Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Cosmos]

Unfortunately, this is the loop we're trapped in:

I really feel like this is because we keep glossing over the real, underlying issues, which is in most cases related to mental health. It's easier to demand that all guns be banned than having to debate about the very tricky issue of mental health in America and what's being done about it, after all. The vast majority of mentally ill people aren't violent; they're far more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else (in fact, mentally ill people make up most of the suicides committed each year). But that doesn't change the fact that there are some people who are so delusional and psychotic that we currently don't really know how to handle them (or what we can do to prevent them from hurting other people).

For the record, I think that stricter background checks and regulations do really need to be put in place, but it just seems like the most zealous anti-gun people (none of whom have showed up here, by the way) don't acknowledge any of the underlying issues that inspire mass shootings. They seem to think that getting rid of guns will fix everything when in reality these maniacs will just resort to black market weapons. Personally, what I think is really important is trying to understand the psychology of mass murderers and what warning signs they give off.

 

[DNJACK]

Now that I'm in agreement with. The thought that you require guns to fight a tyrannical government in the modern day is very silly and as history has shown would be a completely one sided altercation. Especially given how militarized the police and military are.

I partly disagree. While a direct confrontation with any government would result in a one sided bloodbath, a government trying to implement a draft would hesitate a lot more to hunt down deserters if those deserters are likely to put a bullet in the head of their military police.

 

[Watcher]

I partly disagree. While a direct confrontation with any government would result in a one sided bloodbath, a government trying to implement a draft would hesitate a lot more to hunt down deserters if those deserters are likely to put a bullet in the head of their military police.

Well a draft is political suicide regardless. It's going to cause a mass clusterfuck, whoever enacts it is guaranteed to never get re-elected ever (So it's not going to be a first term president that's for sure). It's also sure as shit wouldn't happen for decades given the US has literally the largest military budget in the world.

But I'm doubting people with guns would begin shooting the military en-mass when they come to their door. That also sounds a bit like a fantasy.

 

[DNJACK]

Maybe it's not on the political radar in the next 50 years. After that, who knows.

I don't expect people to shoot military at their door. I expect them to run away, mostly in groups of people, and to shoot if they see someone in uniform coming for them. Historically draft deserters were sentenced to death, so they'll be in all likelyhood fighting for their life.

 

[Marvin]

I find it completely ridiculous when people talk about the government actually taking away their guns.

Repealing the 2nd amendment outright is completely politically infeasible in the US. You might as well be talking about repealing the 5th amendment while you're at it. It falls into the same category as worrying about zionist worldwide government. It's bonkers conspiracy theory nonsense.

People will drive drunk, or commit violent crimes, regardless of how hard it is for sober people to own cars, or for law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

People say this a lot, but I have no clue what they mean by it.

"Well people are going to do X anyway, we're not going to be able to stop them" is silly. People will indeed do bad things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws in place to counter them.

Completely eliminating a certain behavior isn't the goal, because that's impossible. Rather you want to make it more expensive to indulge in that behavior. The more expensive you make it, the harder it is for people to afford it. Gun registrations and background checks would do that. Also severe penalties for failing to report a lost firearm.

I'm fine with things like background checks and stuff, but I think banning rifles because of trivial cosmetic features, such as having a threaded muzzle or a pistol-style grip, is asinine as all fuck.

There's a difference between bad gun control and gun control in general.

A couple of years ago, there was a shooting at a mall near where I used to live. The guy managed (if I recall correctly) to kill three people before someone else, a man with a concealed carry permit, took him down with his own gun to prevent any more lives being lost.
With gun control, would that situation have still occurred? I can't really say, but I can't help thinking guns are not the root of the problem.

I don't know about that specific situation, but in general, lots of crazies manage to buy firearms they shouldn't be permitted to. Better gun control would definitely stem some of that.

And I don't think whether or not guns are the root of the problem is as important as the cost/benefit ratio. Automated background checks are (or can be) implemented very cheaply. It's just a computer database, really. And with that, we can keep a bunch of crazies from getting guns. Sounds worth it to me, especially considering we've already got these databases in place. We just don't use them effectively enough.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I partly disagree. While a direct confrontation with any government would result in a one sided bloodbath, a government trying to implement a draft would hesitate a lot more to hunt down deserters if those deserters are likely to put a bullet in the head of their military police.

And that's why nobody in the USA has ever been drafted!

. Historically draft deserters were sentenced to death

[Citation needed]

 

[Duke Nukem]

I find it completely ridiculous when people talk about the government actually taking away their guns.

Repealing the 2nd amendment outright is completely politically infeasible in the US. You might as well be talking about repealing the 5th amendment while you're at it. It falls into the same category as worrying about zionist worldwide government. It's bonkers conspiracy theory nonsense.

People say this a lot, but I have no clue what they mean by it.

"Well people are going to do X anyway, we're not going to be able to stop them" is silly. People will indeed do bad things, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws in place to counter them.

Completely eliminating a certain behavior isn't the goal, because that's impossible. Rather you want to make it more expensive to indulge in that behavior. The more expensive you make it, the harder it is for people to afford it. Gun registrations and background checks would do that. Also severe penalties for failing to report a lost firearm.

There's a difference between bad gun control and gun control in general.

I don't know about that specific situation, but in general, lots of crazies manage to buy firearms they shouldn't be permitted to. Better gun control would definitely stem some of that.

And I don't think whether or not guns are the root of the problem is as important as the cost/benefit ratio. Automated background checks are (or can be) implemented very cheaply. It's just a computer database, really. And with that, we can keep a bunch of crazies from getting guns. Sounds worth it to me, especially considering we've already got these databases in place. We just don't use them effectively enough.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing background checks or anything like that. I will say I am in favor of the Second Amendment, and I believe it is an individual right, as opposed to a "collective right" that those who oppose private ownership seek to "interpret" it in their own..."special" way.

Stuff like background checks is just protocol. No big deal, I went through mine and passed just fine. I never said "don't do anything." The comparison to drunk drivers is more of a statement on human behavior, regardless of the laws of society. Laws only matter to the law-abiding, after all, and if they're too strict or there's too many of them, people lose respect for the law in general. Look at what happened with Prohibition in the 1920s, not a whole lot of good came of that.

As far as bans on cosmetic features, it's the equivalent of banning spoilers on cars to prevent speeding and drunk driving because they make cars "look fast" or some shit like that. Unfortunately, some states have these asinine laws in place, which are impractical for actually reducing crime or anything, but sure do make the antis feel good about themselves.

And as far as the idea of fighting a tyrannical government, well, despite the odds against them, people do it all over the world. After all, that's what the founding fathers did, and they expected that one day, their successors could become as bad as the rulers they threw off.

Speaking of rulers, politicians who want firearms banned should fire their armed guards. That would be setting a good example for people to follow. Anything less would be the height of hypocrisy.

 

[DNJACK]

And that's why nobody in the USA has ever been drafted!

Can you read? I said hesitate to hunt down deserters, not hesitate to draft.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Can you read? I said hesitate to hunt down deserters, not hesitate to draft.

And so the cherry-picking and straw man attacks begin...happens in every thread like this. I've already had it happen a couple of times.

 

[AP 297]

And so the cherry-picking and straw man attacks begin...happens in every thread like this. I've already had it happen a couple of times.

The problem is you had someone already come into this thread and imply that we should not worry or do anything about this because the chances of being killed in a mass shooting are very very very unlikely. The guy also implied those of us wanting some controls on certain weapons were gun grabbers. So the strawman was already set by another poster on the other side.

Also on your point about banning "assault weapons" is valid, you are right that cosmetics do not matter. Features and specifications do matter though. A weapon that is Semi-Automatic, fires 5.56 rounds, and/or uses extended clips should not be able to be purchased without some level of licensing, detailed screening, or at the very least a training requirement. These guns are very dangerous and people have had horrific accidents with them.

Our mass shooting incidents have more casualties because of these factors(Semi-auto, stronger ammunition, or extended clips) and each one can be the difference between a shooting that takes the lives of 3 people or 30 of them.

 

[Duke Nukem]

The problem is you had someone already come into this thread and imply that we should not worry or do anything about this because the chances of being killed in a mass shooting are very very very unlikely. The guy also implied those of us wanting some controls on certain weapons were gun grabbers. So the strawman was already set by another poster on the other side.

Also on your point about banning "assault weapons" is valid, you are right that cosmetics do not matter. Features and specifications do matter though. A weapon that is Semi-Automatic, fires 5.56 rounds, and/or uses extended clips should not be able to be purchased without some level of licensing, detailed screening, or at the very least a training requirement. These guns are very dangerous and people have had horrific accidents with them.

Our mass shooting incidents have more casualties because of these factors(Semi-auto, stronger ammunition, or extended clips) and each one can be the difference between a shooting that takes the lives of 3 people or 30 of them.

I saw that poster, he is not necessarily incorrect. Mass shootings, for all the hysteria there is over them, are extremely rare to begin with. I don't really mind the laws as they stand for the most part, but I don't think adding more items to the blacklist will do much except piss people off, and the prospect only leads to panic buying. The irony of gun control is that it often gets people who would have never dreamed of owning a firearm in their entire lives interested in case they get banned. Not exactly the desired effect, I presume.

Background checks or a "permit to purchase" for certain categories, fine. My state requires a so-called "permit to purchase" for military look-alike semi-auto rifles and pistols, but does not explicitly forbid their ownership. Not sure how effective that is but okay. It's better than an arbitrary ban on owning anything at all. And magazine limits are a joke, at least to anyone who knows how to use basic hand tools. It's a box with a spring in it, nothing too hard about it. And as for 5.56? Well, there are cartridges with a lot more stopping power than that one, and it isn't only used in semi-autos. And semi-autos of various types have been around since the late 19th century, so un-inventing things isn't really an option either.

That being said, though, "MOAR BANZ" is not the answer. Switzerland, a country with one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world, basically encourages its citizens to own firearms and practice with them. And every Swiss adult male is a member of the state militia, and is issued a fully automatic rifle and a large supply of ammunition for it to keep in his home. I personally would not mind seeing that kind of setup here, but implementing it would be politically dubious. Oh, and the Swiss have an excellent mental health care system. And so do we...wait a minute...

Above all else, though, gun safety in schools needs to be brought back. Corny as it is, this video's message of "stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult" is a good place to start.

 

[AnOminous]

And as far as the idea of fighting a tyrannical government, well, despite the odds against them, people do it all over the world. After all, that's what the founding fathers did, and they expected that one day, their successors could become as bad as the rulers they threw off.

And the founders, including George Washington personally, put down rebellions against legitimate authority, as in the Whiskey Rebellion, who were the post-Revolution era equivalent of today's sovereign citizens, insisting the federal government had no authority over them.

 

[Duke Nukem]

And the founders, including George Washington personally, put down rebellions against legitimate authority, as in the Whiskey Rebellion, who were the post-Revolution era equivalent of today's sovereign citizens, insisting the federal government had no authority over them.

And he treated them a lot better than they would be treated today. He understood exactly what they were thinking and what they felt they were going through. There was much fear that the new rulers could eventually be as bad as the British, and Washington had to walk a fine line regarding that.

I am aware of that fact, but it does not change my original point.

 

[AP 297]

I think we agree on most of this. The US has enough guns to arm every man, woman, and child. You cannot ban all of them. I know this and as a pragmatist, I have to concede that gun-free society in the US is a a pipe-dream for the foreseeable future. Still, to downplay the horror of these incidents is really missing something. They are rare, but they are a part of the US's very severe problem with guns. We will likely lose more people to guns this year than Car Accidents. The US has a severe mental health problem. I am an ardent supporter of reinstitutionalization.

Still wanting rules and making people get training to use guns in particular certain types of guns is gun control. It is not an all out ban, but it is limiting the sale and distribution of guns. It may be preventing people who are not crazy, felons, or children from owning weapons, but there are some idiots sadly who will argue for each of them to own guns.

As for my hang up with the 5.56 round - this article pretty much sums it up.
http://www.futurefirepower.com/myths-about-the-nato-556-cartridge

Both the Aurora Shooter and Newtown Shooter both used Semi-automatic rifles that fire 5.56 NATO Rounds. They both opted for the extended clips as well.

These rounds are devastating when they come in contact with the human body. You can use clips that have more of them than larger bullets and their tumbling effect makes them just as deadly. Especially against unprotected civilians. Below is an image showing exactly what happens when these rounds come in contact with a gel target.

As you can see from the image these smaller rounds are nothing to laugh at and why I single out that particular round.

 

[DNJACK]

On the plus side, these round penetrate police body armor like butter, and are absolutly needed against military targets.

Resistance against foreign occupation with revolvers would be a joke. With NATO rounds, it could be very succesful.
Anyway, it's not a concern for the near term.

 

[Duke Nukem]

On the plus side, these round penetrate police body armor like butter, and are absolutly needed against military targets.

Resistance against foreign occupation with revolvers would be a joke. With NATO rounds, it could be very succesful.
Anyway, it's not a concern for the near term.

A handgun could do quite well against an army, if used in a stealthy manner. You simply use it to take the enemy's weapons for yourself. People resisted the Nazis in such a manner, and although you have a valid point, it's better than nothing. Here's a good article on it.

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/vanderboegh-handgun-against-army-ten.html

As far as rifle rounds go, though, any decent full-size rifle cartridge will defeat many forms of body armor. The soft stuff that police typically wear just isn't designed to stop much beyond most pistol cartridges. You'd need hardened steel or ceramic insert plates rated to stop rifle cartridges, and those are mostly issued to military personnel or SWAT teams, not your typical street cop. Of course, you can bypass all that with a shot to the head or areas that are not typically armored, so it's anyone's game.

As for the 5.56 information, that's some decent information, although I've heard stories about jihadists in Afghanistan withstanding multiple hits and being able to return fire sufficiently. I don't know if those stories are reliable, but at range, the smaller rounds don't exactly maintain their energy well. In closer quarters or mid-range, however, they may be sufficient.

As far as James Holmes and Adam Lanza are concerned, that's why the mental health system needs to be fixed and parents need not let their kids go to the range when they're obviously wacko. Nancy Lanza knew her son had some serious problems, but did very little apart from appeasing her son's desires and indulging his requests, even giving him a check for his birthday to buy a firearm with. Apart from that, he had few friends, put black construction paper over his windows to block out the world, and was antisocial to the extreme in a number of ways. Some say he had Asperger's Syndrome, OCD, and/or some kind of sensory processing disorder, but I believe the evidence of his diagnoses/conditions is inconclusive. Not that these things in themselves cause people to be violent, but he certainly had anger issues and disturbing interests over the years.

That being said, if I looked like him, I too would seriously consider offing myself.

I mainly shoot shotgun and full-power rifle cartridges myself though, so I may be a bit biased about the smaller stuff. Personally, I'm not really a huge fan of AR-15s, everyone and their mother has one, for starters. But let's save that for the firearm thread in Off-Topic.

All in all, I'm glad this thread hasn't descended into logical fallacies and penis jokes, like every firearm related thread on IGN does.

 

[DNJACK]

FOr stealth you might as well take a knife or a crossbow. It wouldn't make as much noise and you can't penetrate armor with a revolver anyway.

Also for domestic warfare I'd equip government forces with submachineguns. Weak against armored targets, strong against unarmored.

 

[Rat Speaker]

FOr stealth you might as well take a knife or a crossbow. It wouldn't make as much noise and you can't penetrate armor with a revolver anyway.

Also for domestic warfare I'd equip government forces with submachineguns. Weak against armored targets, strong against unarmored.

Nice COD tips.

 

[AP 297]

A handgun could do quite well against an army, if used in a stealthy manner. You simply use it to take the enemy's weapons for yourself. People resisted the Nazis in such a manner, and although you have a valid point, it's better than nothing. Here's a good article on it.

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/vanderboegh-handgun-against-army-ten.html

As far as rifle rounds go, though, any decent full-size rifle cartridge will defeat many forms of body armor. The soft stuff that police typically wear just isn't designed to stop much beyond most pistol cartridges. You'd need hardened steel or ceramic insert plates rated to stop rifle cartridges, and those are mostly issued to military personnel or SWAT teams, not your typical street cop. Of course, you can bypass all that with a shot to the head or areas that are not typically armored, so it's anyone's game.

As for the 5.56 information, that's some decent information, although I've heard stories about jihadists in Afghanistan withstanding multiple hits and being able to return fire sufficiently. I don't know if those stories are reliable, but at range, the smaller rounds don't exactly maintain their energy well. In closer quarters or mid-range, however, they may be sufficient.

As far as James Holmes and Adam Lanza are concerned, that's why the mental health system needs to be fixed and parents need not let their kids go to the range when they're obviously wacko. Nancy Lanza knew her son had some serious problems, but did very little apart from appeasing her son's desires and indulging his requests, even giving him a check for his birthday to buy a firearm with. Apart from that, he had few friends, put black construction paper over his windows to block out the world, and was antisocial to the extreme in a number of ways. Some say he had Asperger's Syndrome, OCD, and/or some kind of sensory processing disorder, but I believe the evidence of his diagnoses/conditions is inconclusive. Not that these things in themselves cause people to be violent, but he certainly had anger issues and disturbing interests over the years.

That being said, if I looked like him, I too would seriously consider offing myself.

I mainly shoot shotgun and full-power rifle cartridges myself though, so I may be a bit biased about the smaller stuff. Personally, I'm not really a huge fan of AR-15s, everyone and their mother has one, for starters. But let's save that for the firearm thread in Off-Topic.

All in all, I'm glad this thread hasn't descended into logical fallacies and penis jokes, like every firearm related thread on IGN does.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed over 30 people simply using semi-automatic pistols. They were all crazy though and in my opinion had no business being outside of a secure mental institution, let alone handling firearms.

My thought is to solve the US problem with gun deaths, we need a multi-layered approach because it is a problem that exists on multiple layers. Simply banning guns won't work because we have a severe problem with the Mentally Ill having no access to care. Also it is excessive and not really something the US population will tolerate. Required training, background checks, and weapon tracking are better options but alone they are not enough. People who site countries with gun bans often leave out the fact that mental health systems in those countries are much more comprehensive than in the US. Simple re-institutionalization and a significant investment in mental health won't work, because it is still to easy for people who are not crazy, but simply malicious(criminals or terrorists) to acquire these weapons.

Even altering media coverage of these events is not enough because there are sadly a lot of deaths that go unreported anyway and to assume that not reporting something will end its recurrence is not exactly a sound strategy for preventing an occurrence.

Doing all 3 approaches - Training/Licencing/Checks/Registry, Mental Health Treatment, and Higher Media Standards would be more comprehensive as well as effective.

 

[Chippy]

Study shows that water is wet and fire is hot.

But seriously. I own a gun, and I wouldn't want to get rid of it, but at the same time... People who argue against gun control seem to be the ones who like to imagine fantastic scenarios that place them as a hero rather than collateral damage or someone who makes things worse.

If you're armed and in public and someone opens fire, spraying bullets everywhere... What are the chances that you'll be alive long enough to shoot back if you're caught completely unaware? What are the chances that you'll hit the guy? What are the chances that when the cops show up, they won't take you down just for being in their sights as someone with a gun with just the knowledge that there's a crazed gunman on the loose?

Another argument I see a lot is that people are afraid that without guns, the government will take their rights. But be realistic here. You didn't sleep through Ferguson or the Boston riots, did you? You didn't miss the fact that police officers are now armed with tanks, armored trucks, and the sort of firepower that we equip our military with? If the government wanted to take your rights away, there isn't really a hell of a lot you're going to be able to do about it. A shotgun isn't going to stop a tank or men in full military-grade body armor.

The only situation in which I can imagine guns would be as useful as people tout them to be is in some sort of zombie apocalypse, or if there's a break-in to their house. But the former situation is unrealistic and improbable at best, and with the latter, well... People who break into homes are usually subtle about it; there's no guarantee that you'll hear them and be able to get armed in time. A big, loyal, mean dog is probably a better defense than a weapon in that situation, all things considered.