7 dead in Santa Monica College shooting spree

[Plu]

It might simply depend on where you live. If you live around people carrying guns all the time, you'll probably get some sort of immunity for it. Like people who constantly live near cars think they aren't dangerous and then drive like idiots or run across highways like morons.

Where I live people don't carry guns, so anyone who feels the need to carry a lethal weapon is immediately suspect. I simply cannot come up with a good reason to carry a gun that doesn't end up with the fact that someone of whom I have 0 clue on his level of training (but who statistically probably won't have any) might at some point decide to draw such a weapon, which statistically often doesn't end well.

(Also, any human carrying a gun is more dangerous than any human not carrying a gun. Statistically speaking, there's actually a reason as well. But the real reason is the first thing I mentioned; and probably why you don't feel it anymore. You get immune to the fact that people feel the need to walk around with lethal weapon at some point. I'm not there yet, and I don't hope to ever be.)

[WitchSabrina]

WIth all due respect Bri, I don't think anyone with any credibility is saying that or advocating it. There are a handful of small towns where those sorts of laws exist and in some cases have existed for quite some time. But for the most part, no one is claiming we need to give everyone guns or force them to own one. Likewise I don't think anyone with any kind of credibility is claiming that having more armed people is the way to stop these sorts of mass shootings. There are anecdotal stories that often gets cited of a few mass shootings and attempted mass shooting in recent years which were stopped when the shooter was confronted by armed citizens. I don't really care enough to even verify those stories are true because true or not, they're not a solution and they prove nothing so pursuing them ends there for me as I suspect it does with most people.

I really didn't think anyone was advocating it.  I was being snarky and sarcastic as is my way.  Always look for the sarcasm with me.  Usually you can tell when I'm being more genuine and sincere.
Your points on gun laws are spot on as far as I'm concerned.  We're in agreement totally.

The long and short of this issue has already been stated in this thread. Gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive. I'll say that again just for good measure. Gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive. But no gun law in the world is going to stop a whacko. If you want to stop the mass murder wackos,  you have to address the issues that cause them to become wackos in the first place. That is the ONLY way these scenarios will end.

If you need further evidence of that you need only look at what happened in Boston. Those boys didn't need any guns to start off the chain of events that shut down the city and threw it into marshal law. Obviously they used guns during their attempted getaway. But no shots were fired and to my knowledge there is no evidence that either of them were even carrying a gun when the bombs went off. The point is taking away the guns is not how you stop the whackos from being wacko. It only changes their options. But they will ALWAYS come up with options. And just so no one (not you Bri, but others) tries to take my comments out of context, I say again that gun laws are necessary and need to be more restrictive.

I agree.  More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see.  And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.

Well again with all due respect, I think the fact that it was going to take a week is a good thing. I guess you'd be shocked at how many states don't require that. In many states, you fill out some paperwork, they make a short phone call to verify the paperwork, and you're out the door with your purchase in under an hour. If a one-week waiting period isn't enough, I'm curious to know what you think would be better.

I actually think one week is far too quick.  Just my opinion.  If people who *might* commit crimes had to wait a long time for that semi-automatic OR had to pay Much Much more on black market perhaps the *zing* might go out of them before they can act on it(?)  I really don't know but I think it's worth a try.   I think people should have to wait for months and months - not a few days.   But - again - just my opinion.

I'm still on fence about the medical background check thing. I don't deny that there seems to be a need for it. But its such a pandora's box that I don't know how such checks could be implemented with any kind of positive effect without being so open ended and far reaching that lots of people and agencies which currently don't have access to the fact that you take zoloft (like your boss or your auto insurance provider) would end up having access to that information. And that's not just for people who want to buy guns, that would end up being the case for everyone if we construct a medical background check for gun purchases that has any kind of real teeth.

And the reason for that is because as you've said above, people lie. Ask any pilot who has flown professionally and they will tell you that they either know someone who has routinely lied on their pilot medical form or they've done it themselves. The FAA is incredibly restrictive about what meds and what medical conditions are allowed. If you're feeling a little down in dumps and your doctor puts you wellburtrin, that's a career ender for a professional pilot. So far more often than not, when they get to the question of the form that asks whether they're on any meds, they just say no and nothing more comes of it. The FAA does have some means of checking if they suspect a lie. They can subpoena your insurance company records for instance. But that doesn't work when you have your doctor write your prescription in your spouses name or when you pay cash for it.  The point is we already have places where we require medical background checks as a means for keeping certain people out of certain situations and they really only keep the honest people honest because so far, your medical records are largely private. Once we 'break that seal' and let other agencies in, we run the risk of letting lots of other people in. Like I said, its a pandora's box. There might be a way to do it effectively and securely, but there are so many ways the wheels could fall off, it makes me really nervous for all of us, not just the gun folks, if we really pursue this. Careful what you wish for is the phrase that comes to mind.

I know right?  The medical testing is really a touchy possibility.   I don't know how to proceed with that - but I wish we could.   Seems like the last few killing sprees have been very unstable people who managed to get their hands on weapons.. ...  How to keep that from happening is So hard to define.

I think you're under the impression that I disagreed.   I'm in complete agreement - in fact I'd have things More strict when it comes to guns.  Maybe you missed my sarcasm?

cheers


And I would add that I DO always realize that stricter gun controls will do two other things:
(1) Allow for MORE crime and black market gun purchases
(2) Somewhat penalize the reasonable and responsible gun owners.

There's no easy solution to this folks.  None.

[Mermaid]

There's no easy solution to this folks.  None.

Truth.

[Johan]

I agree.  More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see.  And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.

Which is a shame because more restrictive isn't a solution. Its a feel good band aid that completely fails to address the actual problem and will have very little impact on the problem IMO. Might help with a few other problems which is why I agree we need tighter restrictions, but the mass murder whacko problem? Tighter gun laws won't do squat for that one up to and until you go for the full ban. Which is a bad idea and and impractical solutions for reasons that already been discussed numerous times. And as Boston showed us, even a full ban isn't going to stop a whacko from getting himself in the news if he really wants to. Finding and stopping the whackos before they do their deeds is the only way to stop the whackos (and I haven't got a clue how we do that). Taking away their tools will only make them find other tools.

I actually think one week is far too quick.  Just my opinion.  If people who *might* commit crimes had to wait a long time for that semi-automatic OR had to pay Much Much more on black market perhaps the *zing* might go out of them before they can act on it(?)  I really don't know but I think it's worth a try.   I think people should have to wait for months and months - not a few days.   But - again - just my opinion.

Great idea in theory. But highly unlikely to ever see the light of day in practice. My guess is that it might be more realistic to hit people in the wallet rather than the waiting period. Impose mandatory fees for all purchases that essentially quadruple the cost of the gun and more importantly the ammo and you will see a sharp drop in gun sales.

I know right?  The medical testing is really a touchy possibility.   I don't know how to proceed with that - but I wish we could.   Seems like the last few killing sprees have been very unstable people who managed to get their hands on weapons.. ...  How to keep that from happening is So hard to define.

This one has me really nervous for the reasons I mentioned in my post. I don't want to get to a place where regardless of whether I ever buy a gun or not, my car insurance goes up because I got a prescription of zanax after the death of a loved one. That is a real possibility with the types of mental health checks that are being proposed. And all of this really fails to address the endless loopholes that would need to be plugged up if mental health screening is going to have any measurable impact on keeping guns out of the hands of those who might be dangerous due to mental disorders.

I mean look at Sandy Hook. That kid wasn't using guns that he owned to do what he did. So what happens when someone gets diagnosed with a disqualifying disorder? We can blacklist them so they won't pass a background check. But will we also need to send the sheriff to search their residence and impound any guns that might be owned by others who live there? And then what about other relatives living close by? Will they have to forfeit their ability to own guns as well? Because the bottom line is if you we don't do all that, we're not solving the problem and what's the point of doing any of that if we're not solving the problem?

There's no easy solution to this folks.  None.

My fear is there is also no viable  effective solution.

[Jason78]

Hey, if everybody had been strapped, this wouldn't have happened.

Or maybe, just maybe, if the guy doing the shooting had been given the medical attention he so obviously needed before the incident took place, none of this would have happened.

Guns aren't the problem here, people are.

[WitchSabrina]

I agree.  More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see.  And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.

Which is a shame because more restrictive isn't a solution. Its a feel good band aid that completely fails to address the actual problem and will have very little impact on the problem IMO. Might help with a few other problems which is why I agree we need tighter restrictions, but the mass murder whacko problem? Tighter gun laws won't do squat for that one up to and until you go for the full ban. Which is a bad idea and and impractical solutions for reasons that already been discussed numerous times. And as Boston showed us, even a full ban isn't going to stop a whacko from getting himself in the news if he really wants to. Finding and stopping the whackos before they do their deeds is the only way to stop the whackos (and I haven't got a clue how we do that). Taking away their tools will only make them find other tools.

I actually think one week is far too quick.  Just my opinion.  If people who *might* commit crimes had to wait a long time for that semi-automatic OR had to pay Much Much more on black market perhaps the *zing* might go out of them before they can act on it(?)  I really don't know but I think it's worth a try.   I think people should have to wait for months and months - not a few days.   But - again - just my opinion.

Great idea in theory. But highly unlikely to ever see the light of day in practice. My guess is that it might be more realistic to hit people in the wallet rather than the waiting period. Impose mandatory fees for all purchases that essentially quadruple the cost of the gun and more importantly the ammo and you will see a sharp drop in gun sales.

I know right?  The medical testing is really a touchy possibility.   I don't know how to proceed with that - but I wish we could.   Seems like the last few killing sprees have been very unstable people who managed to get their hands on weapons.. ...  How to keep that from happening is So hard to define.

This one has me really nervous for the reasons I mentioned in my post. I don't want to get to a place where regardless of whether I ever buy a gun or not, my car insurance goes up because I got a prescription of zanax after the death of a loved one. That is a real possibility with the types of mental health checks that are being proposed. And all of this really fails to address the endless loopholes that would need to be plugged up if mental health screening is going to have any measurable impact on keeping guns out of the hands of those who might be dangerous due to mental disorders.

I mean look at Sandy Hook. That kid wasn't using guns that he owned to do what he did. So what happens when someone gets diagnosed with a disqualifying disorder? We can blacklist them so they won't pass a background check. But will we also need to send the sheriff to search their residence and impound any guns that might be owned by others who live there? And then what about other relatives living close by? Will they have to forfeit their ability to own guns as well? Because the bottom line is if you we don't do all that, we're not solving the problem and what's the point of doing any of that if we're not solving the problem?

There's no easy solution to this folks.  None.

My fear is there is also no viable  effective solution.

Does not compute...
 :shock:

[SilentFutility]

In case it was unclear Mermaid, my response to you was a joke, it was just a funny scenario that popped into my head when reading your post.

There is no easy solution to this, which is certainly the truth. However, I do think it is absolutely very easy to work out what type of solution is needed: a multi-dimensional one, because this isn't a singularly-dimensioned problem with one, definite cause, and one bad outcome.

Anyone who says "do this, specifically this" is pushing an agenda.

[billhilly]

If you're coming into a store openly carrying a firearm, people going to be uncomfortable. There's a big difference between paranoia (the assumption that a middle eastern man is carrying something that might kill you) and someone actually carrying something into your store that can kill you, in plain sight.

Ok so by this I'm going to assume that in order for concern to be paranoia, one must assume bad things are going to happen as a result of certain circumstances even though the data clearly shows there is very little chance of such a thing happening i.e. most middle eastern people are not terrorists therefore its being paranoid to assume a middle eastern person is carrying a bomb.

So why then is it not being paranoid when the data clearly shows that people open carry are responsible for very little gun related violent crime? The stats are what they are. The facts are what they are. Seems an awful lot like a double standard to me. If you KNOW that most middle eastern people are not terrorists and therefore consider it to be irrational to be nervous that any random middle eastern person might be prepared to kill you if you look at them funny, then why is it not also irrational to be nervous about some random person whom statistically speaking is much less likely to harm you with a gun than a common criminal would?

Criminals generally don't commit crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them. Likewise criminals generally don't openly carry weapons they don't legally own. Now of course there is always the possibility of Johnny Open Carry just being some sort of ticking time bomb loose wing nut who has never committed a crime in his life but is willing to do so tonight if you look at him wrong. But just like the facts tell us that most middle eastern people do not turn out to be terrorists, the facts also tell us that most individuals who open carry do not turn out to be ticking time bombs. So why is being nervous about one considered paranoid but not the other?

Criminals hardly ever use a holster either FWIW.  We ID'd a bank robber several years ago as a cop partly because of the way he carried and deployed his weapon on video of the robberies.  Criminals will already have it in their hand or it will be stuffed in their waistband.  

So, if a guy comes in with his pistol in a nicely tooled leather holster, you should be good.

[Shiranu]

If you're coming into a store openly carrying a firearm, people going to be uncomfortable. There's a big difference between paranoia (the assumption that a middle eastern man is carrying something that might kill you) and someone actually carrying something into your store that can kill you, in plain sight.

Ok so by this I'm going to assume that in order for concern to be paranoia, one must assume bad things are going to happen as a result of certain circumstances even though the data clearly shows there is very little chance of such a thing happening i.e. most middle eastern people are not terrorists therefore its being paranoid to assume a middle eastern person is carrying a bomb.

So why then is it not being paranoid when the data clearly shows that people open carry are responsible for very little gun related violent crime? The stats are what they are. The facts are what they are. Seems an awful lot like a double standard to me. If you KNOW that most middle eastern people are not terrorists and therefore consider it to be irrational to be nervous that any random middle eastern person might be prepared to kill you if you look at them funny, then why is it not also irrational to be nervous about some random person whom statistically speaking is much less likely to harm you with a gun than a common criminal would?

Criminals generally don't commit crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them. Likewise criminals generally don't openly carry weapons they don't legally own. Now of course there is always the possibility of Johnny Open Carry just being some sort of ticking time bomb loose wing nut who has never committed a crime in his life but is willing to do so tonight if you look at him wrong. But just like the facts tell us that most middle eastern people do not turn out to be terrorists, the facts also tell us that most individuals who open carry do not turn out to be ticking time bombs. So why is being nervous about one considered paranoid but not the other?

Criminals hardly ever use a holster either FWIW.  We ID'd a bank robber several years ago as a cop partly because of the way he carried and deployed his weapon on video of the robberies.  Criminals will already have it in their hand or it will be stuffed in their waistband.  

So, if a guy comes in with his pistol in a nicely tooled leather holster, you should be good.

A guy at a service station my family owned was killed with an open carry pistol... it was a normal customer,  one day walks in, roams the store then walked up to the cashier, put the gun to his head and blew his brains across the back wall.  Several weeks later,  my mum and dad had the place sold and gone.

So you are going to have to forgive me,  but even if this was 34 years ago I don't think you can just assume, "Oh,  this guy has a tool used to make killing people a piece of cake... but it is all okay,  because he makes sure every one knows he is carrying it!".

I don't assume that because someone has a driver's license,  they never break the law or drive recklessly.  I don't assume because someone is 21 they consume alcohol responsibly and never do anything illegal while intoxicated. And I don't assume that because someone has a legal gun on their hip that they are therefore upstanding citizens who pose no threat to me.  If someone feels the need to carry a gun,  they must feel the need to use the gun, and that makes me uncomfortable,  statistics or not.

And there is a huge difference between having brown skin and chosing to carrying a tool that is specifically designed to MAKE KILLING OTHER THINGS CHEAP,  EASY AND EFFICIENT.  To compare being nervous around people who make that choice and being bigoted towards someone because of their skin color... I just don't even...

[Johan]

I agree.  More restrictive is the only helpful solution that I can see.  And I've spent quite a bit of time researching this up one side and down the other.

Which is a shame because more restrictive isn't a solution. Its a feel good band aid that completely fails to address the actual problem and will have very little impact on the problem IMO. Might help with a few other problems which is why I agree we need tighter restrictions, but the mass murder whacko problem? Tighter gun laws won't do squat for that one up to and until you go for the full ban.

Does not compute...
 :shock:

What doesn't compute about it? I think I explained myself pretty clearly in the quote. You need to read the parts that aren't in red, but its all there and its pretty straight forward.

[Johan]

and that makes me uncomfortable,  statistics or not.

And now we have the answer I was looking for. You experienced an event which goes counter to the statistics. So you have a valid reason for being nervous. But that doesn't change reality. IOW think of it this way. Take a ten year old kid and put his Dad on an airliner. Now crash that airliner into a swamp killing everyone on board. It is entirely understandable for that kid to view airline travel as being inherently unsafe for the rest of his life. But that doesn't mean that it is.

[SilentFutility]

and that makes me uncomfortable,  statistics or not.

And now we have the answer I was looking for. You experienced an event which goes counter to the statistics. So you have a valid reason for being nervous. But that doesn't change reality. IOW think of it this way. Take a ten year old kid and put his Dad on an airliner. Now crash that airliner into a swamp killing everyone on board. It is entirely understandable for that kid to view airline travel as being inherently unsafe for the rest of his life. But that doesn't mean that it is.

I don't view airline travel as inherently unsafe, and I fly quite a few times a year, but I still feel safer when my two feet are back on the ground.

Likewise, I don't view someone carrying a gun as inherently unsafe, but I still feel safer when nobody in the same room has one. This may be a result of living in countries where guns are rarely, if ever openly carried.

[WitchSabrina]

and that makes me uncomfortable,  statistics or not.

And now we have the answer I was looking for. You experienced an event which goes counter to the statistics. So you have a valid reason for being nervous. But that doesn't change reality. IOW think of it this way. Take a ten year old kid and put his Dad on an airliner. Now crash that airliner into a swamp killing everyone on board. It is entirely understandable for that kid to view airline travel as being inherently unsafe for the rest of his life. But that doesn't mean that it is.

I wanted to add, Johan, that I'm not in disagreement with your thoughts on gun control.  In fact, I think we see the situation quite the same way.

cheers