wlewisiii wrote: I have. It's a fascinating book but you had a dynamic where the Samurai considered such weapons beneath them and could enforce such a ban with summary execution.

Actually they didn't find them beneath them. They were used by the Shogun to consolidate his power. I was born in the city that is famous for its firearms, Sakai. Some made 0ver 400 years ago, were upgraded and used as late as the Russo-Japanese war.

Here is a photo of my grandfather with Samurai armor and matchlock arqubus that has been in my family for 19 generations:

wlewisiii wrote:

lemur wrote:

wlewisiii wrote: This will not stop these events but they will decrease them, I believe. That would make the increased annoyance acceptable to me.

Please explain how the regulation you are proposing would have prevented this event from happening.

Requiring appropriate securing of weapons to decrease the number stolen. The last two incidents both happened with stolen weapons.

Do you know how the guns in the last two incidents were stolen?

DukeNukemIncarnate wrote:

GuitarsandGuns wrote:

DukeNukemIncarnate wrote:Someone, using gun kills a lot of innocent people and childen. Then commits suicide.

How is this different from suicide bombers?

It isn't.

It would be terrorism if there had been a political demand.

Except for maybe a different motivation. I think that is what we need to focus on. What motivates people to do these sort of things.

It seems to me that most often the motivation is to be heard and to be seen. To have one's rage and hurt stop being invisible. Sounds like the same motivation for both in my thinking.

Movies, TV, and computer games are symptoms, not causes. Focusing on these will guarantee that once more we will fail to address the real problems.

Fukshot wrote: It seems to me that most often the motivation is to be heard and to be seen. To have one's rage and hurt stop being invisible. Sounds like the same motivation for both in my thinking.

This horrendous event is what brought me to this forum. It is a relief to see a much more measured discussion than I see elsewhere.

I work in the mental health field, for what it's worth. Absent any other clearly defined motive or simple mental illness, I believe these incidents are a way for someone disenfrancised to feel momentarily powerful and relevant. For a moment in time, all the world is looking at them, and no one has the power to undo what they have done. They have changed lives forever. Of course, they're generally not around to see any of this as they're unwilling to deal with the consequences afterwards, but they know how it will play out. I think this is the really twisted version of "going out in a blaze of glory."

I grieve for those who died, those who lost them, and everyone from the first responders to the disaster restoration crews who will have to deal with the gritty reality of this.

lemur wrote:Movies, TV, and computer games are symptoms, not causes. Focusing on these will guarantee that once more we will fail to address the real problems.

It is more like a feedback loop.

Zenmason wrote:

wlewisiii wrote: I have. It's a fascinating book but you had a dynamic where the Samurai considered such weapons beneath them and could enforce such a ban with summary execution.

Actually they didn't find them beneath them. They were used by the Shogun to consolidate his power. I was born in the city that is famous for its firearms, Sakai. Some made 0ver 400 years ago, were upgraded and used as late as the Russo-Japanese war.

Here is a photo of my grandfather with Samurai armor and matchlock arqubus that has been in my family for 19 generations:

Not to derail the discussion but that is an excellent photo. Thanks for sharing. I was unaware of how the use of firearms in the distant Japanese past played part in history. Interesting.

AirLiteNewbie wrote:

Fukshot wrote: It seems to me that most often the motivation is to be heard and to be seen. To have one's rage and hurt stop being invisible. Sounds like the same motivation for both in my thinking.

This horrendous event is what brought me to this forum. It is a relief to see a much more measured discussion than I see elsewhere.

I work in the mental health field, for what it's worth. Absent any other clearly defined motive or simple mental illness, I believe these incidents are a way for someone disenfrancised to feel momentarily powerful and relevant. For a moment in time, all the world is looking at them, and no one has the power to undo what they have done. They have changed lives forever. Of course, they're generally not around to see any of this as they're unwilling to deal with the consequences afterwards, but they know how it will play out. I think this is the really twisted version of "going out in a blaze of glory."

I grieve for those who died, those who lost them, and everyone from the first responders to the disaster restoration crews who will have to deal with the gritty reality of this.

^^^^This is at the core.

AirLiteNewbie wrote:

Fukshot wrote: It seems to me that most often the motivation is to be heard and to be seen. To have one's rage and hurt stop being invisible. Sounds like the same motivation for both in my thinking.

This horrendous event is what brought me to this forum. It is a relief to see a much more measured discussion than I see elsewhere.

I work in the mental health field, for what it's worth. Absent any other clearly defined motive or simple mental illness, I believe these incidents are a way for someone disenfrancised to feel momentarily powerful and relevant. For a moment in time, all the world is looking at them, and no one has the power to undo what they have done. They have changed lives forever. Of course, they're generally not around to see any of this as they're unwilling to deal with the consequences afterwards, but they know how it will play out. I think this is the really twisted version of "going out in a blaze of glory."

I grieve for those who died, those who lost them, and everyone from the first responders to the disaster restoration crews who will have to deal with the gritty reality of this.

Great early comments- I think you hit the nail on the head-the 15 minutes of fame syndrome, with no thoughts or cares as to the consequences.....

Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder how many of these types of incidents would be lessened if there wasn't nearly the publicity for them after the fact. What may cause that "switch" to go off for some is the amount of press that happens from previous incidents.

I was just talking with a friend over coffee. He brought up the angle that people who do this kind of thing finally get to be exceptional after being told all of their lives that they are exceptional, with no evidence of that.

MilSurpFreak wrote: Not to derail the discussion but that is an excellent photo. Thanks for sharing. I was unaware of how the use of firearms in the distant Japanese past played part in history. Interesting.

I started a new topic on firearms in Medieval Japan:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 32&t=16769

It should be kept in mind that diagnoses of his motives and state of mind and are just conjecture, at this point. and will probably be for a long time. He may have been a psychopath, or he may not have been. He may have craved fame, or not at all. One of the difficulties of preventing these kind of incidents is identifying the psychopathology responsible, and if you listen to experts, it's all over the place.

Here's a short article about the Columbine shooters illustrating this problem:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... opath.html

As others have mentioned, no easy answers.

Zenmason wrote:

MilSurpFreak wrote: Not to derail the discussion but that is an excellent photo. Thanks for sharing. I was unaware of how the use of firearms in the distant Japanese past played part in history. Interesting.

I started a new topic on firearms in Medieval Japan:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 32&t=16769

Firearms in the hands of peasants destroyed the natural harmony of a lifestyle that emphasized total control by an elite class of people over another.

When I was a kid guns were much easier to get than now. You could get them mail order right to your house. There were surplus semi auto rifles from all countries including our own available and all you had to do was write on the order form that you were indeed old enough to buy them. Having read this entire thread last night after coming home from work and this morning I give high marks to both G&G and the Duke. I sure can't come up with a reason for this frightning spike in this crap the last couple of years. One big difference since I was a kid is the current media circus and pharma, also the lack of really good jobs available.

Some things that seem fairly indisputable to me:

Guns don't shoot themselves, so yes it's ultimately about the shooter not the gun.

It's a shitload easier to kill with a gun than without one. Especially to kill lots of people.

If I was in a group of people being hunted down by one of these mass killers I'd rather be armed than not.

The overwhelming emotional salience of mass killings like this one almost certainly throw off people's sense of what's likely and what's not, and decisions on whether to arm the entire populace should be made by taking into account what the actual problems are with gun violence, not what comes immediately to mind.

Mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns.

It's probably impossible to keep mentally unstable people from having guns without a big change in politics and policy, and there are legitimate concerns about civil liberties and whether we could even effectively carry out such a policy.

A determined killer can get a weapon even if it's illegal.

Even if we wanted to severely limit gun violence in this country, it's too late. The vocal gun rights lobby has basically won, and won decisively. The conversation may go on, with the usual arguments on both sides, but guns are everywhere. Pandora's box has been open long enough that the war is over. Policy and legislation can only make a difference at the margins if at all.



My point is, if you want to talk about gun control, there are lots of facts that are true on both sides of the argument. And, the argument (for me at least) is basically pointless.

My sense of the problem comes down to human nature and America's violent culture. We're a bunch of fuckups. If we had a culture that actually valued human life and dignity, and care for people over our stupid obsession with "my rights", and community over individualism, we might have a country that was more sensitive to others' suffering, and fewer people might want to look to guns to solve their perceived problems or rectify their resentments. But history has shown that it's often impossible to get to that society without authoritarianism and putting too much power in the hands of the corrupt.

But even though it may be impossible, I still refuse to cynically give in to the self-serving misanthropic assholes and cowards (they work hand in hand) who love things the way they are, so I'll continue to hope, and to be a liberal and a democrat.

One thing that comes up over and over is that the perpetrators of these atrocities had easy and legal access to guns, either directly or indirectly.
Guns may not kill people, but access to them sure makes it easy to kill a whole lot of people.
The fundamental question is how do we keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have access to them?
Maybe we can't. If we can't, what do we do?

I am more and more convinced that there is no need or place for high capacity guns of any type within the general population's hands. That means no handguns with more than 10 rounds, and no rifles with more than 5 rounds.

And that is just a start.

SERIOUS background checks for all gun transfers is needed NOW. Gun liability laws need to be increased, as in you lose a gun, you are still liable for its use for the next 5 years. If a minor under your custody gets access to your gun in any way, you lose the right to own guns. Bullshit tacticool accessories that glorify the guns as toys need to be stopped, things like folding stocks, rapid fire stock modifications, combat rails. Licenses to own guns, with recurring training are a must. If you get caught with a gun but no license, you become a felon not eligible to own a gun. Waiting periods are a must. A higher level of licensing should be required for those wanting exemption from the above rules, such as owning an AK or a high capacity pistol. Hunting rifles are certified as such and sold as a different category.

Rules like this would be no more than inconveniences to law abiding citizens, yet would be start in getting some control of guns that are currently killing more people every 36 hours in America than the massacre did.

When I bought my first handgun a few years ago, I was really scared at the time and absolutely relieved to be able to get armed as readily as that. Even in that moment though, I was shocked and a little disturbed at how easy it was. Even now, I can't believe you can just walk into a gun shop where no one has ever seen you before, and walk out an hour later with a firearm. I just expected there to be more of a process to it.

I agree with the assessment that there are already so many guns out there that we can't hope to substantively change anything any time soon. I see the talk of armed guards in schools and on one hand, yeah, but on the other hand, solving the problem by adding more guns doesn't feel right.

It used to be easier to get guns, but there also used to be a lot of things that nobody or very few would ever dream of doing. Now, they do. Our reality is changing, and social strategy based on what used to make sense is not going to help.

Awake wrote:One thing that comes up over and over is that the perpetrators of these atrocities had easy and legal access to guns, either directly or indirectly.
Guns may not kill people, but access to them sure makes it easy to kill a whole lot of people.
The fundamental question is how do we keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have access to them?
Maybe we can't. If we can't, what do we do?

I am more and more convinced that there is no need or place for high capacity guns of any type within the general population's hands. That means no handguns with more than 10 rounds, and no rifles with more than 5 rounds.

I am willing to go along with all of these suggestions. They are reasonable enough- though I would argue that the limit should be 10 rounds in an internal magazine for both pistols and rifles. I would even be willing to back putting semi-automatic firearms on the NFA list, so that the general population can't get their hands on weapons that are easy to shoot and reload.

Edit: I don't like the idea of the above gun-control measures. But I am willing to go along with them if I was convinced that they would prevent more mass shootings and noting else would. Frankly, while I can't afford one now, I do want to own an AK someday! I don't want semi-autos or hi-cap mags banned. But maybie they have to be. I like the idea of letting teachers carry their CCWs in school a whole lot better, emotionally speaking, but I suspect that would not be as effective as a near-ban on semiautomatic weapons.

SERIOUS background checks for all gun transfers is needed NOW. Gun liability laws need to be increased, as in you lose a gun, you are still liable for its use for the next 5 years. If a minor under your custody gets access to your gun in any way, you lose the right to own guns. Bullshit tacticool accessories that glorify the guns as toys need to be stopped, things like folding stocks, rapid fire stock modifications, combat rails. Licenses to own guns, with recurring training are a must. If you get caught with a gun but no license, you become a felon not eligible to own a gun. Waiting periods are a must. A higher level of licensing should be required for those wanting exemption from the above rules, such as owning an AK or a high capacity pistol. Hunting rifles are certified as such and sold as a different category.

Rules like this would be no more than inconveniences to law abiding citizens, yet would be start in getting some control of guns that are currently killing more people every 36 hours in America than the massacre did.

Now here's where I disagree with you. I agree with closing the private-sale loophole, and requiring a FFL transfer for any gun purchase and something similar for inheritances and gifts. But I can't go along with not allowing parents to show their kids how to shoot, or take their kids hunting. Certainly, kids shouldn't have unsupervised access to firearms, but supervised access is another thing altogether. And requiring a license with training to own a gun would mean making it impossible for poor people to exercise their second amendment rights. I mean, I'm picturing a $100 fee for the license, and $300+ for the training, as opposed to finding a friend who will teach you to shoot for free and spending $100 on a Mosin. And remember that ultimately, bearing arms is a RIGHT not a privilege in this country.

I can see some good coming from making PP transfers all go through an FFL. Probably would be reasonable to limit that to semi-autos and handguns, as bolt/lever/single-shot/pump rifles and shotguns pose less of a public risk. CA law is similar to that, so I am used to it and that may color my view. With or without this change, I would very much like to see aggressive prosecution of straw purchasers.

Magazine capacity limitations seem silly to me at first, but I hear about mass shootings that are stopped at the moment of reloading, so there may be some sense in such limitations.

To what extent would these things really make a difference? I know I wouldn't terribly mind conceding these things, but I am less certain of the good they might do.

Oh My GOD, after watching all the news on this terrible tragic loss of life, all these little children. I just can't begin to understand how this could be. watching all the broken hearts. So sad so very sad.... All I can think of are my little grand kids.. What if ? It is so very sad,such a waste of life..........

I have never fired my new mini 14, I can't even look at it right now I don't know I just don't know..................My heart just hurts for all those folks what can I do,what can I do.......

Very good 2011 article by Gary Gleck, I feel worth revisiting:

Mass Killings Aren't the Real Gun Problem
How to tailor gun-control measures to common crimes, not aberrant catastrophes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 80664.html

Well-enforced laws against carrying guns may discourage criminals who commit unpremeditated acts of violence from routinely being armed, even if such laws had no effect on Mr. Loughner. Increasing the availability and usability of existing databases on the dangerously mentally ill (limited though their coverage may be) could have some value in blocking gun sales to the kinds of people who commit more common kinds of violence, even if they could not have stopped the Tucson shooting. And extending background checks to cover private gun transfers might also block gun acquisition by ordinary criminals, even if they are ineffective against deranged and powerfully motivated mass killers.

Xela

JimInATX wrote:Some things that seem fairly indisputable to me:

Guns don't shoot themselves, so yes it's ultimately about the shooter not the gun.

It's a shitload easier to kill with a gun than without one. Especially to kill lots of people.

If I was in a group of people being hunted down by one of these mass killers I'd rather be armed than not.

The overwhelming emotional salience of mass killings like this one almost certainly throw off people's sense of what's likely and what's not, and decisions on whether to arm the entire populace should be made by taking into account what the actual problems are with gun violence, not what comes immediately to mind.

Mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns.

It's probably impossible to keep mentally unstable people from having guns without a big change in politics and policy, and there are legitimate concerns about civil liberties and whether we could even effectively carry out such a policy.

A determined killer can get a weapon even if it's illegal.

Even if we wanted to severely limit gun violence in this country, it's too late. The vocal gun rights lobby has basically won, and won decisively. The conversation may go on, with the usual arguments on both sides, but guns are everywhere. Pandora's box has been open long enough that the war is over. Policy and legislation can only make a difference at the margins if at all.



My point is, if you want to talk about gun control, there are lots of facts that are true on both sides of the argument. And, the argument (for me at least) is basically pointless.

My sense of the problem comes down to human nature and America's violent culture. We're a bunch of fuckups. If we had a culture that actually valued human life and dignity, and care for people over our stupid obsession with "my rights", and community over individualism, we might have a country that was more sensitive to others' suffering, and fewer people might want to look to guns to solve their perceived problems or rectify their resentments. But history has shown that it's often impossible to get to that society without authoritarianism and putting too much power in the hands of the corrupt.

But even though it may be impossible, I still refuse to cynically give in to the self-serving misanthropic assholes and cowards (they work hand in hand) who love things the way they are, so I'll continue to hope, and to be a liberal and a democrat.

Well said, JimInATX!

However the direction at the end of your post tends to indicate that it is pointless to grapple with the issue legally, with increased regulations or whatnot, even as you refuse to let our society go to pot for the vainglorious cowards with a gun.

The process of reaching a solution, as I see it, is a long and difficult road. The US has had so many decades of relaxed decadence while certain individuals worked full steam to maximize wealth to the top. This shooting is a result of our troubled economy as much as it is a reflection of our failing healthcare system. You recognize that, yes?

That is why it takes courage and mutual support to continue and work toward solutions in society. In some ways, we have let that responsibility of Government OF-BY-FOR the People go and the powermongers have taken the reins and driven our country into the ditch.

irishman wrote:Oh My GOD, after watching all the news on this terrible tragic loss of life, all these little children. I just can't begin to understand how this could be. watching all the broken hearts. So sad so very sad.... All I can think of are my little grand kids.. What if ? It is so very sad,such a waste of life..........

I have never fired my new mini 14, I can't even look at it right now I don't know I just don't know..................My heart just hurts for all those folks what can I do,what can I do.......

Irishman, you are among friends in this community with the same capacity for feeling the pain. Many of us simply have put away the firearms for a while to revisit when we are able to move from these pains and emotions.

Firearms have always been a heavy responsibility for me and many of my friends who own guns. Any instrument with the power over life-death always has that difficulty attached. It should never be easy to purchase/own and the responsibility should always evolve with us as we grow.

There is nothing "to do" in this current situation other than sit with the feelings and let them move through you and change you from the inside out. We, who are courageous enough not to block them out, are all doing that now whether individually or talking with like-minded friends.

Like others have said I too am feeling somewhat guilty and a little more unsure of my hobby. I just bought a CZ-83 for my son and I for Christmas, and the shine is off just now.

For me the question is what gun control laws will help reduce the carnage? I don't think anything would have stopped this madman (someone else brought up the example of a suicide bomber. This guy would have found some way to cause destruction on a grand scale) but the idea of 10 round mags does seem to me to be a possible way to reduce the deadliness of these types of attacks. Increased screening would help, but I'm not sure about how much additional info can be gathered by background checks. I'm not a black rifle guy, so I wonder how those of you that are feel magazine restrictions will affect your use of these guns. Do 10 round mags still allow you to use your firearms for their purpose?

And my last thought, I respect that in this forum people seem to want to find solutions rather than misdirect the conversation with conspiracy theories and paranoia. The reasoned discussion helps.

I think it is becoming more apparent that the power of the weapon/cartridge is less important than the number rounds before reloading in unimaginable situations such as this where the victims cannot shoot back in kind.

I keep thinking back on the amazing carnage and number killed in Tucson with just one Glock. Here, too, the Bushmaster was left in the trunk while a couple of 9mm's served to kill so many.

This is a tough one. I really don't know what restrictions will really serve to reduce gun violence due to a madman. But I know there is something to do...