At least 50 dead, 400 injured in shooting near Mandalay Bay casino, 1 suspect 'down'

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Thoughts/Opinions about the woman aside, I actually quite like the quote that has been going around attributed to Gloria Steinem (though she didn't actually originate it):

 

"I want any young [person] who buys a gun to be treated like young women who seek an abortion. A mandatory 48-hours waiting period, written permission from a parent or a judge, a note from a doctor proving that he understands what he is about to do, time spent watching a video on individual and mass murders, traveling hundreds of miles at his own expense to the nearest gun shop, and walking through protestors holding photos of loved ones killed by guns, protestor who call him a murderer."

 

I wouldn't take it all literally, but just the idea. 

 

Guns shouldn't be something you can walk into a "gun show" and walk out an hour later with. They should be a committment that requires advanced thought, training, education PRIOR to purchasing. A gun license should be at least as hard to acquire as a driver's license, including having a test. Also at least as expensive as registering a car (though I honestly don't know how expensive a gun license/registration is right now, if it costs anything). You should have to demonstrate you know how to properly handle one, how to properly care for one, and how to properly store one. All of that should be BEFORE purchasing the weapon.

What determination do you consider for "Young Person", 18 and below, 21 and below? The facts you are putting out about abortion are for teenage women wanting an abortion. 

 

BTW you can't just walk into a gun show and walk out with a firearm without any type of background checks at all. We have already determined that was false several posts ago. 

[Boiler 46,121]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Please answer his question and then provide us with a suggestion for a plan to turn our homicide rate around.

 

We are the worst in the world when compared to other high income countries. Our homicide rate is 7 times higher. 

 

Please provide an alternative to fix that. Clearly it doesn't make sense to just say "Well what can you do, this must be normal" since it is clearly not normal around the world.

Nobody is interested in that, actually the Guardian had a good piece on focussing on the real issues, gun grabbers just want to take guns and move on.

 

Like I say they have plenty of opportunity to do something real if they wanted to. They control the main problem areas.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

What determination do you consider for "Young Person", 18 and below, 21 and below? The facts you are putting out about abortion are for teenage women wanting an abortion. 

 

BTW you can't just walk into a gun show and walk out with a firearm without any type of background checks at all. We have already determined that was false several posts ago. 

Clearly a simple "background check" is not enough to exclude people who end up being mass murderers. I've love to see some studies on the efficacy of background checks. They are something that we use and talk about frequently, and I am doubtful they are all that effective at what they set out to do.

 

A person with a family history of psychiatric illness, or violent crime (like our shooter) should have been REQUIRED to undergo an evaluation by a doctor prior to purchasing a firearm. Just one example.

 

As I said about the quote, I wouldn't take it word for word. I think honestly ANYBODY seeking to purchase a gun should get clearance from a doctor, go through required educational interventions, take a written and practical exam. Like driving a car. Obviously we still have idiots that drive a car, so it wouldn't prevent everything. But it would at least be a start.

Edited October 5, 2017 by bcking

[Boiler 46,121]

Plenty of studies showing the main areas and the relatively small groups responsible for most of the day to day killings.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Nobody is interested in that, actually the Guardian had a good piece on focussing on the real issues, gun grabbers just want to take guns and move on.

 

Like I say they have plenty of opportunity to do something real if they wanted to. They control the main problem areas.

I'm interesting in it that. I truly am.

 

For me gun control isn't political, it is merely one of the many means I see that we need to pursue to reach our ultimate end goal - A safer environment for our fellow citizens. 

 

When you look at the data showing our homicide rate far outpacing other countries of similar wealth and success - What solutions do you see to tackle that? We can't say it is just the "norm" around the world, because it only happens here. If it's not gun control, if it isn't mental health support (which Congress is trying to strip away by removing requirements for insurance companies to cover a minimum standard). What is it?

[Boiler 46,121]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I'm interesting in it that. I truly am.

 

For me gun control isn't political, it is merely one of the many means I see that we need to pursue to reach our ultimate end goal - A safer environment for our fellow citizens. 

 

When you look at the data showing our homicide rate far outpacing other countries of similar wealth and success - What solutions do you see to tackle that? We can't say it is just the "norm" around the world, because it only happens here. If it's not gun control, if it isn't mental health support (which Congress is trying to strip away by removing requirements for insurance companies to cover a minimum standard). What is it?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/five-things-you-could-do-right-now-to-reduce-gun-violence-in-america

 

It is the Graun so you should have no issue in supporting the article, unusual for the Graun actually makes sense.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Clearly a simple "background check" is not enough to exclude people who end up being mass murderers. I've love to see some studies on the efficacy of background checks. They are something that we use and talk about frequently, and I am doubtful they are all that effective at what they set out to do.

A person with a family history of psychiatric illness, or violent crime (like our shooter) should have been REQUIRED to undergo an evaluation by a doctor prior to purchasing a firearm. Just one example.

As I said about the quote, I wouldn't take it word for word. I think honestly ANYBODY seeking to purchase a gun should get clearance from a doctor, go through required educational tools, take a written and practical exam. Like driving a car.

Well in a large amount of states it is easy to get a long gun because you can get the firearm at the same time you purchase it as long you pass the background check. While other states there is a mandatory waiting period like California is 10 days, but if the state doesn't come back within 30 days to grant approval or say no to a purchase it is up to the dealer at that point in time if he/she wants to give the firearm to the customer. 

 

While buying pistols are a completely different process and is actually a more thorough process. He passed them as well so what do you want to do?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/five-things-you-could-do-right-now-to-reduce-gun-violence-in-america

 

It is the Graun so you should have no issue in supporting the article, unusual for the Graun actually makes sense.

I agree with all of those. Would love to see them all happen.

 

I'd happily make those changes, given it time to see if there is improvement, and if not we can move on to more changes.

 

One problem I see is a lot of them come to do "communities must do this, states should do this". I know we may disagree on this point but one problem I tend to have with leaving it in the hands of "local government" is that things just seem to...well...not happen. You can't produce a consistent response. One particular community may end up great, but what about the rest? I realize there has to be a balance between "big government", but I do think there has to be some pressure from above.

[smilesammich 10,727]

15 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Snopes is fake news BTW. They should never be relied on to refute a claim. 

snopes, like wiki, post their sources. anything that you can follow up and check for yourself can't be lumped into trump's convenient 'fake news' tag.

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Well in a large amount of states it is easy to get a long gun because you can get the firearm at the same time you purchase it as long you pass the background check. While other states there is a mandatory waiting period like California is 10 days, but if the state doesn't come back within 30 days to grant approval or say no to a purchase it is up to the dealer at that point in time if he/she wants to give the firearm to the customer. 

 

While buying pistols are a completely different process and is actually a more thorough process. He passed them as well so what do you want to do?

By "he" i assume you mean our shooter.

 

He had a family history of mental illness. I'd like to see mandatory evaluations for people like him before purchasing guns. If they are deemed "at risk", but potentially not severe enough to refuse the license, then they should require mandatory follow-up in the future to ensure consistent proper mental health.

 

In that guardian article, I would say Point #3 should extend to Physicians as well. If we have a patient who is expressing significant thoughts of depression and/or suicidality (even without a plan) we should be able to remove firearms temporarily from the home until they undergo treatment and improve. There is a potential risk that it would erode the doctor patient relationship, but we already tell our patients that everything is confidential UNLESS the patient endorses thoughts of harming themselves or others and then we may need to break confidentiality. Most studies show that people continue to open up even with that caveat, because most people who are depressed and/or suicidal truly want someone to listen and want help.

 

It should extend to firearms within the home of a child/adolescent expressing suicidal thoughts (also include households with concern for domestic violence). If I had a 15 year old in my office saying he sometimes thinks about killing himself, I should be able to have the parents temporarily remove their guns from their home. A suicide attempt with a firearm is FAR more likely to be successful than other types of attempts. Many unsuccessful attempts ultimately lead to the person realizing they shouldnt' have done it in the first place, and with firearms many people don't get that opportunity.

Edited October 5, 2017 by bcking

[Boiler 46,121]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

I agree with all of those. Would love to see them all happen.

 

I'd happily make those changes, given it time to see if there is improvement, and if not we can move on to more changes.

 

One problem I see is a lot of them come to do "communities must do this, states should do this". I know we may disagree on this point but one problem I tend to have with leaving it in the hands of "local government" is that things just seem to...well...not happen. You can't produce a consistent response. One particular community may end up great, but what about the rest? I realize there has to be a balance between "big government", but I do think there has to be some pressure from above.

Well how about starting with the main problem areas, seems to be a lot of political will by the party which controls those areas?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Well how about starting with the main problem areas, seems to be a lot of political will by the party which controls those areas?

As it was pointed out in another thread, our government can do multiple things at once.

 

I think at the federal level there are things that should apply across the board that can change at the same time as local changes. It doesn't matter whether you are in Chicago, LA, Texas, Florida, Oregon etc... A license to carry a firearm should be a responsibility that is taken seriously, and should require a education program, a written and practical test, and mental health screening as well as background checks. That shouldn't have to be state specific because it applies to all. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

#2 is a moot point because there are ALREADY laws on the books federally to stop DV abusers from owning weapons. 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

#2 is a moot point because there are ALREADY laws on the books federally to stop DV abusers from owning weapons. 

I think part of #2 was arguing that what laws are in place need to be enforced more consistently. 

 

There are a ton of laws in place for lots of things that don't get enforced. You need the laws, and then the tools to properly enforce them. There are lots of traffic laws that are never enforced, and therefore never followed.

Edited October 5, 2017 by bcking

[Boiler 46,121]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think part of #2 was arguing that what laws are in place need to be enforced more consistently. 

 

There are a ton of laws in place for lots of things that don't get enforced. You need the laws, and then the tools to properly enforce them. There are lots of traffic laws that are never enforced, and therefore never followed.

Go through the links, see where the issues are plenty of simple things that could be done under existing legislation.