Trump has said ” this is not a guns situation ” the governor has said parishioners should be armed! Its amazing Christian goes nuts with a gun means its a mental health problem, before any facts are known.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk[/video]
‘slightly’ NSFW

Have the #PrayforTexas lot started on Farcebook yet?

Kind can’t help but think that it’s not working.. 🙄

https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/11/05/first-shipment-thoughts-prayers-arrive-texas/

We can all agree that the gun situation in the USA is insane.

However, what can be done? The genie is out of the bottle.

The 60% of people who want more gun control, isn’t 60% that want to ban gun ownership, just a few more restrictions.

There are so many guns in circulation I can’t see what can be done.

There are so many guns in circulation I can’t see what can be done.

Ban them, buy them back, scrap them, confiscate them, remove them, limit any further sales, have massive penalties for still having one. Ban the NRA from buying politicians.

There are a few simple steps

vinnyeh – Member
The killer had a dishonourable discharge that barred him from gun ownership apparently.

Therefore laws don’t work, criminals will still get guns if they want.
The guy in Vegas was enabled to carry out his kills because he was able to buy all the weapons.
In this case in Texas there are no checks, permits, licenses or background checks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas
A law so crap will never work –
I want to buy a gun
OK, nothing we need to know about?
Nope
Here you go

Americans have decided that they want to live in a society where people an be arbitrarily killed by an individual who feels like it. In the scheme of things it’s a small deal. Who cares?

Ban them, buy them back, scrap them, confiscate them, remove them, limit any further sales, have massive penalties for still having one.

The majority of the US population would not support that. So how would you make that law?

Buy them back? They would be worth an absolute fortune once your ban came in. Particularly to criminals.

Yep so do nothing, the right to own a gun is greater than the right to live.
It’s been done elsewhere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program
you wanted a solution? that was it – also ballistics testing of everything that came back before you got your cash.
You could fund it with a massive levy on the gun makers similar to what they pay the NRA for 10 years.
You could make everyone apply for a license and if you are not fit you have them taken from you.
Ban the sale of specific ammunitions that mean guns are not usable.
the amount of things that can be done is huge, consider the cost of all the stuff being called anti terror in response to much smaller killings.

“Therefore laws don’t work, criminals will still get guns if they want.” The NRAs $54 million in propaganda spending paying off right there. Laws work see UK Australia Switzerland. The “American” problem is that the political will is lacking because the NRA have bought the politicians.

I’ve just read the shooter was shot and killed by a member of the pubic – it’s all over, the gun lobby won’t be talking about how many he killed now, but how many were saved by the bystander.

The “American” problem is that the political will is lacking because the NRA have bought the politicians.

The American problem is that American’s love guns.

Gun ownership is seen as an absolute fundamental right by the majority. Not just NRA members.

It’s also seen as a necessity by some. If the bad guys have guns, they need them to protect themselves from them.

More mass shootings just means that you need more guns to protect yourself.

it’s all over, the gun lobby won’t be talking about how many he killed now, but how many were saved by the bystander.

Trumps already said it.

No that is the perception.
The majority support control – start there.
Background checks, physiological exclusions, permits etc. those would have stopped this one.
Limits on weapons exist in most states – the guns they guy had in Nevada are illegal in many other states.
Limit what you can hold?

It’s all possible, it’s all doable and it’s still within the constitution.

If all Americans wanted it then the NRA would not have some many lawmakers in it’s pocket.

At least not so many Americans are getting killed by sparklers (a gateway firework, apparantly) as they’re banning them http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41811499

Americans have decided that they want to live in a society where people an be arbitrarily killed by an individual who feels like it. In the scheme of things it’s a small deal. Who cares?

Agree.

One of the more interesting things to do (imo) is to read about these mass shootings on American forums, or at least forums where there are substantial numbers of Americans.

A surprising theme or attitude I see again and again is apathy or lack of surprise/concern based on distance eg – someone in New York would comment something along the lines of “oh well, what do you expect it’s Texas”.

It’s understandable to a degree when you consider SA Texas is a similar distance away from New York as Helsinki is from Dublin.

Americans have decided that they want to live in a society where people an be arbitrarily killed by an individual who feels like it. In the scheme of things it’s a small deal. Who cares?

I care, not that it makes any difference, every few weeks another mass shooting happens, the left leaning press try to find a stat to make a it record somehow to make it more newsworthy, the right leaning press move heaven and hell to find out what skin tone the shooter had, we have a thread to marvel at the insanity of it all and Jim Jeffries gets another few million views. Nothing Changes.

It’s the senseless violence that bothers me.

“So, How many guns do you own Ken?”
“Oh, I dunno, suppose about 120 or so. Shotguns, rifles, semi’s, pistols, auto’s, you name ’em I got ’em”
“Really? What are you so scared of that you need such an arsenal?”
“Liberals trying to take my guns off me”

A conversation I had about 48hours ago with a Texan who I occasionally work with.

’nuff sed.

A surprising theme or attitude I see again and again is apathy or lack of surprise/concern based on distance eg – someone in New York would comment something along the lines of “oh well, what do you expect it’s Texas”.

It’s understandable to a degree when you consider SA Texas is a similar distance away from New York as Helsinki is from Dublin.

Agreed, but I don’t think it’s the geographical distance that causes the disconnection.

The US is really a country of two-halves, I know in the UK we talk about the North / South divide in England and the Celtic Nations etc, but your average New Yorker is so different to your average Texan it beggars belief, everything, attitude, dress, the food they eat, culture, everything – Gun laws in the City of New York are probably the strictest in all of the US, you need a license to buy or own any sort of firearm and you’re not really allowed to carry them unless it’s part of your job. Even then their laws are constantly being challenged, not by people within the City / State, but by national organisations partly because they don’t want to see it spread to other states and partly because ‘why not’.

Ban the NRA

That’s a start…

P-Jay – Member

Agreed, but I don’t think it’s the geographical distance that causes the disconnection.

The US is really a country of two-halves, I know in the UK we talk about the North / South divide in England and the Celtic Nations etc, but your average New Yorker is so different to your average Texan it beggars belief, everything,

I agree but I do think distance is a factor, or certainly something that allows for a disconnect. You know there are people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland that are worlds apart from Londoners. Even here in Ireland I know people who will do everything they can to avoid going to the “big town” with a population of 19,000 nevermind Dublin, so you can have complete cultural opposites 100 miles apart never mind 2000.

When we hear about shootings in the states we think of that one country where all the shootings happen, but it’s a giant continent and many are so far from the action, so to speak, that they’re not remotely bothered.

I feel like it would take a mass shooting live on tv at something like the superbowl or the oscars where almost all of them witness it for them to really have a consensus of some kind on it.

I feel like it would take a mass shooting live on tv at something like the superbowl or the oscars

Or a trump rally….

gobuchul – Member

However, what can be done? The genie is out of the bottle.

You start trying to put it back, every chance you get. It’ll be hard but not as hard as having your kids shot in church. The supply isn’t infinite- but it took decades to get to this point so taking decades to get back isn’t so unreasonable.

There’s things that can be done now- I always think they need to work on “responsible gun owner”, there’s so much that can be done there. Position it so that a responsible gun owner keeps them secure, registers them like they would a car, does training like you would a car. After all if you need to defend your family, you want to do it as well as you can, right? Hard to argue with that. Make people take it seriously- rights and responsibilities.

The gun owners and lobby will always talk about criminals vs responsible owners so work on what the latter means.

I always say the same, if I lived in a state with easy gun laws, I would almost certainly own a gun, or guns. They’re brilliant machines, so satisfying to work on, like really big clockwork. Hardly anything you ever work on was designed so perfectly for use and maintenance. And shooting is fun too. But “responsible gun owners” are always getting their guns stolen, or having their kids shoot themselves, or nding themselves in the leg. I’d be a responsible gun owner and I’d look on most owners as irresponsible. And that’s a good message I think- how about a sort of loyal opposition, an anti-NRA that isn’t about swinging your dick and COLD DEAD HANDS, but is about responsibility.

Northwind – Member

There’s things that can be done now- I always think they need to work on “responsible gun owner”, there’s so much that can be done there. Position it so that a responsible gun owner keeps them secure, registers them like they would a car, does training like you would a car. After all if you need to defend your family, you want to do it as well as you can, right? Hard to argue with that. Make people take it seriously- rights and responsibilities.

That’s what they are like now though. That seems (from the outside looking in ) to be a big part of the pro gun lobby. A big problem is that the people who are trying to speak to them, anti gun campaigners, don’t know the first thing about guns, so there’s no factual accuracy, beleivability or credibility in what they say.

It’s akin to the big fat taxi driver shouting about how bad all cyclists are. Anyone who knows anything about cycling can dismantle their arguments in seconds.

America and Americans need to wake the **** up on some many levels. The never ending stream of crap news and negative influence coming from this hell hole of a country is too much.

A big problem is that the people who are trying to speak to them, anti gun campaigners don’t know the first thing about guns, so there’s no factual accuracy, beleivability or credibility in what they say.

It’s a bit of equipment that has a single real purpose of killing something. If you want to shoot targets leave it at the range.
Next up texas where this happened doesn’t feel the need to check who buys guns, so anyone can buy one. That is just a simple fact, doesn’t need much deeper though.
Nevada allowed the weapons that were used in the massacre, again can’t think of any reason one of them should be outside of a secure and controlled facility.

Unfortunately one of the biggest gun deaths is suicide, no matter how responsible you are it’s putting an option in your hands.

The scale of the problem where the argument for guns include keeping the government in check, defending yourself as your country appears to have descended into such a state that the police are ineffective and your life is constantly in danger etc don’t help that side either.

I can’t remember if this has been shared on here before:
The Low-Tech Way Guns Get Traced
I read a much more detailed article somewhere else but can’t find it now.

It’s mad. The NRA lobbied to make it that there can’t be any digital, searchable list of guns and their owners.

Local law enforcement sends ATF the particulars on the gun they’ve seized: the manufacturer, model, caliber, serial number. ATF then starts running that information back through the distribution chain, contacting the gun manufacturer — say, Glock or Smith & Wesson — and the manufacturer checks its records and identifies the wholesaler it sold the firearm to.

Then, ATF contacts the wholesaler and goes down the record chain until it finds the retail gun dealer. It’s that dealer who should be able to say who bought that firearm.

It’s up to the federally licensed gun dealer to keep the record of each gun purchase. It’s a three-page form called a 4473 that the buyer and dealer have to fill out before a sale.

And ‘dealer’ means individual store, so each Walmart or each branch of Dick’s “Sporting” Goods has it’s own separate records.

If a store closes down then it has to send the records to the ATF tracing centre for them to be archived.

On a recent visit, the center received a dozen boxes of records from an Alabama gun dealer who’s gone out of business. But these gun sale records can come in by the truckload — as many as 3,000 boxes at a time, hundreds of millions of pages in all.

“On any given day, we will have to hand-search these records,” says ATF Special Agent Charles Houser, who runs the National Tracing Center.

That’s right, hand-search.

That means that if it’s a gun maker or seller who’s gone out of business, the workers here have to painstakingly leaf through these documents one page at a time looking for a match to the gun they’re trying to trace.

“The idea that we have a computer database and you just type in a serial number and it pops out some purchaser’s name is a myth,”

Because the ATF can’t hold a searchable record, if a gun dealer keeps the information in a database/spreadsheet/some other electronic format, the ATF can’t keep it. They have to print all the data out, destroy the hard drive/DVD/USB stick with the data on it and then scan and file the printed out copies of the digital information!

mikewsmith – Member

It’s a bit of equipment that has a single real purpose of killing something. If you want to shoot targets leave it at the range.

If you’re going to convince responsible gun owners that you’re going to increase safety without infringing their rights then you’d better know exactly what you’re talking about and not say, do exactly what you just did.

Nope, this one has to start with some simple stuff. Like the tracking and registration above. Some proper tough shit politics, responsible gun owners know what they have and what it does. They don’t really need convincing of the need for safes, security registration and the rest of it. It’s the others who you will never convince so you just have to do it. That’s what people get remembered for in politics.

Rightly or wrongly it’s never going to change. (I think it’s wrongly just to be clear).

I work with a lot of Americans.

Their attitude to weaponry is so far from our own that’s beyond understanding.

One guy joined a barge I was on and complained about the fuss they had made at his local airport security because he had a few rounds left in his rucksack from a recent hunting trip. 😯

He’s one of them who has 30 – 40 guns at home and thousands of rounds.

At work he’s sensible, intelligent, professional bloke. Wife, kids, grandkids, no criminal record. Ordinary bloke and quite typical of what I have met from Florida and other Southern parts.

If you’re going to convince responsible gun owners that you’re going to increase safety without infringing their rights then you’d better know exactly what you’re talking about and not say, do exactly what you just did.

Do what exactly? Point out the blindingly obvious? Guns are designed and built to kill things. Nothing more.

He’s one of them who has 30 – 40 guns at home and thousands of rounds.

And there is the problem.
“I need to protect my family/house/keep the government in check”… ok, sure, fine buy ONE gun then. Anymore than that and you have now entered “I like to shoot guns” territory, and the ‘protection’ argument is now just noise.

Anymore than that and you have now entered “I like to shoot guns” territory, and the ‘protection’ argument is now just noise.

The ones that own don’t make any other argument than “I like to shoot guns” as to why they own so many.

Another guy I know only has 2 guns, 1 pistol and a pump action shotgun. He keeps them in his bedroom. He says that where he lives in New Orleans, you need them. He’s half English and almost a communist to some of the other Southerners. He doesn’t “like to shoot guns”.

Taking guns away from law abiding people will lead to more deaths not less. That’s a big part of the counter argument.

It would take decades and probably never to “disarm” America

crazyjenkins01 – Member

If you’re going to convince responsible gun owners that you’re going to increase safety without infringing their rights then you’d better know exactly what you’re talking about and not say, do exactly what you just did.

Do what exactly? Point out the blindingly obvious? Guns are designed and built to kill things. Nothing more.[/quote]

Great, it’s simple. You solved America’s gun problem. Well done.

In that case, why do they need to be kept at home if they are a hobby? Its not like a bike that would be really difficult to go on a killing spree with!!!

The 2 guns guy, while I think is daft to own any, doesn’t say ‘excessive’ to me, but 30-40 does.

The whole system needs to be looked at. If Americans can’t possibly live without a gun, as is their right with the constitution as it is, then there should be limits on what type and how many can be owned (or at least kept elsewhere than in a secure licensed property like a gun range)

Taking guns away from law abiding people will lead to more deaths not less. That’s a big part of the counter argument.

And do they ever have any evidence of that, i.e. a state where it has been attempted ?

Or are people just supposed to believe it.

I’m not arguing they are right or wrong. Just stating that it’s such an issue that it will never be corrected while the USA is still a democracy.

No jimjam, I didn’t as its a large and complex issue.

What I did do was point out that what Mike said was correct. A Gun is designed to kill people/animals, even if it can be used for sport shooting.
While I understand the sport of using guns to shoot targets, if that’s what they are used for why keep them at home?

With shootings like this I’m surprised that terrorists are still bothering to attack the USA. The New York incident the other week barely even made the first story on the bbc news. As a propaganda stunt it was toothless because Americans seem too busy killing each other.
The Americans don’t care what we think. Not even a little bit. They want their guns and they love their constitution and the two go hand in hand for a significant proportion of the US population. And the anti gun arguement is seen as anti American and as an affront to their civil liberties.