Here we go again - another theatre shooting

Another terrific debate, D.W.!
But why this constant insistence about guns in the U.S.?
Don't we have plenty to worry about here in Australia?
:why:
 

Of course we do Susie and I debate most Australian issues on an Australian forum because there is only so much Australiana that is interesting to people from other countries.

I suppose I keep returning to the topic of firearms control because I really cannot understand why Americans haven't said enough bloodshed is enough. I am however beginning to get some insight into why they haven't. Like most things, it is deeply rooted in history but while we cannot rewrite the past we don't have to be enslaved by it either. A new future can be forged if there is a will to do so.
 
Thinking about Suzie's question a bit more, I realise that I often look up Google News, and when I'm saturated with Aussie news I switch to the US or UK news and see what is happening. Massacres and random shootings do make headlines.

Having done this just now I found this article that is relevant to my last post.

Presidential Candidates Denounce Violence, but Avoid Talk of Policy

By JONATHAN MARTINJULY 24, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/u...e-violence-but-avoid-talk-of-policy.html?_r=0

The morning after the third deadly mass shooting in six weeks, the presidential candidates acted as though they had not seen the news.

Republicans attacked Hillary Rodham Clinton over the personal email account she used as secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton went ahead with a planned speech about tax policy. Senator Bernie Sanders, a rival Democrat, talked about children’s issues in Iowa.

Only Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, speaking at a news conference outside the movie theater where three people were killed Thursday night, addressed the violence at length. But Mr. Jindal, who is mounting a long-shot candidacy for the Republican nomination, completely deflected questions on tougher gun laws, saying he would talk about “policy and politics” another time, and telling reporters to focus on the victims, survivors and the heroic police officers who had responded to the shooting.

Though most denounced the shooting and called for prayers for the victims — as they did after recent shootings in Chattanooga, Tenn., and Charleston, S.C. — none of the presidential contenders offered policy solutions to address gun violence, a reflection of the fact that gun laws are politically radioactive.

Five servicemen died after a gunman opened fire at two military centers on July 16 in Chattanooga, Tenn. Credit Kevin Liles for The New York Times The leading Republican presidential candidates are overwhelmingly opposed to any effort to restrict access to guns, and have responded to the string of recent shootings by focusing on — depending on the nature of the shooting — spiritual healing, the threat of Islamic terrorism and mental health efforts.
The Democratic hopefuls have proposed gun control measures, but they have been generally more focused on issues of economics, race and gender than gun violence.

In the wake of Thursday’s attack, Mrs. Clinton made sure to acknowledge that “gun ownership is part of the fabric of many American communities,” before urging broad policies to address gun violence.

“We must come together for common sense gun violence prevention reforms that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the violently unstable, while respecting responsible gun owners,” she said in a statement that was unlikely to offer encouragement to proponents of stricter gun laws.

Mrs. Clinton has, however, called for universal background checks and stronger efforts to block those who are on terrorist watch lists, suffer from mental illness, or have records of domestic abuse from obtaining firearms.

Though Mr. Sanders seems to be gaining ground based largely on the support of liberal voters, he is compromised on the issue of guns in a way that Mrs. Clinton is not. The Vermont senator has previously been backed by the National Rifle Association and has argued on the campaign trail that guns in his home state, or in rural New Hampshire, are not the equivalent of guns in major urban areas like Chicago. Mr. Sanders’s campaign noted Friday that he supports instant background checks, tighter restrictions on gun shows and has a dismal rating from the N.R.A.

Among the Democratic contenders, only Martin O’Malley, who wrote an op-ed in The Boston Globe late Friday, made a forceful call for Congress to pass more restrictive gun measures. Strategists in both parties say that, regardless of who wins the White House next year, there is little chance for passing gun legislation because Republicans, who will almost certainly still control the House, will not bring any bills restricting gun access up for a vote. The only times in recent American history when significant gun control bills were signed into law — 1968, 1993 and 1994 — were when Democrats controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress.
Although President Obama said this week that the failure to persuade Congress to pass “common sense gun safety laws” was one of the great regrets of his presidency — just hours before the shooting in Louisiana — Congress is unlikely to close any of the loopholes in federal gun laws exposed by the recent shootings.

The bill in Congress with the most traction may be one that would give military officers the ability to carry weapons at recruitment centers.

Where Congress has faltered, the states have moved to tighten safety aspects of gun ownership. For instance, 10 states have made it harder for people with domestic violence convictions to obtain weapons.

Court records show that the gunman in Louisiana had a history of mental illness and had once been the subject of a protective order in Carroll County, Ga., which may have been detected with a stronger mental health reporting systems. That too is the subject of legislation languishing in Congress.
Nearly 20 states and the District of Columbia now have universal background check laws similar to a measure that failed in the last Congress, which may have blocked or at least slowed the gun purchase of Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, who law enforcement officials say shot and killed four United States Marines and one sailor at a military recruitment center in Chattanooga. Mr. Abdulazeez bought his weapon on the Internet, an avenue that Senate legislation in the last Congress intended to make subject to background checks.

The man who the police say killed nine Charleston churchgoers had not completed his background check, but he was allowed to buy a gun anyway under a so-called default proceed. Federal law permits a firearms dealer who has initiated a background check to proceed with a sale if the dealer has not been notified of violations within three business days. Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, filed legislation that would close the loophole, but Republican leaders have not acted on it.

In the case of the Chattanooga killings, some of the candidates called for letting members of the military and National Guard arm themselves at recruiting centers, a move codified by bills pending in Congress. This week, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter responded coolly to the idea.
“We need to recruit, but we can’t put people at unnecessary risk as well,” he said, saying that he would await the recommendations of commanders, “and then I’ll make decisions sometime in the next few days.”

No single law usually could have prevented mass shootings, which remain rare. Gun violence experts are increasingly interested in changing laws to better target those who have a demonstrated propensity for gun violence. For instance, a nonviolent felony conviction from two decades ago may well be less predictive of gun violence than a domestic violence protection order or drunken-driving conviction, said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

“There is very little research that says what the best gun policy is to prevent mass shootings,” Mr. Webster said. “But we do have a good amount of research to show that when you have higher standards for legal gun ownership and more robust efforts needed to gain access you have much lower rates of gun violence. A lot of people have a hard time believing that because you never see a news story that some dangerous person didn’t kill someone today because they didn’t get a gun.”
Click to expand...
And I guess that is why nothing ever seems to happen.

NBC has something to say on this too http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/p...ting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Of course we do Susie and I debate most Australian issues on an Australian forum because there is only so much Australiana that is interesting to people from other countries.

I suppose I keep returning to the topic of firearms control because I really cannot understand why Americans haven't said enough bloodshed is enough. I am however beginning to get some insight into why they haven't. Like most things, it is deeply rooted in history but while we cannot rewrite the past we don't have to be enslaved by it either. A new future can be forged if there is a will to do so.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response, D.W.
Thinking of family and friends in the U.S., I'm not aware of anyone owning or using a firearm.
While still living in Campbell, Cal., our neighbor, an officer in the drug squad, must have had a gun, though!
When visiting the U.S, I was never afraid to walk or travel most places (areas to avoid are well documented)!
I also question whether Americans are enslaved by guns, although maybe the movie and TV industry is so enslaved by greed, they can't seem to produce some of the most absurd crime fiction fast enough.
 
I didn't experience fear of people or guns when we were in the US either but perhaps we were just unaware of local dangers.
We even found the NY subway less than scary. I was more concerned about earthquakes.
 
A new future can be forged if there is a will to do so. From a Warrigal post.

Which is not part of the US background for either party. To cause such a change means we have to follow the rules for changing the Constitution. This has been brought up before but for some reason it does not register for some folks. Plenty are satisfied with how the US is going along and no reason for major changes are present right now. One change we really need is a change from these self made political parties and going back to the basic rights of the individual to vote with their own vote and not directed by party.

One solution would be to end party identification on the ballots. Just a list of names and activities and no party identification. Which means those with a real party interest would need to learn names and parties prior to the elections. Less for party and we would have more of personal wishes instead of party wishes. Taking away party boxes long ago was a good move, now we should take away party id beside the names. I wonder just how much money is wasted on party nonsense over personal rights and duties.
 
So many guns in the hands of so many people are bound to spell trouble, especially when so many have mental problems (schizophrenia, for example) where they attack randomly for reasons only known to themselves.
 
Although I'm a gun owner, I don't carry concealed, never felt the need to. I was born and raised in the USA, I have no fear to go to movie theaters, malls and grew up riding the subways. I'm not paranoid, these shootings are carried out by mentally disturbed people, they make the headlines and stay in the headlines for weeks on end, to put the fear in people, obviously it's very effective. As I mentioned before, nobody seems to care about five people who were murdered in one stabbing incident, many choose to ignore that. Those lives must not be as important as those lost in gun crimes. :rolleyes:
 
SeaBreeze said:
You're not mistaken at all Misty, many of these mass shootings do occur in gun-free zones, movie theaters, military stations (hope that changes), schools, etc.

Besides ignoring the fact that these shootings all occur in gun-free zones, also ignored is the fact that most if not all of these people are mentally ill, many of them under the influence of prescription drugs for depression, anxiety, bi-polar, etc. I've posted an old listing here of the murderers and the prescription drugs they were taking numerous times. Many have other things in common, anti-government, racists, etc.

The side effects of these harmful pharmaceuticals are altered personalities which normally exhibit the desire to kill or commit suicide.

Funny that not too many people are talking about the tragedy of five family members killed by knife stabbings in Oklahoma...not as big a headline if it doesn't involve a gun and promote an anti-gun agenda...so sad really. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-16-18-arrested-FIVE-family-members-dead.html
Click to expand...

Exactly. Saw this story on CNN as well. One thing that SB brought up was that many of these shooters were on prescription drugs. I think SSRIs are the most common. One side effect is aggression. I don't think the drugs put ideas in their head but with radical mood swings induced or not I can see many following through on what for many would be thoughts most set aside controlling the urge to actually act on them. These drugs are not an excuse but contributing factor. Dylan Roof in Charleston was a known recent drug addict including pysch medications. He was a racist, no doubt but what affect did the drugs have on his existing ideas & plans, same for any of these shooters.

One must wonder with this Houser/theater shooter what happened during his forced psychiatric incarceration several years ago. Was he on or off medication. Did a doctor declare him cured. I can see the anti US government stance from this Houser since he was forcibly institutionalized and a court finalized a foreclosure. His hatred was misplaced but I can see his political rants and stances.

Along with Broken Arrow stabbings there was man in Brooklyn a year or two stabbed/sliced people with a machete. People say take away the guns but to me WHY do these want to act or use violence period. Many say availability etc but think about the act of actually killing someone for minute. That takes effort period especially if you think about the consequences, blood, getting caught reputation although gang members seem to add to their reputation. To most aggression and violence is "a" tool like it or not. But these mass shooters or even serial killers look at it as the answer to everything-how come?
 
Whether this shooters were on prescription drugs... or mentally ill is a red herring.. if they didn't have access to guns, they wouldn't have shot people.. period..
 
As pointed out, they would find some other way to do whatever it is they must do. One post showed stabbings. Do we also start an anti knife program? How about taking away cars as they kill many folks too?

Lets put our efforts into stopping those Arab area nuts that are killing thousands and threatening to break out and come kill Americans.

No end to those that do want to do harm in the US so why just keep playing with the guns idea only.
 
BobF said:
As pointed out, they would find some other way to do whatever it is they must do. One post showed stabbings. Do we also start an anti knife program? How about taking away cars as they kill many folks too?
Click to expand...

Knives have other purposes... cutting food, etc.. Cars are meant to carry the population from point A to Point B... Guns have NO purpose other than killing... That argument is plain silly, and also a red herring.
 
BobF said:
As pointed out, they would find some other way to do whatever it is they must do. One post showed stabbings. Do we also start an anti knife program? How about taking away cars as they kill many folks too?

Lets put our efforts into stopping those Arab area nuts that are killing thousands and threatening to break out and come kill Americans.

No end to those that do want to do harm in the US so why just keep playing with the guns idea only.
Click to expand...

I agree Bob. I tell you one thing, if this guy was starting to grab me to cut off my head here in America, I'd be forever grateful to someone with a gun who was there to stop him and save my life and the lives of others. This gun appeared one rolling head too late, but it easily could have been two or more.

Just after 4 p.m. on Sept. 25, Colleen Hufford, a 54-year-old grandmother and worker at Vaughan Foods in Moore, Okla., was standing in the doorway of the front office in the food processing facility's main building when Alton Nolen, a co-worker who had just been suspended over an argument with another colleague, violently grabbed her from behind.

As horrified employees watched, Nolen, a 30-year-old production line worker with a criminal history, savagely sawed at Hufford's throat with a large kitchen knife he had gone home to retrieve, severing her head.

Nolen then went after Traci Johnson, a 43-year-old co-worker, viciously slashing her face and her throat in an attempt to decapitate her, too.

But his bloody rampage came to an abrupt end when he was shot and wounded by the company's top executive, who also happens to be a reserve deputy sheriff. Johnson, while severely wounded, survived.
Click to expand...
 
QuickSilver said:
Guns for hunting... and home defense.. absolutely.. however, no assault weapons or large volume clips... no conceal and carry. THAT is what I advocate.
Click to expand...

I thought real assault weapons were already illegal - certainly full-auto versions. Same with large clips.

Wasn't the gun used in the latest theater shooting a handgun? Used also for home defense?

Conceal and carry - now that's a different kettle of fish.

The thing is, as I see it, as long as you have guns anywhere - police, military, illegal importation, hunting, home defense - you're going to have someone who can gain access to them and can modify their original purposes. Anything can be a deadly weapon in the right hands.
 
There is no point having these discussions... the killing will continue ... because..

b1d0f9d4ecea3ba2e8306a004dd79427.jpg
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top