Another day, another two horrific shootings in America

Secondly, let’s not delude ourselves about the association between guns and mass shootings, or pretend these things happen in other countries to the extent they do here. We are an outlier, plain and simple https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.amp.html

That New York Times article refers to "A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues." If you follow that link, it tells you that while most mentally-ill people are "never violent" that "mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of US firearms-related fatalities." Maybe the government doesn't consider it violent if you shoot yourself, but I have seen it happen before. I can tell you that it's pretty violent. Also, it is not lost on me that the New York Times says that the amount of mental health associated deaths attributable to gun use is 4%, whereas the actual study by the U.S. Government says 50% of them are due to suicide. Suicide is caused by a mental health issue. Nobody who is mentally healthy, chooses to cancel their own ticket with a gun.

To add to that, many of these shooters end up getting the order wrong. What I mean is that instead of offing themselves first, they kill a bunch of strangers, then kill themselves. No matter the order, those deaths (of the shooters) still go into the suicide column.

You can do what you like with the facts. But please, don’t pretend they aren’t facts

I like facts. I read facts all the time. I try not to pretend that misreported, massaged, cherry-picked, or made-up facts are correct.
 
Is the intent here to pick a fight? There are plenty of other forums and news site comment sections where this vindictive tone can be better used to bash political opponents.

How about we leave the political pettiness and snark off of SAF?
 
Actually, the intent is to try to decrease the number of people killed in mass shootings in the United States. Ideas?
 
Actually, the intent is to try to decrease the number of people killed in mass shootings in the United States. Ideas?
I suggest reconsidering your current COA, ma'am. Posting in this thread on Service Academy Forums is not an efficient means by which to achieve that outcome.
 
Actually, the intent is to try to decrease the number of people killed in mass shootings in the United States. Ideas?
I would start by checking the background downrange first, then killing the shooter.
 
Here's another idea - be a father to your children.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2...ooters_26_of_them_were_fatherless_435596.html

This thread started off talking about how back in the day, we didn't have mass shootings, which is correct. What did we have? Solid two parent families.

Today, we have a breakdown in every moral our country has ever stood for, and we suffer for it in a myriad of ways. Mass shootings are just a symptom of the disease.
 
Is the intent here to pick a fight? There are plenty of other forums and news site comment sections where this vindictive tone can be better used to bash political opponents.

How about we leave the political pettiness and snark off of SAF?

It was inevitable and predictable...

Train wreck from the original post.
 
Actually, the intent is to try to decrease the number of people killed in mass shootings in the United States. Ideas?
I have one - the US should bring back asylums and stop treating the extremely mentally ill as if they are fit to live in society with the rest of us. People like to talk tough about mental health treatment but then aren’t willing to make the tough decisions. We used to institutionalize those who were messed up in the head, now we just medicate the sh*t out of them and hope they don’t go postal. On top of that, prison should be treated as punishment, not rehabilitation. The “innocent by reason of insanity” argument is pure BS. Lock those folks up and throw away the key or swiftly execute them and move on.
 
This is not a bad off topic to discuss as the debate over gun control connects to the ideals of serving in the military. In general, we, military members, are supposed to defend/uphold the Constitution and obey lawful orders. We defend the whole Constitution, not just the parts we like. We follow lawful orders, even if we personally disagree. Someone of you might recall a past discussion about a check and balance on the President’s sole authority to initiate a nuclear attack. We can take sides and voice our personal opinions in off duty capacities.
 
Actually, the intent is to try to decrease the number of people killed in mass shootings in the United States. Ideas?

1. Enforce exiting laws
2. Punish criminals for crimes they commit.
3. Pass a legislation to empower federal law enforcement to go after straw purchasers. The reality is legally manufactured guns end up in hands of criminal. I doubt a high percentage is stolen. My thought is with serial numbers, guns recovered from crime scenes should be able to trace back to licensed dealers the manufacturer sold the gun to.

Just to clarify, I am using FBI definition, I think, of mass shooting - 4 or more people, which are mostly committed by hanguns.
 
My thought is with serial numbers, guns recovered from crime scenes should be able to trace back to licensed dealers the manufacturer sold the gun to.

And if the gun passes through the gun show loophole?
 
My thought is with serial numbers, guns recovered from crime scenes should be able to trace back to licensed dealers the manufacturer sold the gun to.

And if the gun passes through the gun show loophole?
I'm surmising you mean the "private citizen sale of a private collection firearm" at a gun show that currently doesn't require a background check?

I would have no problem with the law requiring those sales to be subject to a background check. I got to quite a few gun shows and see some of those sales. Some of my friends have sold off portions of their collections to raise money to buy something else for their collection. That's fine and perfectly legal. If they had to pay for a background check of their purchaser, that's just a few more $'s to add to the sale price. It really wouldn't be a big deal.
 
My thought is with serial numbers, guns recovered from crime scenes should be able to trace back to licensed dealers the manufacturer sold the gun to.

And if the gun passes through the gun show loophole?

What is a gun show loophole? It you are referring to the myth that you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check, that is partially true only for private sales. Considering tables at gun show costs at least several hundred or more to get, I doubt too many private sellers at gun shows. Gun dealers with tables at gun show, which are the majority sellers at gun shows conduct background checks before selling. Coincidentally, supposedly Senator Warren proposed classifying anyone selling more than 5 guns a year a dealer.
 
1. Enforce exiting laws
2. Punish criminals for crimes they commit.
3. Pass a legislation to empower federal law enforcement to go after straw purchasers. The reality is legally manufactured guns end up in hands of criminal. I doubt a high percentage is stolen. My thought is with serial numbers, guns recovered from crime scenes should be able to trace back to licensed dealers the manufacturer sold the gun to.

Just to clarify, I am using FBI definition, I think, of mass shooting - 4 or more people, which are mostly committed by hanguns.
The majority of those are after-crime punishment. That's not a bad thing, but many of these murderers do not commit violent crimes with guns prior to their spree. There are usually warning signs that something is wrong, but they usually are not things like robbery or attempted murder.
I think your points would be useful in combating the more common types of violent crime, which is usually associated with drug trafficking and gangs.

The biggest change I can see would be to act on warning signs more effectively. Many active shooters voiced their plans or gave other indications that something was wrong, but the response was not enough to stop them. LE agencies need the resources and commitment to deal with indications of trouble that may barely rise to the criminal level. The public also needs to take troubled people seriously (and get them help), rather than simply avoid the problem.
 
[QUOTE="raimius, post: 683879, member: 50”]
The majority of those are after-crime punishment. That's not a bad thing, but many of these murderers do not commit violent crimes with guns prior to their spree. There are usually warning signs that something is wrong, but they usually are not things like robbery or attempted murder.
I think your points would be useful in combating the more common types of violent crime, which is usually associated with drug trafficking and gangs.

The biggest change I can see would be to act on warning signs more effectively. Many active shooters voiced their plans or gave other indications that something was wrong, but the response was not enough to stop them. LE agencies need the resources and commitment to deal with indications of trouble that may barely rise to the criminal level. The public also needs to take troubled people seriously (and get them help), rather than simply avoid the problem.[/QUOTE]

Can we stay on topic? My thoughts were about preventing mass shooting, which I clarified that 4 or more. My thoughts were not addressing how to stop wackos that decided to shoot people.

I do and don’t agree on “acting on warning signs more effectively.” We live in a country where we value and protect individual freedom and choices. Of course doing that has some negative consequences. What your are suggesting could easily lead to government agents visiting or even detaining someone because he or she talked about guns, purchased a large quantity of ammunition, take certain medication, someone accused that person of being dangerous, and etc.
 
Among the many gun deaths in this country--aside from the mass shootings, drive-by score settling--what about the accidental gun deaths involving children? How does that fit into the nice neat package of parental responsibility and after-crime punishment? I don't know the statistics, but the number of non-deliberate, negligent gun deaths is certainly related to the availability of guns. Please inundate me with the data, showing the statistical insignificance of these kinds of gun deaths.

Even if we didn't have a single mass shooting, would anyone believe this country doesn't have an embarrassing problem?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/year-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-gun-grandmas-purse/story?id=63859180

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...-purse-shoots-himself/CjeUXa3he8KnBy4lAuZuCP/


These cases are so abhorrent that I wouldn't lift a finger to see what if any punishment was doled out to the parents and guardians in these cases, because I suspect very little.
 
Can we stay on topic? My thoughts were about preventing mass shooting, which I clarified that 4 or more. My thoughts were not addressing how to stop wackos that decided to shoot people.

I do and don’t agree on “acting on warning signs more effectively.” We live in a country where we value and protect individual freedom and choices. Of course doing that has some negative consequences. What your are suggesting could easily lead to government agents visiting or even detaining someone because he or she talked about guns, purchased a large quantity of ammunition, take certain medication, someone accused that person of being dangerous, and etc.

The civil rights implications are extremely important, which is why there is some push back on "red flag law" proposals. The potential for mistakes or outright abuse is high when you allow search and seizure of private property before even notifying someone that an accusation was filed, which is exactly what many proposals include.

It is on topic because there is significant overlap between active shooters and people displaying mental health issues with ideations of violence (which is what such red flag proposals seek to address).

(Personally, most of the proposals violate due process pretty badly, and I don't generally support them.)
 
Last edited:
Among the many gun deaths in this country--aside from the mass shootings, drive-by score settling--what about the accidental gun deaths involving children? How does that fit into the nice neat package of parental responsibility and after-crime punishment? I don't know the statistics, but the number of non-deliberate, negligent gun deaths is certainly related to the availability of guns. Please inundate me with the data, showing the statistical insignificance of these kinds of gun deaths.

Even if we didn't have a single mass shooting, would anyone believe this country doesn't have an embarrassing problem?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/year-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-gun-grandmas-purse/story?id=63859180

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law...-purse-shoots-himself/CjeUXa3he8KnBy4lAuZuCP/


These cases are so abhorrent that I wouldn't lift a finger to see what if any punishment was doled out to the parents and guardians in these cases, because I suspect very little.
Every innocent death is a tragedy. I'm a HUGE proponent of education and safety programs with regards to firearms. Thankfully, such programs are working. The number of accidental shootings has been decreasing for years, at least in part due to hunters safety programs, firearms courses, and things like the "Eddie Eagle" program, run by state agencies, private trainers, and the NRA.

Most political proposals are not designed to address these issues, and quite frankly the death of a child is more punishment than I would wish on any parent.
 
Every innocent death is a tragedy. I'm a HUGE proponent of education and safety programs with regards to firearms. Thankfully, such programs are working. The number of accidental shootings has been decreasing for years, at least in part due to hunters safety programs, firearms courses, and things like the "Eddie Eagle" program, run by state agencies, private trainers, and the NRA.

Most political proposals are not designed to address these issues, and quite frankly the death of a child is more punishment than I would wish on any parent.

I couldn’t agree more. I sat through hunter safety with my younger son. It was required to begin trap. I know all about “Stop! Don’t touch!...” I remember thinking “why doesn’t the NRA stick to this stuff?” I’m not worried about him or you or anyone specific. I’m worried that people feel the unencumbered “civil right” to own most any gun they choose or to allow their 9 year old daughter to fire an uzi on full auto and face no consequences when there is an “accident.”

You are correct. The death of a child is more punishment than we would wish on anyone. Compare that to the the shame and guilt carried around by the child/toddler shooter allowed to be put in that position in the first place.

Again I will happily accept any data which shows the statistical insignificance of non-intentional negligent gun deaths or at least that they are being properly prosecuted.
 
Back
Top