Oregon shootings: The map that shows all 264 mass shootings in America this year

[-relo- 105]

I wonder what would stop people getting guns who shouldn't have them who aren't dissuaded by legal penalties because they intend to go out in a blaze of glory.

nothing without taking the rights of others away. which will not happen. eliminate target rich environments or require them to have armed guards on duty. is the best bet at this point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sounds like a police state.

[-relo- 105]

Sounds like a police state.

how so? I go many places with armed guards on duty...banks, concerts, sporting events, etc.

what are your ideas, w/o taking peoples rights away?

[decocker 7,198]

nothing without taking the rights of others away. which will not happen. eliminate target rich environments or require them to have armed guards on duty. is the best bet at this point.

also impossible. america is a target rich environment. are you trying to eliminate america?

anyway if you start training and hiring armed guards for schools/churches/parks/malls etc etc as your solution it will only be a matter of time before mass shooters figure out how to become the guards (or a relatively normal person goes suicidal). the idea can't be MORE guns. more guns is only MORE opportunity for mass shootings..plus, arming everything with a heartbeat infringes on the freedom and happiness of those of us who don't want to be surrounded by guns 24/7.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh it wasn't a criticism, I just wonder how it would be widely perceived if it became a common sight to see armed guards patrolling schools, hospitals, large office buildings and crowded public spaces. It's not a sight I'd personally be comfortable with.

I'd see it as an admission that some rights perhaps aren't worth having.

It's like how you strike the balance of security vs. civil liberties after acts of terrorism. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that our governments have gone too far in responding to these threats.

I don't think there are any real solutions to this problem. The second amendment isn't going anywhere and it's unlikely that anyone is going to fix the health system to the extent that mental health care becomes a frontline priority.

Whatever checks are put in place to stop kamikaze shooters getting guns doesn't seem to stop them acquiring them. I guess it would be better if there were a plan to actually do 'something' meaningful - but even that won't happen because lobby groups like the NRA effectively own the republican party. Those people don't even want to have a conversation.

So yeah, maybe Fortress America is the inevitable solution to this problem, even if it leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

also impossible. america is a target rich environment. are you trying to eliminate america?

anyway if you start training and hiring armed guards for schools/churches/parks/malls etc etc as your solution it will only be a matter of time before mass shooters figure out how to become the guards (or a relatively normal person goes suicidal). the idea can't be MORE guns. more guns is only MORE opportunity for mass shootings..plus, arming everything with a heartbeat infringes on the freedom and happiness of those of us who don't want to be surrounded by guns 24/7.

You won't eliminate target rich environments without passing laws that limit the number of people who can gather in a group.

I have to admit I don't and have never liked the idea of people openly carrying guns becoming a routine sight. I think it makes for a more fearful society and I doubt that the USA wants to end up going down the route of South Africa.

[Teddy B 17,252]

if you read what it says & not what you want it to say. it means making guns illegal will NOT keep people that want them from getting them.

Is that what any law is really meant for? I don't think so. Laws are meant to deter the majority of people from breaking them, the stiffer the penalty, the stronger the deterrent. There will always be the percentage of people who will break these laws anyway. That's why we have a legal system, to put these law breakers away and keep them from society.

As for new gun laws, I think it would be most effective to have one law for the entire country rather than state to state law. It's far too easy right now for people from states with strict gun laws to drive to other states with lax gun laws, get their guns and take them back.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

An I right in thinking that the laws governing the other amendments are at the national level?

[Sousuke 1,214]

I'm not entirely advocating the following as it probably runs into constitutional issues but I came across an interesting law in Germany.

They have extra requirements for younger people who want a firearm. Under 25s require a medical evaluation for soundness of mind. There is a trend that the majority of these mass shooting that get media attention are people in their mid to early 20s or younger.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Is that what any law is really meant for? I don't think so. Laws are meant to deter the majority of people from breaking them, the stiffer the penalty, the stronger the deterrent. There will always be the percentage of people who will break these laws anyway. That's why we have a legal system, to put these law breakers away and keep them from society.

As for new gun laws, I think it would be most effective to have one law for the entire country rather than state to state law. It's far too easy right now for people from states with strict gun laws to drive to other states with lax gun laws, get their guns and take them back.

If I were at the bargaining table of the country law, I would trade universal background checks and PPTs for a strike down of any magazine limits, handgun roster laws, and ammo laws.

It would mean that states like NY and CA would have their laws weakened, but states like Alabama, Georgia etc would be strengthened.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not entirely advocating the following as it probably runs into constitutional issues but I came across an interesting law in Germany.

They have extra requirements for younger people who want a firearm. Under 25s require a medical evaluation for soundness of mind. There is a trend that the majority of these mass shooting that get media attention are people in their mid to early 20s or younger.

I think you also have to ask what is different about the US that these sorts of incidents have become relatively commonplace.

As I mentioned (I'm sure) I can tell you how many times it's happened in the UK going back to 1987...

[Teddy B 17,252]

An I right in thinking that the laws governing the other amendments are at the national level?

I believe most states follow the main parts of the amendments because they have to, but they make changes to certain areas that aren't covered as they go along.

I'm not entirely advocating the following as it probably runs into constitutional issues but I came across an interesting law in Germany.

They have extra requirements for younger people who want a firearm. Under 25s require a medical evaluation for soundness of mind. There is a trend that the majority of these mass shooting that get media attention are people in their mid to early 20s or younger.

I wouldn't mind seeing this as a one time requirement for all perspective gun owners.

[Teddy B 17,252]

If I were at the bargaining table of the country law, I would trade universal background checks and PPTs for a strike down of any magazine limits, handgun roster laws, and ammo laws.

It would mean that states like NY and CA would have their laws weakened, but states like Alabama, Georgia etc would be strengthened.

PPT's?

I would be ok with that, as long as background checks and mental health checks were included.

[decocker 7,198]

You won't eliminate target rich environments without passing laws that limit the number of people who can gather in a group.

I have to admit I don't and have never liked the idea of people openly carrying guns becoming a routine sight. I think it makes for a more fearful society and I doubt that the USA wants to end up going down the route of South Africa.

limiting the number of people who can gather in a group yeah i can see the right being all for this..given the group is non christian, non white, etcetc. terrorist threat being the catch-all

there's a definite difference between concealed carry as a routine sight (already is for a lot of americans) and forcing concealed carry in public establishments.

[Sousuke 1,214]

PPT's?

I would be ok with that, as long as background checks and mental health checks were included.

California-centric term. It means Private Party Transfer. Its a requirement that when you want to sell your firearm (non antique), you have to meet the buyer at a FFL and transfer it with a background check.

Its not a perfect system. While FFLs originally lobbied for the law because it would bring ppl to their stores, they now put up obstacles because they don't make money off the transfers.