die from slipping, tripping or falling; therefore, we must ban floors before we ban bathtubs.

Every year in America, more than 10,000 people die in drunk driving crashes; therefore, we must ban cars before we ban floors.

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/06/heres-what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-mass-shootings/

You missed one.

On-duty police officers have shot and killed more than 700 people this year - Sept 17 2015 therefore by your rules - ban the police.

At the very least you take their guns off them until they learn to behave.

It actually the same issue as mass shootings. Mental illness. If a cop stays a cop too long, eventually all the dismissed on a technicality builds up, snap, bang - bang - bang unarmed child dead.

---

We must accept random shootings if we expect to remain a free society.

For the last 30 years, 569 people have died from mass shootings. That's about 19 people per year.

Every year, more than 300 people die from drowning in a bathtub; therefore, we must ban bath tubs before we ban guns.

Every year, more than 500 people die from slipping, tripping or falling; therefore, we must ban floors before we ban bathtubs.

Every year in America, more than 10,000 people die in drunk driving crashes; therefore, we must ban cars before we ban floors.

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/06/heres-what-the-mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-about-mass-shootings/

You missed one.

On-duty police officers have shot and killed more than 700 people this year - Sept 17 2015 therefore by your rules - ban the police.

At the very least you take their guns off them until they learn to behave.

It actually the same issue as mass shootings. Mental illness. If a cop stays a cop too long, eventually all the dismissed on a technicality builds up, snap, bang - bang - bang unarmed child dead.

Yep, Forbes reprinted information on the top 10 professions that the 3% of societies' psychopaths gravitate to and police was in the list along with surgeons, sales people, journalists, chefs, lawyers, CEO's and public officials. Another article I read estimated executives having 8-12% membership as psychopaths. (I can't find the researcher on 10% psychopaths as executives but this Hare reprint refers to it.)
They did the prison guard/prisoner studies with students and demonstrated that prison guards become increasingly sociopathic from working as prison guards.
I can't find research supporting the supposition that street duty police work turns regular people into sociopaths (similar to psychopaths but they still have working emotional centers in the brain unlike the psychopath that never had one and is a genetic condition). Nor can I find research that police departments hiring practices choose psychopaths as a priority or that police departments nationwide use the PCL from Hare to screen out candidates.

Screening with the PCL and refusing to hire veterans who were in an active military campaign for 3 years after their last tour of duty (they want to continue using their military hardware at home and have been taught the behavior to see all around them as potential enemies unless they wear their uniform) would drastically improve our current policing situation.
Requiring police to live in the neighborhood they patrol as well as send their children to the schools in those neighborhoods would also improve the situation.

Maybe we need a radical idea of the draft re-instituted; but instead it would be for a 2 year duty as police officer as I'm reading informed opinions that psychopaths end up in uniform because the pickings for police officers is mighty slim.

---

Now, Es. You know better than to bring this up.
Clearly, only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Since people don't change, bad guys are always bad guys and good guys are always good guys.
Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

snipped

They did it Australia, so why not in the US?

Yeah, you snipped it and TOTALLY changed the meaning of the post which you clearly did NOT understand.

I snipped it to highlight the first paragraph. specifically:

Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

some years ago Australia decided to do something about the rights to have guns after a "massacre" and since then gun crime has decreased to about the norm for civilised countries.

Now, Es. You know better than to bring this up.
Clearly, only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Since people don't change, bad guys are always bad guys and good guys are always good guys.
Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

snipped

They did it Australia, so why not in the US?

Yeah, you snipped it and TOTALLY changed the meaning of the post which you clearly did NOT understand.

I snipped it to highlight the first paragraph. specifically:

Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

some years ago Australia decided to do something about the rights to have guns after a "massacre" and since then gun crime has decreased to about the norm for
civilised countries.

You still CLEARLY misunderstood the overall post.
The "reasoning" of the second half reflects on the "reasoning" of the first.
Get it yet?

I wonder how these guys slip through the radar. It seems there must have been some warning sign that they were about to commit these atrocities.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I wonder how these guys slip through the radar. It seems there must have been some warning sign that they were about to commit these atrocities.

Of course there were warning signs, but those only become obvious in hindsight. This guy supposedly posted he was about to do this on 4chan and he wrote a bunch of blog posts sort of admiring other shooters. Now its obvious that those are warning signs. But, there are plenty of somewhat disturbed individuals on the internet and the vast majority will never commit a crime, let alone become a spree killer. You can't monitor them all nor can you accurately determine who is going over the edge.

I wonder how these guys slip through the radar. It seems there must have been some warning sign that they were about to commit these atrocities.

Doesn't matter if they scream sign all over, there is no treatment of mental problems in the USA.

---

there is no treatment of mental problems in the USA

I think that's just a sarcastic quip, but it's worthy of another thread.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Now, Es. You know better than to bring this up.
Clearly, only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Since people don't change, bad guys are always bad guys and good guys are always good guys.
Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

snipped

They did it Australia, so why not in the US?

Yeah, you snipped it and TOTALLY changed the meaning of the post which you clearly did NOT understand.

I snipped it to highlight the first paragraph. specifically:

Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

some years ago Australia decided to do something about the rights to have guns after a "massacre" and since then gun crime has decreased to about the norm for
civilised countries.

You still CLEARLY misunderstood the overall post.
The "reasoning" of the second half reflects on the "reasoning" of the first.
Get it yet?

Actually I don't think it does, you are wrong in comparing minor crime, pot smoking, with serious crime, gun crime.

If you were to compare, vehicle crime of excessive speed, driving under the influence or dangerous driving in built up area I might have agreed.

Pot smoking is just a prohibition crime, assuming it doesn't involved cars or dangerous machinery, and we all know how well the laws banning alcohol worked.

So all in all I reject your criticism and would like an answer to the point I made.

Australia did something about gun crime.

Isn't it time that the US follows suit and becomes a civilised society.

Now, Es. You know better than to bring this up.
Clearly, only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Since people don't change, bad guys are always bad guys and good guys are always good guys.
Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

snipped

They did it Australia, so why not in the US?

Yeah, you snipped it and TOTALLY changed the meaning of the post which you clearly did NOT understand.

I snipped it to highlight the first paragraph. specifically:

Bad guys (a.k.a. criminals) are such because they don't obey the laws. We can't expect more (restrictive) gun laws to stop them (the bad guys) from getting guns.

some years ago Australia decided to do something about the rights to have guns after a "massacre" and since then gun crime has decreased to about the norm for
civilised countries.

You still CLEARLY misunderstood the overall post.
The "reasoning" of the second half reflects on the "reasoning" of the first.
Get it yet?

Actually I don't think it does, you are wrong in comparing minor crime, pot smoking, with serious crime, gun crime.

If you were to compare, vehicle crime of excessive speed, driving under the influence or dangerous driving in built up area I might have agreed.

Pot smoking is just a prohibition crime, assuming it doesn't involved cars or dangerous machinery, and we all know how well the laws banning alcohol worked.

So all in all I reject your criticism and would like an answer to the point I made.

Australia did something about gun crime.

Isn't it time that the US follows suit and becomes a civilised society.

Your rejection of my criticism is not warranted because you are still not understanding. Your lack of understanding is compounded by focusing on minor or major crimes. I will not answer your "question" until you understand.

To help you, based on your "major crime" requirement, say, involving a vehicle, fine, here you go:

"Similarly, Senator Ted Kennedy reportedly drove drunk in Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts on July 18, 1969. The crash resulted in the death of his young colleague, Mary Jo Kopechne.
If true, he was a criminal. He didn't obey law.
Since people don't change, we must accept that, as Ted would have broken all current laws of the time and the new laws passed by Congress, he was unfit to be a Senator for Massachussetts of the U.S.A."

Furthermore, I don't think you even know what I am criticizing. You think it is you or your point. Again, the second half of my post reflects on the first half. Figure out what, then, I am criticizing.

Isn't it time that the US follows suit and becomes a civilised society

It is time for all of us who are wringing our hands in anguish and outrage to calmly list what should be specifically done to change these patterns.

List the actions that you are recommending be taken and by whom.
Remember that there are 350,000,000 guns in the US already. (Perhaps another 100,000,000 added since the Columbine shooting in 1999.)
Every day 80+ people die via firearms in the US--mostly due to inner-city drug turf wars (50 alone last weekend in Chicago).

Also: keep in mind that there is a difference between banning, banning the sale of and collecting those already out there.

I challenge you not to list utopian desires, but rather concrete actions that could be taken in our society which is filled with crime, hunters, inept politicians and criminals.

Isn't it time that the US follows suit and becomes a civilised society

It is time for all of us who are wringing our hands in anguish and outrage to calmly list what should be specifically done to change these patterns.

List the actions that you are recommending be taken and by whom.
Remember that there are 350,000,000 guns in the US already. (Perhaps another 100,000,000 added since the Columbine shooting in 1999.
Every day 80+ people die via firearms in the US--mostly due inner-city drug turf wars (50 alone last weekend in Chicago).

I challenge you not to list utopian desires, but rather concrete actions that could be taken in our society which is filled with crime, hunters, inept politicians and criminals.

Since you obviously don't like responses you've heard before, what's your solution?

Since you obviously don't like responses you've heard before, what's your solution?

Sorry I guess that I didn't read far enough in the thread to see any solutions or recommendations put forth. Similarly I have not heard any solutions offered in the media that were concrete actions that were likely to be undertaken and to be effective in the large.

I will wait and see what others post. I am not sure that I can offer any meaningful suggestions that fit my criteria for success. I might give it a try after a while or at least propose what might work in a utopian society.

My underlying assumption in the original post was that effective things that could be done will not be undertaken or are impossible in our society as it currently functions. Perhaps there are some which may reduce the frequency and severity of these actions to a small or greater degree. Let's have the conversation.

Please prove me wrong.

I wonder how these guys slip through the radar. It seems there must have been some warning sign that they were about to commit these atrocities.

Doesn't matter if they scream sign all over, there is no treatment of mental problems in the USA.

Gary, treatment or not, there are still going to be people with mental illness. Some of them may not respond to treatment, some may be fine sometimes and not fine other times. Even with treatment there is no magic cure. So your argument doesn't really solve the problem of them killing people with guns.

The best thing is to make sure that there are less guns for people to kill with. It works for every other civilised country that has got this problem under control.

---

Reality Internet Personality

there is no treatment of mental problems in the USA

I think that's just a sarcastic quip, but it's worthy of another thread.

Well, I am not sure Gary Charpentier's statement if it was sarcastic or not.

But it DOES highlight a major problem in the USA. Namely lack of compulsory treatment of mental problems in the USA, absent a criminal conviction for a crime of violence.

Unless those with mental problems voluntarily submit to treatment (and those that do are not the ones we have to worry about), there is no way short of a criminal conviction for a crime of violence that they can be FORCED into it.

Now then, there is Federal Law on the books that those that are... to put it politely... *Nucking Futz* are not ALLOWED to buy, own, or otherwise possess Firearms or Ammunition. Doing so is Illegal as... He**.

However there are other Federal Laws on the books that work AGAINST this. Federal laws on privacy of Medical information on patients, ESPECIALLY Mental Health issues. You even have to authorize (in writing) your doctor to send your medical history (drug allergies, past/current chronic health problems, etc.) to a specific hospital so they can treat you if you show up injured at their Emergency Department.

'Mental' health information is a LOT more protected, since the status of *crazy* is a LOT more detrimental to current/future employment, etc. than just 'Allergic to Penicillin & Diabetic'.

We, in the USA, (as has been said on many occasions here on this Forum) have a serious Crazy Control Problem. This problem needs to be dealt with first.

Then there are a few other issues that need addressing before we even need to start THINKING about additional gun control laws. Issues such as our EXTREMELY porous borders. Even IF you could take away EVERY firearm in the nation, except, of course, for the Police and the Military, It might take as long as two weeks until the various criminals would have more. Either stolen from the Police, stolen from the Military, or just smuggled in.

Yes, mass shooting incidents are heart-rendingly sad. But, its mostly an issue to be handled by Crazy Control, and Criminal Control, rather than Gun Control. Why take away the law-abiding citizen's only real means of defense from these thugs and nutjobs? Just get rid of the thugs and nutjobs.

there is no treatment of mental problems in the USA

I think that's just a sarcastic quip, but it's worthy of another thread.

Well, I am not sure Gary Charpentier's statement if it was sarcastic or not.

But it DOES highlight a major problem in the USA. Namely lack of compulsory treatment of mental problems in the USA, absent a criminal conviction for a crime of violence.

Unless those with mental problems voluntarily submit to treatment (and those that do are not the ones we have to worry about), there is no way short of a criminal conviction for a crime of violence that they can be FORCED into it.

Now then, there is Federal Law on the books that those that are... to put it politely... *Nucking Futz* are not ALLOWED to buy, own, or otherwise possess Firearms or Ammunition. Doing so is Illegal as... He**.

However there are other Federal Laws on the books that work AGAINST this. Federal laws on privacy of Medical information on patients, ESPECIALLY Mental Health issues. You even have to authorize (in writing) your doctor to send your medical history (drug allergies, past/current chronic health problems, etc.) to a specific hospital so they can treat you if you show up injured at their Emergency Department.

'Mental' health information is a LOT more protected, since the status of *crazy* is a LOT more detrimental to current/future employment, etc. than just 'Allergic to Penicillin & Diabetic'.

We, in the USA, (as has been said on many occasions here on this Forum) have a serious Crazy Control Problem. This problem needs to be dealt with first.

Then there are a few other issues that need addressing before we even need to start THINKING about additional gun control laws. Issues such as our EXTREMELY porous borders. Even IF you could take away EVERY firearm in the nation, except, of course, for the Police and the Military, It might take as long as two weeks until the various criminals would have more. Either stolen from the Police, stolen from the Military, or just smuggled in.

Yes, mass shooting incidents are heart-rendingly sad. But, its mostly an issue to be handled by Crazy Control, and Criminal Control, rather than Gun Control. Why take away the law-abiding citizen's only real means of defense from these thugs and nutjobs? Just get rid of the thugs and nutjobs.

How would you get rid of these people? They are still people.

Another question. Where are these guns being made?

---

Reality Internet Personality

How would you get rid of these people? They are still people.

The Thugs? Long-term Jail for committing a crime of violence. Use a gun in committing a crime of violence? Life, no parole. Or Death. (Person's option).

The dangerous crazies? Confinement and forced treatment until cure.

Another question. Where are these guns being made?

All over the world. Yes, a lot are made in the USA, but way more than enough are made in other nations to cause a problem with smuggling them into the USA for use by thugs.

From your post 1731201:

The best thing is to make sure that there are less guns for people to kill with.

See my answer directly above.

Sorry, but you can go to just about any inner-city, and in a few minutes be the proud owner of a firearm that is NOT legal to buy, sell, use, or possess in the USA outside of extremely controlled circumstances. These fully-automatic military grade firearms are favorites of a number of criminal gangs in the USA. They are why the police here are increasingly going to military weaponry as well. They are outgunned by the thugs. And you can get these, if you are willing to commit a crime, on street-corners, just like you can get other illegal things, such as illegal drugs like heroin, or the services of a prostitute.

The Thugs? Long-term Jail for committing a crime of violence. Use a gun in committing a crime of violence? Life, no parole. Or Death. (Person's option).

The dangerous crazies? Confinement and forced treatment until cure.

How do you know someone is a thug if they haven't broken the law yet? Most of these mass shootings are not done by career criminals.

Another question. Where are these guns being made?

All over the world. Yes, a lot are made in the USA, but way more than enough are made in other nations to cause a problem with smuggling them into the USA for use by thugs.

40% of guns in American are US made.

From your post 1731201:

The best thing is to make sure that there are less guns for people to kill with.

See my answer directly above.

Sorry, but you can go to just about any inner-city, and in a few minutes be the proud owner of a firearm that is NOT legal to buy, sell, use, or possess in the USA outside of extremely controlled circumstances. These fully-automatic military grade firearms are favorites of a number of criminal gangs in the USA. They are why the police here are increasingly going to military weaponry as well. They are outgunned by the thugs. And you can get these, if you are willing to commit a crime, on street-corners, just like you can get other illegal things, such as illegal drugs like heroin, or the services of a prostitute.

From this piece in the Washington Post: Shooting in Oregon: 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in America


It doesn't really support your idea that most of these guns are obtained illegally.

---

Reality Internet Personality