[SuperJon]

You're trying to be smarter than you are and are overcomplicating everything to show you're an expert. In reality, this is pretty simple:

Guns should be legal.
While legal, guns are too easy to get access to.
While guns don't kill people, allowing mentally unstable people to have easy access to guns is not safe.
We need to change the process of how people can legally buy guns and what types of guns/ammunition can be bought by normal citizens.

I don't know what the fixed process looks like. It's going to take the left conceding that people are the issue, not guns. And it's going to take the right conceding that while increasing control doesn't eliminate bad people getting guns, it at least makes it harder for them to get them and that's a step in the right direction.

Like most things in life, the best outcome is found somewhere in the middle.

[ALUmnus]

This ain't the Minority Report, you don't know who the "bad people" are. Tell me one new law that would have screened this guy out.

And BJ isn't being unreasonable, give the guy some slack.

[SuperJon]

I don't know if anything would've stopped this dude or if it would've screened him out. I don't know the ins and outs of the process. I never educated myself on it because I never had the desire to own a gun and never saw a need for things to change.

At this point, given what we know about this guy, you'd have to think that some of those red flags could've been found with a more intensive process.

Also, and this has less to do with this guy and more to do with some of the past shootings, but why are things like automatic weapons and hollow point bullets available for regular citizens?

These are questions I don't have the answers to. Instead of automatically assuming the worst case answer for them, we need to be having intelligent conversations where we listen to both sides and see if there's a place to improve.

[Humble_Opinion]

I don't know if anything would've stopped this dude or if it would've screened him out. I don't know the ins and outs of the process. I never educated myself on it because I never had the desire to own a gun and never saw a need for things to change.

Then why go after BJ for expressing an opinion that was opposite of yours and making a claim that he was, "trying to be smarter than he is..."

At this point, given what we know about this guy, you'd have to think that some of those red flags could've been found with a more intensive process.

You've already said you haven't done research on this... you've also said you've never purchased a firearm, and thus have never been scrutinized as to whether you were fit to own one. The process takes about 30 - 45 minutes... sometimes longer depending on where you're at and what day you purchase the firearm. They run background checks akin to those run by most employers... what else are they supposed to do? I get that maybe people who are mentally disturbed should be more heavily scrutinized, but how do you propose instituting that sort of process without running the risk of infringing upon privacy rights, etc.? In this case there was no way to know that this guy was THIS mentally unstable. It doesn't appear that he sought therapy, much less had the capcity to do something like this. Inside each of us rests the capability to do extreme damage and harm to others, including the government and those that serve it. There is no way to prevent gun crime by banning guns or making them harder to acquire. The best way to prevent it is to have a counter-balance of level-headed, law abiding, responsible citizens.

Also, and this has less to do with this guy and more to do with some of the past shootings, but why are things like automatic weapons and hollow point bullets available for regular citizens?

You're really showing you don't know what you're talking about here... Automatic weapons are NOT available for regular citizens. Hollow point bullets are and for two good reasons. First, if there is a 6'+ man coming at my wife... a 9mm loaded with hollow points is going to provide much more stopping power, which is the point of self-defense. Second, Full-metal Jackets (FMJ's), while not as destructive on the intended target are a much greater risk to others, because they will typically go through a target and continue on, causing a much greater risk for inadvertant targets to be struck.

These are questions I don't have the answers to. Instead of automatically assuming the worst case answer for them, we need to be having intelligent conversations where we listen to both sides and see if there's a place to improve.

I agree that there needs to be intelligent conversations and there needs to be more done to try and prevent these sort of shootings, but at the end of the day gun control very easily could threaten the ability of me to protect myself and my family. I live in the city, and have seen police response times average between 5 mins - 22 mins. When I need protection in a moment's notice, I want to be able to provide that and a phone isn't going to help me there.

[flamehunter]

Excellent response Humble. People who aren't educated on the issue are willing to give away a few rights of privacy. The only logical end of gun control is nothing short of making all guns illegal for any citizen to own. It may take 50-100 years, but that is where it will end. We have to stop it before it starts.

The real issue is sin.

[PAmedic]

HUMBLE OPINION stole my thunder.

SJ I love ya brother but you're waaaaaaay off on the particulars of guns and ammo. And its honestly cause you just don't know about it so I'm not busting your balls.

H/O points were right on about FMJ/JHP ammo and class 3 weapons. Strangely enough we don't always use hollow points because of what they do... sometimes ball- esp bonded- is the round of choice. Depends what I'm shooting at/through.

and HIPAA prevents normal medical treatment from being disclosed- to protect people's privacy. Unless you are INCARCERTED against your will on a 302 psych commit... it will NOT show up on a background check. The vast majority of people threatened by family or law enforcement with a 302 will agree to go VOLUNTARILY- meaning its now not a matter of public record. You cannot force people to divulge that kind of info. They are being treated medically with no legal implications.

and on the gun sales thing: it is federally regulated, and we do screen and CATCH people attempting buy illegally. But you can't legislate honesty and if someone wants to make a straw purchase for a felon, there's very little anyone can do until after the fact. Add to that a guy who can't buy a gun but his girlfriend/wife/mom/sister/aunt keeps one in the house. Because she can. nothing you can do to legislate that either.

the widely used talking points about guns/ammo restrictions are based on knee jerk response by uneducated people (no offense)

the main goal of SOME on the left is to take weapons away totally- to eliminate (in their minds) the possibility of bad things happening.

lets try legislating away heart disease and cancer first.

CDC stats on causes of death (2013-2014): last years numbers not avail yet
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
•Heart disease: 611,105
•Cancer: 584,881
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
•Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
•Diabetes: 75,578
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

[SuperJon]

Humble - thanks for the education. I didn't know the difference in some of those things. Like I said, I'm not educated with the specific details.

Flamehunter - I think I'd be willing to give away a few rights of privacy in order to purchase a gun if it helped us this right. I'd be willing to bet that many who are borderline would end up deciding not to purchase a gun simply because of the hassle.

Lastly, the reason I'm asking questions is because I hate seeing what's going on around us. I know violent crime as a whole is down. I know things are being played up more and more because of social media and main stream media wanting clicks and views. With that said, I want us to get this right. Sometimes we accept the same thing for years and years and years because it's what we've known. I think it's time for calm, respectful conversations to see if there's a better way.

[SuperJon]

SJ I love ya brother but you're waaaaaaay off on the particulars of guns and ammo. And its honestly cause you just don't know about it so I'm not busting your balls.

I'm totally willing to admit I don't know any better on this issue. That's why I'm bringing it up and asking questions and listening to the answers. I want to know more and I want to be able to contribute to the conversation.

[PAmedic]

no prob. I gotta be careful posting @ this stuff anyway

[BJWilliams]

That was my major point in what I said. Making a decision now would be driven largely by emotion due to the tragic nature of the events. If we stop, let the people grieve, take a deep breath and give it time, we can revisit just what to do down the road, when we can logically and objectively look at the whole scope of the situation and come up with a solution.

[SuperJon]

If we stop, let the people grieve, take a deep breath and give it time, we can revisit just what to do down the road, when we can logically and objectively look at the whole scope of the situation and come up with a solution.

So how long do we wait? A week? A month? We're average one mass shooting (four people getting shot at one time in one place) a day at this point in 2015. How many more people have to get shot or killed before we can logically and objectively look at the whole scope of the situation?

Where I agree with you is that we shouldn't rush to a vote or push some poorly thought out law into existence based on emotion. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about what needs to be changed.

[flamehunter]

Humble - thanks for the education. I didn't know the difference in some of those things. Like I said, I'm not educated with the specific details.

Flamehunter - I think I'd be willing to give away a few rights of privacy in order to purchase a gun if it helped us this right. I'd be willing to bet that many who are borderline would end up deciding not to purchase a gun simply because of the hassle.

Lastly, the reason I'm asking questions is because I hate seeing what's going on around us. I know violent crime as a whole is down. I know things are being played up more and more because of social media and main stream media wanting clicks and views. With that said, I want us to get this right. Sometimes we accept the same thing for years and years and years because it's what we've known. I think it's time for calm, respectful conversations to see if there's a better way.

Agreed it may discourage some from purchasing a gun, legally. There are so many guns out there now that they would have no problem getting one through other avenues, some legal, some not, if they were bent on doing someone harm. My concern is when this stuff happens, the knee-jerk reactions would, if put into effect, keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Some might be considering getting one and then decide not to just to avoid the hassle. God forbid they regret not getting one in the future because of a home invasion or some similar act against them.

[Purple Haize]

If we stop, let the people grieve, take a deep breath and give it time, we can revisit just what to do down the road, when we can logically and objectively look at the whole scope of the situation and come up with a solution.

So how long do we wait? A week? A month? We're average one mass shooting (four people getting shot at one time in one place) a day at this point in 2015. How many more people have to get shot or killed before we can logically and objectively look at the whole scope of the situation?

Where I agree with you is that we shouldn't rush to a vote or push some poorly thought out law into existence based on emotion. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about what needs to be changed.

Have you checked how they source that graph. Look at some of them and you will sees situation like this where nothing could be done. Were any gang related murders counted? Murder / Suicides?
I used to live in a country where 90% of the people openly carried firearms, from Berettas to m-16's and the like. It was disconcerting at first but like anything else you get used to it. Plus, I felt pretty safe because if anything untoward happened a lot of armed people were there to put a swift end to it. In fact, when I returned home I felt a little insecure for awhile because NO ONE was carrying a fire arm. That's what made me someone who is really a supporter of less strict gun laws.

[SuperJon]

There were definitely gang related shootings and murder/suicides included in that chart. Those are also instances of gun related violence.

As for how they source the graph, it's from an open-source network and most, if not all, of the numbers are backed up by news stories.

[Purple Haize]

There were definitely gang related shootings and murder/suicides included in that chart. Those are also instances of gun related violence.

As for how they source the graph, it's from an open-source network and most, if not all, of the numbers are backed up by news stories.

That's my point. The numbers don't say what the graph wants it to say. Gang shootings are already done mostly by people who aren't allowed to own guns. So between murder and their gun ownership being illegal I don't see how another law prevents that. Secondly, in a cold and calculating way, as a representation of the population of the U.S. It's a very tiny number. Thirdly, the murder suicides would happen as well. So other than just being an antiseptic number I don't see how you can read anything into it.

[Yacht Rock]

There were definitely gang related shootings and murder/suicides included in that chart. Those are also instances of gun related violence.

As for how they source the graph, it's from an open-source network and most, if not all, of the numbers are backed up by news stories.

That's my point. The numbers don't say what the graph wants it to say. Gang shootings are already done mostly by people who aren't allowed to own guns. So between murder and their gun ownership being illegal I don't see how another law prevents that. Secondly, in a cold and calculating way, as a representation of the population of the U.S. It's a very tiny number. Thirdly, the murder suicides would happen as well. So other than just being an antiseptic number I don't see how you can read anything into it.

PH, you should know better. Logic has no place on the internets.

[PAmedic]

SJ I feel ya. I get your point... every death is a tragedy- no matter what the cause.

but do a graph with fatal car crashes per day

we'd save more lives outlawing cars brother

[Purple Haize]

There were definitely gang related shootings and murder/suicides included in that chart. Those are also instances of gun related violence.

As for how they source the graph, it's from an open-source network and most, if not all, of the numbers are backed up by news stories.

That's my point. The numbers don't say what the graph wants it to say. Gang shootings are already done mostly by people who aren't allowed to own guns. So between murder and their gun ownership being illegal I don't see how another law prevents that. Secondly, in a cold and calculating way, as a representation of the population of the U.S. It's a very tiny number. Thirdly, the murder suicides would happen as well. So other than just being an antiseptic number I don't see how you can read anything into it.

PH, you should know better. Logic has no place on the internets.

You should know better. Know one thinks I'm logical!

[SuperJon]

SJ I feel ya. I get your point... every death is a tragedy- no matter what the cause.

but do a graph with fatal car crashes per day

we'd save more lives outlawing cars brother

Here's the thing: in the past 3-4 decades, we have done a ton of things to make cars safer. We've required more training to operate them, put restrictions on people just learning to use them, required seat belts, required airbags, and a load of other things. We've done whatever we could to make driving a car safer while knowing nothing would ever make it completely safe.

Why can't we do the same thing with guns? Why do people who are fearful of losing their guns automatically jump to the furthest conclusion that if we can't eliminate violence completely, we shouldn't do anything? That logic doesn't work anywhere else in life.

I read an article from the New York Times that brought up many of these points. It isn't about getting rid of guns. That wouldn't work at all and shouldn't even be on the table. It's about making gun ownership safer.

[PAmedic]

responsible gun owners DO the things that must be done to make guns safe. I train. TONS. I secure my weapons in the house. Multiple places. I wear appropriate holsters, with retention.

responsible vehicle owners do the same.

how do you idiot-proof cars to make sure people don't use them for drunk driving? Require ignition interlock systems in EVERY CAR SOLD to prevent drunks from starting them?
make it impossible for lots of people to buy cars? or only offer them in certain configurations to restrict their use? do you only allow people to buy certain types of tires that are "safer"?

How far do you go to protect society at large from every conceivable danger?

gun violence upsets people because its graphic and scary. SO DO PLANE CRASHES. but you aren't scared of flying, nor do you restrict flights. proportionally both are a FRACTION of deaths globally.

[PAmedic]

I do love ya brother but this quote gives me chills:

Flamehunter - I think I'd be willing to give away a few rights of privacy in order to purchase a gun if it helped us this right.

I know you meant that specifically toward gun purchase rights- but that's because its not something that's important to YOU.

we are in huge trouble in this country if we start restricting individuals' liberty when it isn't something WE care about. The 2nd amendment applies to EVERYONE, just like the 4th amendment, 5th ammendment and 15th amendment

[PAmedic]

I love Patrick Henry:

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

and, of course:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it! Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

[PAmedic]

I'll stop now...

[Sly Fox]

On a somewhat related note, we had another line of duty murder last night here in Houston. Tough time to be wearing blue these days. Your service is appreciated.

[SuperJon]

responsible gun owners DO the things that must be done to make guns safe. I train. TONS. I secure my weapons in the house. Multiple places. I wear appropriate holsters, with retention.

responsible vehicle owners do the same.

Since when do we regulate things because reasonable and responsible people do things the right way? Most regulations and laws are because of the people who aren't reasonable and responsible to make them comply with a generally accepted standard.