Gun legislation, a "what if" scenario

Bobw235

Bobw235

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
God forbid that this ever happens, but hypothetically, do the members here think that there would be action on gun legislation if there was a mass-shooting of family members of Congress? Let's say there was an event, a BBQ for family members of Congress. And lets say that a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi (who coincidently was on the NO FLY list,) managed to get past security and commit the same kind of horror that we've seen in past mass-shootings. Let's just say that 49 family members of Congress were killed, just to give it some perspective in terms of Orlando. Who thinks that this would finally be the impetus for meaningful change in our laws to help keep the guns, and weapons capable of inflicting lots of death/maiming in a short period of time, out of the hands of the wrong people?

The cynical part of me says that it would still be a close vote, if there was even a vote to begin with.
 

I've never understood why Americans are paranoid over owning a gun. Do a Google search and you could be forgiven to think the US is still in the Wild West days.
 
Members of congress have been shot, Bob. Gabrielle Giffords, AZ, might be the latest example. Spencer Pettis, MO was the first (1831). According to Wikipedia a total of twenty-three members of congress have been shot, some killed, some wounded. (Probably at least as many have been tarred and feathered, but that's another topic.)

I don't know. I suppose a mass congressional shooting would have a more powerful and immediate effect.
 
Newtown could have been a turning point in gun legislation. If shooting up an elementary school doesn't warrant a serious change it's not going to happen...at least in our lifetime. A mass shooting of congress, another presidential assassination, even those events might not change a thing at the end of the day.
 
I too thought Newtown would be a turning point, but sadly it wasn't. Thus the hypothetical question that started this thread. If this impacted members of Congress personally, would it make a difference? People frequently say that those who vote to get us into wars should be the first to send their children into harm's way. So what if a number of them lost loved ones to a mass shooting. Is that what it will take for meaningful change in this country?
 
The no-fly list as presently constituted is not a viable source. Using it for gun control would be like building a house with rotten wood.
 
I'm not sure how they can fix things, I haven't exactly fully made up my mind about how those who already carry should be armed, should or shouldn't be in certain instances. I'm still mulling that subject over these days as some good points come to me often from both sides of the coin. But I do know there has to be some corrections that can be made as to how these people who participate in committing mass murders seem to be able to so easily get access to lethal weapons considering what we know and even more so what I've come to read in these articles about the shooters obtaining their weapons.


Just some samplings the links have the stories of other mostly mass murders who were in the news over the past several years.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_and_other_mass_shooters_got_their_guns.html
Date: Sept. 16, 2013
Perpetrator: Aaron Alexis
Gun: Alexis began the attack with a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun (he also took a 9 mm pistol from a police officer at the scene after shooting him). He killed 12 people and injured eight before killing himself.
How he got it: Two days before the massacre, Alexis bought his shotgun at a store in Northern Virginia that claims to be the “only gun shop inside the Beltway.” He initially inquired about buying a handgun, but because he was from out of state, the store would have had to ship it to a dealer in his home state. That’s when he went for the shotgun. Though he’d been arrested in 2004 after shooting out the tires of another man’s car and in 2010 after shooting his gun (accidentally, he said) through his ceiling into the apartment of his upstairs neighbor, neither charge was enough to sully his Virginia background check.

Shooting: Two military centersin Chattanooga, Tennessee
Date: July 16, 2015
Perpetrator: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez
Guns: According to law enforcement, when police killed Abdulazeez, he was in possession of a 12-gauge shotgun, a 9 mm handgun, and an assault weapon along the lines of an AK-47. He killed five people and injured two.
How he got them: A friend of Abdulazeez’s said the gunman had bought four firearms from an online arms sale site, which allowed him to skirt a background check, but the claim has not been confirmed. At least some of the guns were obtained legally.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0


  • Mr. Roof was charged with a misdemeanor for possessing Suboxone, a prescription drug frequently sold in illegal street transactions.
  • April 2015

    He purchased a gun from a store in West Columbia, S.C. Mr. Roof should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from the February incident.
  • June 17, 2015

    Mr. Roof joined a Bible study group at Emanuel A.M.E. Church and opened fire with the gun he bought in April.



  • Mr. Houser was denied a state-issued concealed weapons permit because he was accused of domestic violence and soliciting arson.
  • 2008

    A judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital.
  • 2014

    Mr. Houser bought the weapon in Alabama. Officials said it had been purchased legally, though he had been denied a concealed weapons permit earlier, and despite concerns among family members that he was violent and mentally ill.
  • July 23, 2015

    He killed two people in Lafayette.
 
Bobw235 said:
I too thought Newtown would be a turning point, but sadly it wasn't. Thus the hypothetical question that started this thread. If this impacted members of Congress personally, would it make a difference? People frequently say that those who vote to get us into wars should be the first to send their children into harm's way. So what if a number of them lost loved ones to a mass shooting. Is that what it will take for meaningful change in this country?
Click to expand...

What kind of legislative change(s) would make a clear and lasting difference, in your opinion?
 
Unless somebody actually opened fire ON congress...but even if one or two lost somebody near and dear to a mass shooting...it wouldn't be enough to turn anything around.
 
In our life times two of our presidents were shot. One died. Guns are still legal. I don't think this is going to change no matter who dies.
 
Such a "hypothetical" scenario...a bunch of Congressmen and relatives being shot....is highly unlikely. First of all, the way most of them behave in their "official" positions, I seriously doubt that many of them would ever gather together for a "family" outing. Secondly, any time there is a gathering of politicians, or the wealthy, etc., I'm sure there is an abundance of Security mingling in the area/audience. These "Elites" know that their actions create an abundance of enemies, so they take precautions that the average person cannot avail themselves of. The Gabby Giffords incident probably created an added level of security that these politicians use when mingling with the "unwashed masses". I've attended 3 or 4 "town hall" meetings in our area in the past couple of years, and there always seems to be a couple of big strong "aides" hovering close to the politician, and keeping a close watch on the audience.
 
Fern said:
I've never understood why Americans are paranoid over owning a gun. Do a Google search and you could be forgiven to think the US is still in the Wild West days.
Click to expand...



May be the reason is, the US has the most liberal gun laws amongst industrialize nations, along with the most violent crimes, excluding terrorism. May be the reason is, even with the threat of terrorism, owning guns has not served even to thwart one terrorist act on US soil. May be the reason is, in the event an incident/ disagreement has arisen between 2 armed individuals, immediate access to fire arms haven driven many to use fire arms over discussions and/ or just leaving. Do a google search as you may, the opinion you will find is subjective to the belief of it's author, thus for every article one can find in support, one can find another article refuting it. The above 3 reasons are factual, refute them as one will , will not change these cold hard facts.
 
Don M. said:
Such a "hypothetical" scenario...a bunch of Congressmen and relatives being shot....is highly unlikely. First of all, the way most of them behave in their "official" positions, I seriously doubt that many of them would ever gather together for a "family" outing. Secondly, any time there is a gathering of politicians, or the wealthy, etc., I'm sure there is an abundance of Security mingling in the area/audience. These "Elites" know that their actions create an abundance of enemies, so they take precautions that the average person cannot avail themselves of. The Gabby Giffords incident probably created an added level of security that these politicians use when mingling with the "unwashed masses". I've attended 3 or 4 "town hall" meetings in our area in the past couple of years, and there always seems to be a couple of big strong "aides" hovering close to the politician, and keeping a close watch on the audience.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no doubt that something this horrible would ever happen. I just described this as a hypothetical scenario, and wondered if folks thought such horror would prompt our legislators to finally act.
 
Wrigley's said:
What kind of legislative change(s) would make a clear and lasting difference, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

I am sure there are things we could do that would preserve the 2nd amendment, while making it more difficult for someone to commit mass murder. I am far from an authority on this subject, but I think for starters I'd authorize the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to study gun violence. From the LA Times the other day:

"Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center’s funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ga.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)

The Dickey Amendment didn’t technically ban any federally funded gun violence research. The real blow was delivered by a succession of pusillanimous CDC directors, who decided that the safest course bureaucratically was simply to zero out the whole field."

I'd look at closing loopholes which allow the purchase of a weapon at a gun show or via the internet.
Improve background checks and lengthen waiting periods.
I'd make it mandatory that one show proof of insurance before being able to buy a gun. Not sure what this would look like, but I'm going on the theory that if you need insurance to drive a car, (which can kill someone), you ought to have insurance to own a gun.
You'd have to be licensed and pass a certification test showing that you know how to operate a weapon safely.
I'd limit the number of bullets that can go in a clip.

I'm sure there are other ideas and there are also some well-reasoned objections to what I have written above, but I just can't get over this feeling that we as a nation lack the political will to do anything about guns. It's not just the mass shootings. It's the everyday accidental shootings, the gang shootings, the suicides, the abusive spouse shootings, etc. I'm tired of the same old nonsense that we can't do anything. We can do something, but it takes determination and leadership and time.
 
I think people want guns because they don't feel safe. We know that the police don't always protect us. We know we are often on our own. I can't tolerate the thought of touching a gun, and when my husband is gone, I will take the shotgun he has that belonged to his father to the police and turn it in. But some people I know want immediate protection.

The problem with doing something about gun control, is that we are a diverse populations with diverse thoughts on such things. With religion, with gun control, abortion, etc, we all have our own views. That's why it's difficult to get anything done. A lot of people really do believe the idea that if guns are illegal in some way or another, the bad guys will have them anyway, and the regular people will be at the mercy of the bad guys, corrupt cops and a government that strong arms them. It's happened before. It's still happening in some places.
 
What good would it do to have the CDC study gun violence? I mean, what would they find out? That it's bad? That it's committed by people with guns? I just don't see where the CDC could find out anything helpful that we don't know already.
 
Butterfly said:
What good would it do to have the CDC study gun violence? I mean, what would they find out? That it's bad? That it's committed by people with guns? I just don't see where the CDC could find out anything helpful that we don't know already.
Click to expand...

This might shed some light (my bold highlighting)

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studies a variety of public health threats every year, from infectious diseases to automobile safety. But for 15 years, the CDC has avoided comprehensive research on one of the top causes of death in the U.S.: firearms.


While the CDC keeps surveillance data on gun injuries and deaths, it has not funded a study aimed at reducing harm from guns since 2001. The CDC estimates that firearms are one of the top five causes of death in the U.S. for people under the age of 65, so advocates of gun safety say the lack of comprehensive research is particularly glaring.


The dearth of research funding goes back to 1997, when an amendment was added to an operations bill that passed in Congress with the language that the CDC will be barred from any research that will “advocate or promote gun control,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard told ABC News."
 
Bobw235 said:
This might shed some light (my bold highlighting)

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studies a variety of public health threats every year, from infectious diseases to automobile safety. But for 15 years, the CDC has avoided comprehensive research on one of the top causes of death in the U.S.: firearms.


While the CDC keeps surveillance data on gun injuries and deaths, it has not funded a study aimed at reducing harm from guns since 2001. The CDC estimates that firearms are one of the top five causes of death in the U.S. for people under the age of 65, so advocates of gun safety say the lack of comprehensive research is particularly glaring.


The dearth of research funding goes back to 1997, when an amendment was added to an operations bill that passed in Congress with the language that the CDC will be barred from any research that will “advocate or promote gun control,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard told ABC News."
Click to expand...

Yes, but again, what would they expect to find out by all that expensive research? We are back to finding out what? That guns in the hands of those who do not know how to handle them safely are dangerous? That guns in the hands of bad guys are dangerous? That most people who shoot themselves have access to a gun? What? IMHO, just getting more statistics doesn't help anything. How 'bout we have somebody other than the CDC figure out how to stop illegal weapons from coming into the country, or how to prevent crazies from purchasing weapons, or why our background checks don't find the crazies? That would be money well spent.
 
Bobw235 said:
This might shed some light (my bold highlighting)"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studies a variety of public health threats every year, from infectious diseases to automobile safety. But for 15 years, the CDC has avoided comprehensive research on one of the top causes of death in the U.S.: firearms.

The CDC also overlooks another major cause of "public health threats"...that being medical errors...which kill more people than guns, accidents, and probably a couple more things, combined. Some estimates place the number of medical error deaths as high as 200,000 a year. We've been lucky with our health...knock wood...but I've seen some treatments and care given to other Seniors that are scary...and almost border on incompetent. But, that's what keeps an army of lawyers rich.
Click to expand...
 
Don M. said:
Bobw235 said:
This might shed some light (my bold highlighting)"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studies a variety of public health threats every year, from infectious diseases to automobile safety. But for 15 years, the CDC has avoided comprehensive research on one of the top causes of death in the U.S.: firearms.

The CDC also overlooks another major cause of "public health threats"...that being medical errors...which kill more people than guns, accidents, and probably a couple more things, combined. Some estimates place the number of medical error deaths as high as 200,000 a year. We've been lucky with our health...knock wood...but I've seen some treatments and care given to other Seniors that are scary...and almost border on incompetent. But, that's what keeps an army of lawyers rich.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good topic for the CDC to study, and they might get some real information.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top