Santa Barbara Shooting

[white avenger]

Glenn Beck is a sensationalist, hate monger. He's hardly the balanced voice of reason on this issue.

Also, that gun show point doesn't hold up. I live in a country where not only do citizens not have access to guns (apart from the occasional farmer etc) our police force doesn't carry fire arms either. Using the logic that the lack of guns creates space for these type of crimes to happen then Ireland should be rife with mass murders, but it isn't. We have never had a mass shooting. Or really any kind of shooting that wasn't organised crime or IRA related.

In 2012 (the most recent year I can find for data) 38 people were killed in Ireland through gun related incidents: 12 from homicide, 20 from suicide, 4 from unintentional gun deaths, and 2 from gun deaths by undetermined causes. I have no doubt in my mind that if guns became accessible to the general public those figures would skyrocket.

Not having guns readily available to the general public does make a difference and it would save lives. It won't fix the ultimate problem but just because you can't eradicate something doesn't mean you don't take the steps to make it less harmful. Cancer doesn't have a cure but there are steps that can be taken that can make it less destructive, caught early enough those steps can be curative.

Over 30,000 people die from gun related incidents in the States every year, just over half of those deaths from suicide, and a further half from homicide. Only a fraction of these deaths come from mass shootings. That's thousands of lives that could be saved and so thousands of reasons to look at the accessibility of guns, reasons that have nothing to do with mass shootings, or where they take place, or how having a gun on you could prevent a shooting.

As I said in my previous post, I'm right and you're wrong. We both believe firmly that, and we will neither one ever be truly willing to try and reach a mid point solution.

That is why I am taking only a minimal part in this debate. It's going to end with no one having changed their opinions one iota, bot with more than a few otherwise friends engaging in an insult fest. I've seen it too many times already, and my blood pressure is no loner conductive to another fruitless repetition.

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

One final note. With all due respect to those here who are not U S residents, in this country, our Constitution guarantees every law abiding citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Under certain circumstances, that right may be regulated, but it can never be completely taken away. Whether you believe in and support that right or not, it does exist, and as long as it does, it will have to be considered in any attempt to solve this problem. Either remove that article from the u s Bill of rights, which would, indeed, give the government the right to ban the private ownership of firearms, or accept that fact and attempt to find another solution. Those are our government's only two choices, despite what some people might think. Anything else is impossible.

 

[thetopher]

As I said in my previous post, I'm right and you're wrong. We both believe firmly that, and we will neither one ever be truly willing to try and reach a mid point solution.

That is why I am taking only a minimal part in this debate. It's going to end with no one having changed their opinions one iota, bot with more than a few otherwise friends engaging in an insult fest. I've seen it too many times already, and my blood pressure is no loner conductive to another fruitless repetition.

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

One final note. With all due respect to those here who are not U S residents, in this country, our Constitution guarantees every law abiding citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Under certain circumstances, that right may be regulated, but it can never be completely taken away. Whether you believe in and support that right or not, it does exist, and as long as it does, it will have to be considered in any attempt to solve this problem. Either remove that article from the u s Bill of rights, which would, indeed, give the government the right to ban the private ownership of firearms, or accept that fact and attempt to find another solution. Those are our government's only two choices, despite what some people might think. Anything else is impossible.

Actually, there's some contention in the law here- the Constitution guarantees the right to anybody who's part of a militia- ie a standing defence force, in other words police/or army, not private citizens.
It's a problem with following a document that was written over 200 hundred years ago, some parts of it are going to be outdated. The Constitution was written when there was slavery, no women's right to vote, half the states weren't even created yet...it a fallacy to say, you can never amend this right because we could be, what exactly, invaded by the British again? The US has the most powerful military in the world- this right needs to be ammended, for common sense sake.

Having said all that I believe any law-abiding citizen has the right to equip himself or herself so that they can safely defend their home, within reason. 🙂

 

[Black Eye Guy]

There are fanatics on both sides of the debate- there are people who will jump on an issue and use it to enforce their own vision of what they think a country should be.
They won't bother looking at the facts of the case at all, just blame the other side for everything.
It's happened plenty of times in other countries.

Course but there isn't the same kind of Buffy behind the other side, all the money is behind the pro gun side.

The man said this within only a day or so of the shooting, when not all the details were known about the case, the police were still trying to assess the situation.

In fact, didn't the police get a headsup that this guy might try something before he did it? Didn't they question him and then dismiss him as 'shy and harmless'?

If you want to blame somebody, start with blaming the people who are actually responsible, this loser who pulled the trigger, or the people who could've stopped it but didn't.

Thats blaming the middle man, unless the investigators overlooked something, they aren't to blame the only person thats to blame is the kid.

BUT like if there is a fault with a car, the fault has to be reassessed, not going after the car dealer, the ease of getting a gun is a fault in gun control and that needs to be looked at.

As I said in my previous post, I'm right and you're wrong. We both believe firmly that, and we will neither one ever be truly willing to try and reach a mid point solution.

It should be that simple. If one side wants gun, and the other, in the extreme, wants gun completely abolished, surely the middle ground is tighter control, it should be that easy, but then you have people like Glen Beck crying about being controlled.

 

[white avenger]

Actually, there's some contention in the law here- the Constitution guarantees the right to anybody who's part of a militia- ie a standing defence force, in other words police/or army, not private citizens.
It's a problem with following a document that was written over 200 hundred years ago, some parts of it are going to be outdated. The Constitution was written when there was slavery, no women's right to vote, half the states weren't even created yet...it a fallacy to say, you can never amend this right because we could be, what exactly, invaded by the British again? The US has the most powerful military in the world- this right needs to be ammended, for common sense sake.

Having said all that I believe any law-abiding citizen has the right to equip himself or herself so that they can safely defend their home, within reason. 🙂

Actually, the last decision on the matter was when the Washington D C court struck down the Capital's one time total ban on handguns and strict regulations on all firearms in general, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual's right, and the need for a weapon for self defense was valid for ownership. The argument that the Second Amendment refers in any way to the military or local organized militia would invalidate the entire Constitution, since it enumerates the rights of the people as individuals, not as any government controlled group. Thomas Jefferson himself said that the citizenry should always have the right to "regulate" as in, revolt against the military authority of an unjust government. The right to keep and bear arms was set up as an endowed right, not a granted privilege.

The criminal use of firearms in the United States is a real problem, and that is undeniable. The ability of the criminally inclined and mentally unstable to attain firearms is something that has to be addressed. But as long as the Second Amendment exists, it is going to have to be considered in any workable solution.

 

[brinkster130]

[MENTION=12614]thetopher[/MENTION] is correct. On April 30th the police were tipped off and went to do a welfare check on the gunman but decided he was no real threat to himself or anyone else. Now I don't know just how much the cops can legally do, but if they had searched his appartment and car they would have found weapons and firearms. If they had searched his computer they would have found documents with plans for a shooting. I don't see the problem with questioning the police and their actions here. Did they do enough and did they take the tip seriously?

Of course, we still need to look at our gun laws and mental health care treatments too. This is a problem that will require several things to be done before we see change.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

[MENTION=12614]thetopher[/MENTION] is correct. On April 30th the police were tipped off and went to do a welfare check on the gunman but decided he was no real threat to himself or anyone else. Now I don't know just how much the cops can legally do, but if they had searched his appartment and car they would have found weapons and firearms. If they had searched his computer they would have found documents with plans for a shooting. I don't see the problem with questioning the police and their actions here. Did they do enough and did they take the tip seriously?

Of course, we still need to look at our gun laws and mental health care treatments too. This is a problem that will require several things to be done before we see change.

Mashable have a pretty good "timetable" of events: http://mashable.com/2014/05/25/elliot-rodger-profile/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link

And have a police visit on 30 April:

A week after uploading some of his videos to YouTube, police officers visit Rodger's apartment for a wellness check. Someone saw Rodger's videos, was concerned for his well-being and contacted authorities. Police say Rodger's mother called them, but he says his mother claims she reported the videos to a health agency.

His early videos were just talking about how great he was, how he didn't understand why girls didn't like it and videos of him driving around listening to 80's music, he wasn't talking about violence till he posted the last one were he laid out his plan.

It sounds like whoever reported him was concerned about him rather than concerned what he'd do to other people, so I wouldn't imagine the police could have checked anything?

Absolutely the health check needs to be looked at, but while that applies directly to this case (and I think the Sandy Hooks one right?), tighter gun control would apply as a blanket net to every case.

 

[brinkster130]

Mashable have a pretty good "timetable" of events: http://mashable.com/2014/05/25/elliot-rodger-profile/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link

And have a police visit on 30 April:


His early videos were just talking about how great he was, how he didn't understand why girls didn't like it and videos of him driving around listening to 80's music, he wasn't talking about violence till he posted the last one were he laid out his plan.

It sounds like whoever reported him was concerned about him rather than concerned what he'd do to other people, so I wouldn't imagine the police could have checked anything?

Absolutely the health check needs to be looked at, but while that applies directly to this case (and I think the Sandy Hooks one right?), tighter gun control would apply as a blanket net to every case.

Yeah, I saw the timeline. Apparently his therapist reported him, although I've read reports that his parents did too? So who knows.

In his manifesto he references that wellness check:

I had the striking and devastating fear that someone had somehow discovered what I was planning to do, and reported me for it ... If that was the case, the police would have searched my room, found all of my guns and weapons, along with my writings about what I plan to do with them. I would have been thrown in jail, denied of the chance to exact revenge on my enemies. I can't imagine a hell darker than that.

IMO, it was clear that the guy was troubled and that this was premeditated; he knew on April 30th that he was going to do this. And having been reported by his therapist I would hope that the police would have taken the tip seriously. I think we (in the US) live in a time where have to take tips like this seriously...its crazy to think this may have been prevented if the police went a little further into his apartment. (Again, I say this not really knowing what cops can legally do in situations like this.)


Mental health checks do apply to many of these shooting. The Virginia Tech shooter was actually on a list of people who were not legally allowed to own fire arms but the state was so behind in administrative upkeep that he his name didn't come up when the gun shop ran his ID check.

I only bring up looking at the police reaction and mental health issues because I believe gun control is only one factor in these massacres. I absolutely think we need more gun control and wish people would make it a priority; but I think we need to look at other broken parts of our society that are also contributing to these horrible events.

 

[brinkster130]

I know it's the Onion but sometimes they have a point...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

 

[white avenger]

It just occurred to me that some members might not be aware of what the present laws in the United States might be, so I thought that this would be appropriate to post here as a reference ...

http://injury.findlaw.com/product-l...odifier-GunGeorgia&HBX_PK=+georgia++guns++law

Note the so called "guns everywhere law" just signed into law here in Georgia and going into effect July 1 of this year. This will be the most liberal law of its kind anywhere in our country, and contains sections that even I find questionable, but I sincerely believe that it will be the "I told you so," law for one side of the issue or the other.

Only time will tell...

 

[Black Eye Guy]

What do you mean by "I told you so"?
Realistically the only side that benefits is if a shooter is shot by a random pedestrian right?

Or do you mean like if a random pedestrian shoots someone thinking they are doing something?

It sounds like that law makes it easier to get a gun/keep a gun, with less finger printing and stuff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[white avenger]

Just thought that I'd toss this in. If a demented man with a semiautomatic rifle could cause all that death and destruction, just think what he could do with something like this

https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motor...-offers-tanks-for-the-memories-135659950.html

Okay, granted, these almost certainly have any weapons systems either disabled or removed entirely, but what the government can remove, some Maciver wannabe could repair or replace.