Topic: gun massacre

[JeffSTL]

In each instance you cite a "majority opinion" which is not to say that we can all agree. On some of these matters, I doubt you'll ever get complete agreement anyway. But to say that "majority opinion" is to remove gun rights is completely inaccurate with Congressional voting records, even

I didn't say the majority opinion is to "remove gun rights". Where did I say that? A majority does favor restrictions.  Don't confuse restrictions with taking your guns.

[demon78]

I'm for diversity of opinions and I used to work in California for what is now called rednecks I called them ridge runners, they discovered where I was born and raised so they called me a side hill gouger, beer with the mail, same for me except I found an exceptional winery on the "bench" and my shipment comes in every 3 months. More lies the way of madness.
I would offer northern hospitality but unfortunately the house is not finished and you'd have to rough it, only one Bedroom others on the go, only one bathroom yet, as far as bedroom goes unless you are a good looking lady of a certain bent I won't share so that's for the future.
Bill the demon.

[Terry in Australia]

As for the psychological evaluations that soldiers and special forces undergo, that is far more oriented to whether under extreme stress, can they still perform and adhere to orders. Yes, there's an element of weeding the homicidal maniacs out, but moreover, it's performance under stress and the capacity to endure that is sought.

Purchasing a firearm does not infer that you will be under stress ever. So a psych test to ferret out a potential loon, well, noble idea, but who defines the criteria and administers the exam? Would I as a staunch believer in the Constitution be considered unworthy because I'd be willing to use the firearm in a dire situation? That I have no latent desire to be "Harry Callahan" discredit me? If there could be reasonable and uniformly acceptable criteria, I'd submit.

But damn, we can't even agree whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry or whether showing a state issued ID card to vote is Constitutional? And you expect us to solve our problems with guns? Someone ring the wake up bell please!

G'Day Cal, my mother was a psychologist before she retired, so I asked her what tests could be conducted to weed out potential mass murderers, and she replied that there are simple tests that can be conducted which will indicate undesirable personality traits, no matter how hard the person being tested may try to hide them.

Interestingly enough, I did a little research after reading your post and discovered that psyche testing is already used to restrict gun ownership in the US. Obviously this is only used in specific situations, but considering that the tests are already there, if they can reduce the instance of these atrocities, why not make them mandatory for all current and future gun owners? Here's a link to some useful information:

http://psychologyinfo.com/treatment/testing.html

I've raised the psyche testing thing in other gun forums and it seems that pro-gun guys get a little antsy when I raise it, maybe they're concerned that if they were required to undergo these tests, they themselves might fail, and have their guns taken off them. While I can understand their disappointment if this was to happen, obviously the needs of the community should outweigh the needs of the individual.

The logistics of potentially testing 100 million or so current and new gun owners in the US would be a huge task, but the US has more psychologists and psychiatrists per head of population than any other country in the world, (imagine that?) so I'd think it'd be do-able, and as the cost should be borne by the individual and not the government as part of their initial or ongoing licensing fees, the American taxpayer wouldn't be burdened with any additional taxes to keep them safer and ensure that guns were only available to those responsible members of the community.

I'm not keen on gay marriage either, if I have to suffer with a member of the opposite sex for the rest of my life, then so should everyone else. I don't know whether you need a national ID card though, you've all got a social security number with your details on file somewhere, and if mandatory psyche testing was implemented, they could just append your psyche evaluation results to your social security file. Cheers, Terry.          

[demon78]

Cal at 74-75 my days of roughing it are over hence my bed is mine, there are days when even I wake up with a numbness on the side that was down. Subjecting a quest to the diminished facilities here would bother the hell out of me. Realistically if I finish it before I shuffle my life will be complete, I work on it but it seems to take more time each year to accomplish a small task and with no wife to look after the gardens I'm not coping very well, at the moment even the aforementioned woman with a yen might overrun my abilities. What I'm saying is that the "Retreat of the Toisich" is unable to host for the moment. When it is I will extend welcome and hospitality.

Bill the demon.

[vfourfreak]

I've read this thread with interest, but wondered if I had much to contribute. I tend to see all sides and so thus far have refrained from contributing. On reflection, I would like to offer the following, but completely in the context of IMHO, and that is that Gun posession is not directly linked to gun crime.
I offer as an example my neighbours the Swiss. In Switzerland they have one of the highest gun posession (as opposed to ownership) rates in the world estimated at 1.2  to 3 million for a population of just under 8 million people.
Despite that, in 2010 there were only 40 homicides involving firearms.
I think, and of course am open to discussion / argument, that much has to do with the sense of fairness in society. I believe that there will alway be individuals who live in  societies where they perceive themselves to be slighted or disadvantaged  will take extreme measures to make their point, at the expense of others.
Perhaps Switzerland has a notion of democracy such that most citizens feel included and not disillusioned ?

Kev

[demon78]

If I may add there is not the cachet of a gun there that there is in the states, because the guns in the Swiss household are there for a purpose, to repel an invader also the people with guns have been trained as soldiers and having an  little idea about the Swiss they would check fairly extensively for crazies.
How about our French brothers Kev are they gun crazy?
Bill the demon.

[vfourfreak]

Not a lot Bill, in my experience. You can buy a hunting firearm easily enough if you are registered with "La chasse" i.e. with a hunting club. Most everything else is difficult to procure. That said, there are many areas of disadvantaged minorities in French cities that can regularly spark almost open revolt with the forces of law and order sometimes involving firearms (and often with abuses on BOTH sides), plus there is a healthy drugs trafficking route up from the ports of the south of France that can involve intervention by Les Douanes (Customs people) that can often end in a bit of a firefight. Otherwise, not much gun crime here.
Road rage and petty crime, yes !

Kev

[demon78]

You know the Swiss may have something, may be look at the gun owners and say fine you want a gun we agree, but as the price of ownership, you have to do compulsory service, take training and be the first that's called up, you'll be keeping America strong and showing your good citizenship and of course you will be screened with standard tests.
Bill the demon.

[Retro Rocket]

I'd submit there is not much of a "cachet" as you put it, Bill, to gun ownership here. If anything, with extreme anti-gun sentiments rampant, ownership has become more of a pariah than a statement of pride.

I'd say the exact opposite Cal, "with extreme gun sentiment far outweighing any anti gun sentiment"  Anti gun sentiment is NOT extreme at all, its usually rears its head after someone is senselessly killed and usually by a family member, how that could ever be referred to as extreme is laughable, its common sense in most otyher parts of the world, all gets back to "mentality", thats whats got to change, it ain't the wild west any more....

[Killer Canary]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/shark-showing-animals-respect-and-kindness/corruption-in-bensalem-the-philadelphia-gun-club
I have a god-given right!

[ekpent]

  Most of all the daily shootings in my area, and Kazoo has seen quite a few if you want a link, and sure many other places, are done by gang members of minority persuasions with guns that have been stolen and are apparently looking up to their gansta "role" models.  That combined with the Columbine copycat suicidal sicko maniacs that thrive on violent computer games and want immortality on the internet while basking under the privileged upbringing of their parents in denial makes for a very caustic mix in all the data that is presented. 
   A guy like me who may have some legal weapons, who grew up hunting and shooting with his father and was trained correctly is not a threat to society. We are an asset.
  Here is a picture from the 70's of my role model Father and I after a hunt for Ruffed Grouse and not Humans with our Shorthair which I still have one. Its all about having good role models that can help a society, not the crap on TV or in all the meadia bullsh#t.   

[Retro Rocket]

I'd submit there is not much of a "cachet" as you put it, Bill, to gun ownership here. If anything, with extreme anti-gun sentiments rampant, ownership has become more of a pariah than a statement of pride.

I'd say the exact opposite Cal, "with extreme gun sentiment far outweighing any anti gun sentiment"  Anti gun sentiment is NOT extreme at all, its usually rears its head after someone is senselessly killed and usually by a family member, how that could ever be referred to as extreme is laughable, its common sense in most otyher parts of the world, all gets back to "mentality", thats whats got to change, it ain't the wild west any more....

Retro - perhaps I should have articulated my point better. The "anti-gun" sentiment to which I was referring was the "all guns at all costs" mentality. As I indicated earlier in this thread, a shotgun is a far more dangerous weapon, and yet, the politicos are focused on an AR-15 or other "assault" style weapons. It's a non-sequitur in their logic.

I have no objection to reasonable laws, even new ones, that demonstrate a tangible connection to public safety. But there have been none, and as I pointed out, we have heaps of laws on the books already that aren't even enforced.

We do have a mentality problem. But is not that there are those among us who believe for a second that we live still in the Wild West. That is perhaps a media-driven misperception by internationals.

Thanks for keeping me on point and focused with a more clear explanation of my opinion.

Cheers-

Agreed, all except the shotty, {Aussie slang for shotgun}, I know you stated they are dangerous at 100 yards but thats only in experienced hands and less likely than a rifle to be accurate at those distances, Both my brothers in law were Australasian Trap and skeet champions and avid hunters, the rifle is far more dangerous to the extent that its a far easier weapon to be accurate with and with a simple conversion, easily found on the internet it can be made to Rapid fire, one of our less esteemed members actually has a video on you tube showing a converted AR-15 being used.  Don't get me wrong, i like shot guns but if my life depended on it i would rather have both a shot gun and a high powered rifle, horses for courses....

Thanks for holding this thread together

PS, 2 more cops shot and killed in Vegas today

[72 yellow]

No matter how many laws are passed, evil will find a way.  A sad commentary of our present world.

[Retro Rocket]

No matter how many laws are passed, evil will find a way.  A sad commentary of our present world.

I've held this opinion too, but I have begun to consider the point of these threads and the persistent use of mentally disturbed folks using guns in high traffic public places. Yes, limiting guns won't stop evil, it may only alter what weapons these folks do use. But part of their decision certainly might be their immediate access to guns? Does it affect their choice?

The plucky folks in Oz reacted swiftly and decisively to strictly regulate sidearms after a mass public shooting, and their results have been unimaginable to me. I just wonder why and how they could achieve such success and yet our society can not deal with this problem in any meaningful way?

Wild West mate....

[Terry in Australia]

Regarding the shotgun, I agree a rifle can be a far more accurate weapon, and at greater distances. But since (Thank God!) no knuckleheads have decided to employ one in their shooting spree as a long distance sniper, we can focus on the weapons being used, and those that are likely to be used. Hence, my focus on a shotgun. There have been 2 recent episodes and I greatly fear these wackos will migrate to it as a new choice. The result will be catastrophic-

G'Day Cal, not trying to trip you up mate, but there have been several cases of rifles used for "Sniper Style" mass shootings in the US that I can think of, Charles Whitman, Brenda Spencer (I don't like Mondays) John Allan Muhamad and Lee Boyd Malvo, etc etc.

While I was googling the subject, I discovered that there's a new game available called "Sniper Massacre". I don't think it'll be long before some pissed off gamer in the US decides that the electronic version isn't as exciting as the real thing............. Cheers, Terry.

[72 yellow]

Regarding the shotgun, I agree a rifle can be a far more accurate weapon, and at greater distances. But since (Thank God!) no knuckleheads have decided to employ one in their shooting spree as a long distance sniper, we can focus on the weapons being used, and those that are likely to be used. Hence, my focus on a shotgun. There have been 2 recent episodes and I greatly fear these wackos will migrate to it as a new choice. The result will be catastrophic-

G'Day Cal, not trying to trip you up mate, but there have been several cases of rifles used for "Sniper Style" mass shootings in the US that I can think of, Charles Whitman, Brenda Spencer (I don't like Mondays) John Allan Muhamad and Lee Boyd Malvo, etc etc.

While I was googling the subject, I discovered that there's a new game available called "Sniper Massacre". I don't think it'll be long before some pissed off gamer in the US decides that the electronic version isn't as exciting as the real thing............. Cheers, Terry.

It also bothers me that several Hollywood types who have come out for severe gun control make millions starring in ultra violent movies.  And other celebrities hold the same view have armed security with them.  Are they somehow more important than the average citizen ?

[ekpent]

Yeee Haww - Let's put out some more video games for all those sick little puppies that are living in their Mother's basements so they can hone their sicko mental skills and give them the courage to try the real thing so a cop can kill them is what they are really hoping for anyways. It really is part of the problem in the 'new' electronic age. Liberal or Conservative it is a problem that I am sorry probably will not be cured by legislation of gun rights for the good people.
   

[demon78]

Yes I do wonder about Hollywood and video games glorifying ultra violence and I know when I got Doom a many generations older game, after getting to the point of winning it a lot that I was hyper twitchy and not my usual sweet personality, actually my wife pointed out that I was not my mellow self any more so I said no more and in a couple of months reverted back to proper form, point being if a grown man, father and all can be changed into something that is aggressive, snarly, twitchy by a stupid video game, what about the rest of the world that doesn't have my advantages. I think there has to be a many pronged approach to the problem.
Bill the demon.

[JeffSTL]

While I'm sure violent video games and movies are not helpful, they do have the same games and movies in the rest of the world, and yet, they do not have the same problems. So, I'm pretty sure they can be ruled out as a contributing factor.

[Duke McDukiedook]

**Yawn**

So have you buncha geniuses solved all of Uhmuricuhs problems on this thread yet?

No? I am totally, seriously surprised.   

[Terry in Australia]

Terry - you're not tripping me up. Brenda Spencer used a .22 rifle in 1979, Charles Whitman committed his crime in 1966, and Muhammed and Malvo used an AR in 2002. Not exactly recent history nor emblematic of a long range rifle sniper.

No mate, it's still happening, I just used those three as well known examples of whacko's shooting at people from a distance. Here's another one from April this year. Cheers, Terry.

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/kc-suspect-serial-sniper-in-6-highway-shootings/28170/DTmdVnUSFEmyeuMyzf9VMg

[dave500]

seven thousand dollar reward?wow like don't break the bank?

[Terry in Australia]

seven thousand dollar reward?wow like don't break the bank?

You can buy a lot of beer for 7 grand Dave, I wish I knew who the sniper was and I'd dob him in for sure!

[70CB750]

I've read this thread with interest, but wondered if I had much to contribute. I tend to see all sides and so thus far have refrained from contributing. On reflection, I would like to offer the following, but completely in the context of IMHO, and that is that Gun posession is not directly linked to gun crime.
I offer as an example my neighbours the Swiss. In Switzerland they have one of the highest gun posession (as opposed to ownership) rates in the world estimated at 1.2  to 3 million for a population of just under 8 million people.
Despite that, in 2010 there were only 40 homicides involving firearms.
I think, and of course am open to discussion / argument, that much has to do with the sense of fairness in society. I believe that there will alway be individuals who live in  societies where they perceive themselves to be slighted or disadvantaged  will take extreme measures to make their point, at the expense of others.
Perhaps Switzerland has a notion of democracy such that most citizens feel included and not disillusioned ?

Kev

Same in countries of former Czechoslovakia.  The guns were very restricted prior to 89 - only police, military and sports clubs could have guns and the overall condition to get a gun also included being politically involved.  Means you had to be a communist or closely colaborate with the regime.
 
That changed after 1989, as far as i know, since I don't live there anymore, you have to pass a test/training and you get gun buying permit, after you buy the gun, you register it and you and the gun have a 5 year permit that has to be renewed.  Getting the buying permit was not hard, I done it once.  Still there is not much shooting, it more involves hunters hurting each other than deliberate "going postal".  But you could tell there is a lot gun owning people, some just because they can and it is part of the freedom, some are hunters and there is a lot of sport shooters who compete in biatlon and sport competition in general.

The area is of course the fighting turf for mafias from south (yougoslavians, italians) and east (russians, ukrainans) and these guys every so often settle problems with kalaschnikovs, but that's crime scene, that does not really count.

[Duke McDukiedook]

In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, "There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."