Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Cuck Norris]

Remember that time Obama took all our guns and declared martial law and made himself Emperor For Life? Good times.

 

[Van Darkholme]

I'm just saying, after living in America for so long it seems like most of the Eurozone is going to hell.

Oh god yes, it's pure apocalypse here right now. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria, human sacrifices, people eating tree bark, people getting forced to convert to islam etc.

 

[Clown Doll]

Example you need to prove that you're not a crazy person which by it self is kind of weird. By standards you are evil and not good enough to buy a .22 pistol.

The Jokela school shooting and the school shooting in Kauhajoki caused the .22 handguns to be controlled more carefully. In both cases mentally disturbed people were allowed to buy .22s. The shootings happened in 2007 and 2008 respectively, the first one having 8 fatalities and the latter one 9 (not including the shooters).

 

[Holdek]

Studies done by the FBI and Centers for Disease Control have shown that military styled firearms, or "assault weapons", are used in less than 4% of ALL firearms related deaths.

That's still hundreds of deaths per year (not to mention all the injuries), and are completely pointless as you don't need an assault weapon to hunt or defend yourself.

I don't think the weapons are the main reason for mass shootings. The society is at fault. I live in a Nordic country where we have, to a contrary, a lot of weapons including ar-15 and ak's. In Finland, 2010,

I don't know what all the gun control laws are in Finland, but I do know that it has the second highest number of gun deaths (including murder) as a percentage of its population after the US.

Also, thanks for the dumb ratings.

It would probably help if you didn't repost graphs from sites that put out stuff like this:

 

[Vitriol]

The right to self defence and the right to bear arms are rights available in the USA. Look at Britain:

• Cameras on every corner
• PC is taken to its extreme
• They're destroying their culture

I remember reading about a guy getting arrested for Kung Fu Fighting.
Not really a rebuttal but there you go.

this is a bizzarre caricature of the UK.
Even if what you said was true (it isn't) it has nothing to do with gun laws. People in the UK can own firearms just not without a licence. the restrictions on type of ownership is the result of widespread public disgust after a school shooting in the late 1990's. The biggest thing preventing a desire for gun ownership is the widespread social stigma owning a gun in the UK carries.

The reason you haven't 'fallen into socialism and had our guns taken away' is that you haven't voted that way. If the majority in the US voted for socialism and gun control or even the repeal of the 2nd amendment and armed millitia's prevented the democratic will of the majority that would be tyranny.

No one disputes whether responsible gun use is a key part of US culture- it clearly is. The question is if they should be subject to more regulation like cars and other potentially dangerous machines. I would say cars are also a key part of your national culture and yet no one disputes the need for driving licenses and insurance.

 

[dickwad]

The Jokela school shooting and the school shooting in Kauhajoki caused the .22 handguns to be controlled more carefully. In both cases mentally disturbed people were allowed to buy .22s. The shootings happened in 2007 and 2008 respectively, the first one having 8 fatalities and the latter one 9 (not including the shooters).

How about Sello mall shooting, where a guy went apeshit with illegal gun. This was 2009. The more careful gun control approach made buying a pistol way too big of a hassle. So to sum it up here is the procedure:
You apply for a rifle. You bring your passport and documents (proof written by a shooting instructor that you've been shooting for two years). You complete a psychological test to prove you're sane (questions are like "sometimes I think I will just kill every body that have made wrong to me" and "when things will get bad, I will end my life"). You need to visit a doctor who will give you written statement of your sanity. Doctors really hate to do this because how come you can write that statement after 30 minutes from meeting you. Now you will get a invitation to a interview where police will go your criminal record and "police record" trough, if any. Speeding and parking tickets will affect your license. Now if everything will work out good you will get a license to buy a rifle. I have never had a problem when buying a gun. But lets examine a following situation:

There is a old police who will retire. Now the police wants to buy his own pistol cause he wants a hobby. He applies for the same pistol he has carried around for many years. The police says well that doesn't matter that you have been practicing for many years with your duty weapon cause thats not hobby sport-activity and will not be counted as a proof for shooting the two years. Come back two years later DDD Thats just insane. Doesn't matter if you are a firearm instructor for the army the law doesn't recognize that. That how it works by the law, of course the police will and has bend the law to suit few cases where they have papers to show that this guy has operated firearms for years.

Also what is with the "other weapon" class that we have. Its a class where "short weapons" fall when they are not at least 840mm long and barrel is not at least 400mm long. Applying a license for "other weapon" is extremely hard. So if you buy a m14 mini .22 and the barrel is not 400mm long is a "other weapon" or just a .22 bolt action rifle with a barrel length shorter than 400mm its a other weapon. But if you take a pistol and modify it to be a smg its totally okay. Add a stock, aimpoint, supressor etc you're good to go and police will not do a thing to stop you but dare you shorten your m14 mini .22 by removing its flash hider and police will find out about this no guns for you.

Here is a glock with Ronin frame. Compare it to any boltaction rifle with barrel length less than 400mm.

I don't know what all the gun control laws are in Finland, but I do know that it has the second highest number of gun deaths (including murder) as a percentage of its population after the US.

Well thats the thing! Banning those guns will not make the social problem of extreme depression go away. Those poor souls will just end their lives with hard liquor and pills or jump from a building.

Anyways I'm not raging to any of you guys or "debating" anyone in particularly

 

[AnOminous]

The reason you haven't 'fallen into socialism and had our guns taken away' is that you haven't voted that way. If the majority in the US voted for socialism and gun control or even the repeal of the 2nd amendment and armed millitia's prevented the democratic will of the majority that would be tyranny.

That would be constitutionalism, in which the passing whim of a majority doesn't eliminate basic rights for everyone.

 

[Holdek]

That would be constitutionalism, in which the passing whim of a majority doesn't eliminate basic rights for everyone.

Okay but then up that to 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures. Or just have judges not ignore parts like "well-regulated militia."

I should also add that mass shootings are more than just the number dead; they have a psychological effect of terror. There were "only" three people killed in the Boston Marathon Bombing but the societal impact was much greater because of its nature.

 

[Shugo]

Or just have judges not ignore parts like "well-regulated militia."

The Supreme Court has analyzed the language of the 2nd amendment many, many times. Finally they determined that the right to keep and bear arms is independent from any involvement in a militia. It very clearly does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed for all except those acting within a well-regulated militia."

I'm tired of people ignoring the clarity of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia was described in some Federalist papers as 'the whole people.' Legally, all able-bodied males of age 17-45 is a member of the unorganized militia according to some Militia Act of a year I can't remember.

Well-regulated in the late 1700s was synonymous with "well-equipped." The founders when they wrote the bill of rights very clearly did not mean that only the government should choose who is worthy enough to own arms. The Bill of Rights is a declaration against what government cannot control or infringe.

 

[DoshesToDoshes]

This is a problem either way. There'll only be more horrific shootings if gun laws are tightened though, as guns are also a good way to stop gun crime, it seems. There are plenty of illegal guns out there, and 'completely normal' people that are insane and planning shootings on the inside. All it takes is the motivation and the ability. Take away the guns, you have plenty of other weapons out there that can be used too, guns just happen to be a much more direct way of doing it. Bombs would be much worse.

Too many guns = mass shootings
Not enough guns = mass shootings
No guns = no shootings, probably other methods of mass killings (peace is only achievable in utopian society)
Everyone has a gun = anarchy (everyone shoots each other)

 

[Holdek]

The Supreme Court has analyzed the language of the 2nd amendment many, many times. Finally they determined that the right to keep and bear arms is independent from any involvement in a militia. It very clearly does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed for all except those acting within a well-regulated militia."

I'm tired of people ignoring the clarity of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia was described in some Federalist papers as 'the whole people.' Legally, all able-bodied males of age 17-45 is a member of the unorganized militia according to some Militia Act of a year I can't remember.

Well-regulated in the late 1700s was synonymous with "well-equipped." The founders when they wrote the bill of rights very clearly did not mean that only the government should choose who is worthy enough to own arms. The Bill of Rights is a declaration against what government cannot control or infringe.

The Court didn't interpret "well-regulated militia" that way until 2008, and it was done so on a 5-4 basis. I find that definition a torturous way to make the Constitution fit a gun culture that had evolved more or less independently as the Court didn't hear any major Second Amendment cases before then, rather than the other way around. (But then on the flip side the Commerce Clause has been bent like that since the 1930s going in the other political direction.)

 

[Shugo]

The Court didn't interpret "well-regulated militia" that way until 2008, and it was a 5-4 decision. I find that definition a torturous way to make the Constitution fit a gun culture that had evolved more or less independently as the Court didn't hear any major Second Amendment cases before then.

I find your interpretation of the Bill of Rights as a means for the government to regulate arms out of the hands of everyone except those deemed in a "well-regulated militia," despite not reading what the Militia was described as in the Federalist Papers.

And I don't understand how you can misunderstand the strong, clear speech of the rest of the 2nd amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds a lot to me like it's a right of the people, not people chosen and actively in a militia. They could have been clearer if that's what they meant.

Why would protections against an authoritarian government such as freedom of speech, freedom from unwarranted searches, against self-incrimination in the Bill of Rights suddenly have an amendment that gives the government the power to take arms from everyone except the few deemed worthy? It is out of place for the Bill of Rights to list protections offered to citizens from an over zealous government and suddenly include an amendment that gives the government immense power.

Nevermind the fact that the rights and protections listed in the Bill of Rights are not granted by the document. The rights to freedom of speech, to keep and bear arms, privacy exist inherently in all people. All the Bill of Rights says is that these rights listed are so sacred government cannot touch them.

 

[Holdek]

I find your interpretation of the Bill of Rights as a means for the government to regulate arms out of the hands of everyone except those deemed in a "well-regulated militia," despite not reading what the Militia was described as in the Federalist Papers.

Why would protections against an authoritarian government such as freedom of speech, freedom from unwarranted searches, against self-incrimination in the Bill of Rights suddenly have an amendment that gives the government the power to take arms from everyone except the few deemed worthy? It is out of place for the Bill of Rights to list protections offered to citizens from an over zealous government and suddenly include an amendment that gives the government immense power.

Nevermind the fact that the rights and protections listed in the Bill of Rights are not granted by the document. The rights to freedom of speech, to keep and bear arms, privacy exist inherently in all people. All the Bill of Rights says is that these rights listed are so sacred government cannot touch them.

First, the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. They represent a few of the Founder's beliefs, which were completely at odds with those other Founders. And your assumption that I haven't read them is incorrect.

Second, the Second Amendment was intended to, and indeed functioned in a way, to give citizens protection against the federal government by giving them the right to organize into independent state and other such militias as a bulwark against the concentration of military power in the federal government. It's why existing state militias, by law, cannot be federalized.

 

[Shugo]

Second, the Second Amendment was intended to, and indeed functioned in a way, to give citizens protection against the federal government by allowing them to organize into state and other such militias as a bulwark against the concentration of military power in the federal government.

And how does this interpretation conductive to any gun control laws? If any one person cannot arm themselves, how can a militia be formed?

I don't understand how any militia can exist when people cannot arm themselves with, say, what a typical infantry unit of the US military is armed with. If such arms are denied from the people, how can they form any effective militia to protect against the federal government?

And in addition, the 1st amendment was intended to, and indeeds functions in a way, to give citizens protections against the federal government's censorship by allowing them to print and speak freely and overall be a well-informed society capable of making democratic decisions. The amendment itself doesn't say that, so you have to take what the amendment says and protects, free speech (and expression) and freedom of the press.

Are we going to start prosecuting someone for writing mean things on the internet, because it isn't free speech against government-controlled censorship?

The purpose of the amendment is secondary to the meaning and protections it grants. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for any reason, like how The First grants free speech and freedom of expression for any reason.

 

[Holdek]

And how does this interpretation conductive to any gun control laws? If any one person cannot arm themselves, how can a militia be formed?

I don't understand how any militia can exist when people cannot arm themselves with, say, what a typical infantry unit of the US military is armed with. If such arms are denied from the people, how can they form any effective militia to protect against the federal government?

Members of state militias are equipped with such weapons.

 

[Shugo]

Members of state militias are equipped with such weapons.

Are they? Since 1986 there has been the end of all new 'machine gun' registrations. There are only a limited number of registered machine guns for non-police, non-military use and the number keeps dwindling lower and lower each year as they become rarer due to scarcity. When there are more militia members than registered machine guns, a staple of US-military infantry issue, how can they arm themselves with effective arms? When the number will just keep getting lower and there's zero replinishment, it looks to me like there's an active effort to quell the legal access of military-grade arms for militia use.

Nevermind the 4-12 month (or more) waiting period simply to transfer ownership to another person, $200 transfer fee, the fact that these guns due to their rarity cost upwards of thousands of dollars, when they are bought regularly in government contracts for maybe $400 to $500 a rifle.

It doesn't look to me like these militias can equip themselves very easily with a limited and dropping number of arms fit for militia use. I would say the right to form a militia is being infringed upon.

 

[Holdek]

Are they? Since 1986 there has been the end of all new 'machine gun' registrations. There are only a limited number of registered machine guns for non-police, non-military use and the number keeps dwindling lower and lower each year as they become rarer due to scarcity. When there are more militia members than registered machine guns, a staple of US-military infantry issue, how can they arm themselves with effective arms? When the number will just keep getting lower and there's zero replinishment, it looks to me like there's an active effort to quell the legal access of military-grade arms for militia use.

Nevermind the 4-12 month (or more) waiting period simply to transfer ownership to another person, $200 transfer fee, the fact that these guns due to their rarity cost upwards of thousands of dollars, when they are bought regularly in government contracts for maybe $400 to $500 a rifle.

It doesn't look to me like these militias can equip themselves very easily with a limited and dropping number of arms fit for militia use. I would say the right to form a militia is being infringed upon.

I don't know the purchase levels of machine guns by state militias, but I also don't know that any limitations in their acquisition of them have been made by the federal government. It seems more likely to me that they might be considered less of a necessary expense by the militias since they have been focusing more on natural disaster relief and in recent years have picked up some slack in this area that resulted from national guard units being sent to fight abroad.

 

[Shugo]

but I also don't know that any limitations in their acquisition of them have been made by the federal government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

I don't know of any provision in the National Firearms Act that allows an exemption of registering NFA firearms for militia use.

Also of note is the fact that the Supreme Court has argued in favor of upholding the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, because Short Barreled Rifles were said to have 'no militia use' so it was fine to charge an insane amount of money for transferring ownership of one of these guns to another person. Yet Machine Guns and Short Barreled Rifles are also regulated heavily by the act, but it's fine to infringe on them...

$200 in 1934 is worth about $3000 for the gun changing ownership. Anytime you sell the gun, you had to pay a tax of $3000. That sounds like an infringement to me if these have a militia use. It was upheld when challenged in court, even though back then and even today NFA firearms are widely used in the military.

This is an incredibly complex piece of legislation that even the regulatory agency, the ATF, flip flops on its definitions. On a whim they have decided a device that 'can' be mounted on your shoulder turns your pistol into a short-barreled rifle, a huge fine and potential 10 years in jail for 'manufacturing' (i.e. buying and screwing onto your gun) several months after sending out letters reassuring everyone that the device was NOT necessary to register under the act.

I don't trust flip-flopping agencies who cannot make up their mind on laws, creating huge consequences for anyone that believes their first judgement not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. There are no judges, there is no new legislation clarifying anything since the law was written over 80 years ago. All we have are these bureaucrats who decide what is and isn't legal based on how bitchy they feel one day. Their reasoning for tons of their classifications is circular.

 

[PeteyCoffee]

Repressive regimes have killed far more countrymen and foreigners than deranged murderers have.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

No guns = no shootings, probably other methods of mass killings (peace is only achievable in utopian society)

You're right that a totally violence free society is probably unattainable. However, the problem of regular spree shootings - at the moment you're having two big ones a year - seems like it might be solvable, since many other societies seem to have solved it.