Slashdot Mirror
Mass Shooting In San Bernardino Kills At Least 14 (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Authorities say 14 people were killed and 14 others were injured in a mass shooting in San Bernardino today. Police have mounted an intense manhunt for the gunmen who fired into a conference hall where county employees had gathered at a service center for people with disabilities. CNN reports: "The suspects were armed with long guns, Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told reporters. 'These were people that came prepared. ... They were armed with long guns, not hand guns,' he told reporters. Most of the victims were 'centrally located in one area of the facility,' Burguan said. Police didn't exchange gunfire with the shooters, he added."
I guess we need to make sure everyone is armed and ready to fire at all times in the whole country. That way we'll have fewer shootings.
Going to the gym? Wear an ankle holster. Going to Starbucks? Pack your trusty 12-gauge. /sarcasm
But I am yet to see anyone change their pre-existing opinion as a result of these discussions.
I understand that this is important news, but it doesn't really seem to fit with Slashdot's theme of news for nerds. I suppose if it were at some event that was tech/nerd related there would be enough of a reason, but this apparently has nothing to do with either of those things.
But I suppose it will generate a lot of page views and ad impressions for Dice as people rehash the same arguments over and over again.
So, we have no idea who did it or why.
But The President is already calling for new gun control laws.
And I'm expecting to hear within the next couple of days that this could have been prevented if we'd not stripped the Feds of the authority to do mass surveillance on the US population...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Yes, if only California had gun laws, this could have been averted.
"Long guns."
How weirdly vague.
It depends on the people, I would think. Lone nuts with a grudge are probably so delusional it won't stop them. Organised terrorist groups might be deterred, but then again, the guys in France didn't seem too worried about the inevitable shoot out, and came prepared with suicide vests. Alternatively, they could just change tactics and go for bombs like the Boston Marathon bombers did. Not much good being armed will be when a nail bomb blows up ten feet away from you.
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
The reality is that we can't prevent all mass killings. Even countries like China and Iran, with incredibly restrictive gun laws, still suffer terrorist attacks.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I went to the local gun range today and was chatting with the owner. His business spiked since the Paris shootings, with weekly concealed carry classes booked solid through February. With this he's going to have his best Christmas sales season in years.
I'm not sure what scares me more -- random shootings, or the thought of so many yokels with concealed carry permits who've only fired a gun once or twice in their, now life trying to return fire (or thinking they can).
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Don't rush to the "terrorism" label so fast, it could just be some mentally disturbed individuals.
Once we find out their race and religion we'll be able to make the distinction.
I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
If this ends up being a verified political terrorist attack in the vein of Paris, it will get real ugly around here.
But it seems like an unlikely choice for a political attack -- no real symbolism, and not even really much of a government symbol. I would expect anti-western terrorists to attack a mall or some other symbol of decadence -- and to die doing it, right down to the explosive vests.
It almost seems like a gang hit or some other kind of targeted killing, considering the attackers drove away. There's a lot more to this story than a lunatic with a gun or some kind of jihad.
So everyone is talking about San Bernardino CA. Here is a twist: Did you know this was the 2nd mass shooting in the U.S. for today?
Not kidding. Earlier today in Savannah GA was another mass shooting. Another twist: This is not unusual!
On many days in the U.S., there is more than 1 mass shooting. U.S. mass shootings (meaning 4 or more people shot in an event or related events) are a daily occurrence. Starting today, we'd have to go back to November 10 to find three consecutive days without a mass shooting.
As a Canadian looking at the news flowing across the border, this boggles my mind.
Source 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/GunsA...
Source 2: http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
This is how far America has come? 14 dead is no longer considered a "mass" shooting, just a plain old everyday event?
"Actually, moron"
Let me stop you there as you are being moronic. You seem to understand the volume of guns but seem to think something can magically make them go away? Not going to happen. 3d printed guns? Zip guns? And the fact that there are, as you say, 250 million proper guns.
Think about this -- with reasonable care, guns last centuries. There are multitudes of 17th century guns that can still fire -- never mind the NEW stuff.
I think you need to find a different solution.
Less guns means you believe in magic.
Not a mass shooting, that is a terrorist attack: "1 to 3 suspects on loose"
Well then clearly, we should get an international coalition together, and begin bombing strategic targets in San Bernardino.
AK-47 Type meaning "scary" rifle that is functionally the same as a hunting rifle, but "Scary" looking.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The definition of a mass shooting is an event where 3 or more people are shot.
We should do it by total weight, instead.
I'm sure that worked in France.
In 2013, the US had 3.55 gun homicides per 100k residents. France had 0.22. That's 94% less. So whatever France is doing seems to work pretty well.
I'm happy the cops here have guns;
He isn't against guns. He is only against civilians having guns. He also doesn't understand the reason for Amendment #2 is precisely because government tyrants love their own guns.
In a nutshell, he is the reason I want to have guns.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
In a typical year, just over 300 people are killed by those things in the US.
Huh? That number seems low. As of October 1, according to the Washington Post, there were 294 mass shootings so far in 2015, and that was still with three months left in the year. That accounted for 380 deaths so far, with well over 1,000 injured.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal claims "the US leads the world in mass shootings." http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Sure, you have to be mentally unstable in some way to think that shooting is the answer...
Every major conflict throughout human history has been solved through violence.
Repeal the 2nd amendment or stop posting unconstitutional non-starters.
A "civilian" AK-47 (semi-auto) is (a) LEGAL, and (b) easy to buy LEGALLY in most parts of the country. (including CA). To people who don't know any better, everything is an AK-47; it's likely the only gun designation they know. (if pushed, "M-16" might come up, but no one commits crimes with american guns.)
As for full-auto... that's a simple modification to a large selection of semi-auto weapons. Sure, it's illegal, but that doesn't make it any bit harder.
Actually, moron, it's a reason to ban guns. Less guns means less gun violence. I'm tired of living in a country where idiots continually respond to gun violence by saying "We need more guns."
We don't need 250 million guns. We need less guns. I'm happy the cops here have guns; it's pretty clear I have less to fear from them than I do from the civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Ban guns.
That pesky 2nd amendment will need to be changed before you can just go out and collect all the guns... And don't be fooled, you will need to collect ALL of them... But I fear that your biggest obstacle will be modifying the constitution and until you do, NOTHING will really change here, Private ownership of guns will continue.
Assuming you get the constitution changed and remove the 2nd amendment, Welcome to Utopia. (NOT!).. Sure, some will willingly turn in their weapons once you get the laws changed, but others will not. What are you going to do? Grab the jack boots and literally search every nook and cranny of everybody's homes, cars, properties and persons.... Oh, wait, you are going to need to change that pesky constitution again and remove another couple of amendments....
So, do you understand how your idea is naïve and unworkable? How you will need to trample on the vary legal foundations of the country? How stupid this whole idea of yours really is?
I'm open to debate what we can do about this kind of craziness, but eliminating all guns is a non-starter. It's not possible with our current constitutional framework. Outlawing guns doesn't solve the problem and there is evidence it actually makes the situation worse.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Call The police... They are only minutes away when seconds count...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I have to come down on the non-gun side here... the people attacked are developmentally disabled, which means that they are members of a class who would not be permitted firearms in the first place, independently of whether or not the general population were more likely to be carrying guns.
I know RTFA is passe, but you should have. The shootings took place at a center for developmentally disabled people that provides services to them, apparently at a Christmas party. "It employs nearly 670 people at its facilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties,...", and you would expect a Christmas party would have a significant number of said employees present, even if it is just to provide services to the disabled people.
Therefore, unless you consider people who provide services to the disabled to be ineligible for carry permits, there is a significant chance that looser carry policies might have resulted in a different outcome.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
In an enclosed space, range is not a significant discriminator, the ability to direct fire is. Yes, rate of fire does matter, but your claim that longer range wins out is incorrect.
What is particularly galling about this is that Mr. Obama has chosen yet another tragedy as a chance to politicize the issue. "Obama said Congress should act in a bipartisan manner to close loopholes, including one that allows people on the TSA no-fly list to legally purchase firearms." Because, of course, we know that everyone on the no-fly list is a convicted criminal who has evil intentions towards everyone else on the planet. From this report:
So, you can get on the list for some reason, cannot find out who is on the list, and have a difficult time getting off.
Given that the names on the list are not released to the public, it would be very hard for a dealer to know someone is on the list and should not be sold a weapon.
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
Your imagination doesn't match reality.
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
I'm happy the cops here have guns
You sound white.
Can't you see that your reasoning is just as arrogant and single-minded as the poster you're attacking. The problem is that the discussion always ends up being framed as "no guns at all" vs. "guns for everyone", and the hardliners effectively prevent any sensible solutions. You are just as much part of the problem as the gun control proponents you seem to loathe so much...
You think ban rifles will lead criminals have less rifles? Yeah, yeah. Like the alcohol prohibition really worked.
Don't rush to the "terrorism" label so fast, it could just be some mentally disturbed individuals.
Considering the shooting was at Inland Regional center, a center for developmentally disabled people, it is a high possibility of a former or current patient despite their race or religion.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
We really need media control.
I would say, that 1st amendment has limits. If shouting "fire" in the theater will get you in jail, because of the potential psychosis and stampede, the same way mass hysteria channels CNN, NBC, FOX and MSNBC, would have a right to report only statistically representative events. This should not apply to real mainstream news - Facebook, etc, because that is how many of the people get news, and Facebook is, in a way, glorified gossip club. All television does is promotion of a cheap way to get publicity.
Before one mass shooting is reported on television, there would be a forceful reporting automobile accidents, suicides, drownings, medication overdoses, cardiac arrests, hospital errors. Statistically, death from violent terrorist attack is so statistically rare that in a year there would hardly any re-portable event.
At the same time, this would be eradication of advertising, and an incentive, for those potential mass shooters/terrorists.
For they want nothing else, but fame, glory, to be shown and talked about on the news. This needs to be stopped.
__________
I am praying for the victims tonight.
And Mexico had more than that, amd they have gun laws. The US has always been more violent. Blame the drug war, which is where the killings come from.
If these are actual AK-47s, they're considered Assault Weapons under California Law and, if unregistered, are illegal. They were banned by name in 1989.
If they're AK-47 "clones" (since AK-47 is an actual trade name, not a rifle description), then out of the box, they meet the Assault Weapon criteria established in the 2000 ban, and must have been registered at that time, or they're illegal.
To have a legal, modern rifle based on the AK-47 platform, they must remove specific features that make them an Assault Weapon. Typically this is done by mounting a 10 round magazine in a fashion that can only be removed by a tool.
If they're using a modern, AK-47 pattern rifle, with removable, 30 round magazines, the rifles are illegal, and the magazines are likely illegal (magazines greater than 10 rounds were grandfathered in in the year 2000, after than they're illegal to purchase or manufacture). Rifles like this are banned already in California.
So, very likely this attack was perpetrated using illegal rifles and magazines.
Lol.. no someone is going to manufacture 3d printed guns illegally and sell them while other guns will get smuggled into the country. It happens with drugs and other crap already so there is nothing to suggest it won't happen if all guns get outlawed.
New York tried that. This is one example of a weapon specifically constructed* for the buyback and the several hundred dollars paid per gun turned in.
*It works. So you would literally have to shut down every hardware store and confiscate 2x4s and plumbing supplies to "get guns off the street". Good luck with that.
Have gnu, will travel.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, I think you are wrong, we need more guns in the right hands... Follow me on this...
MORE guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually provides a deterrence by making it more risky for criminals who choose to use their guns illegally. Shooters generally choose "soft" targets, places where they know guns are less common such as movie theaters or public schools for a reason. Further, having armed law abiding citizens means that it is more likely a criminal shooter will be confronted with deadly force sooner which is very likely to end the shooting event sooner as most shooters will withdraw or commit suicide when they are confronted.
So, more guns in the right hands will deter mass shootings and when they do happen (and they will) having more guns in the right hands will lower the body counts. So I conclude we need MORE guns out there, in the right hands.
Then there is the whole constitutional problem the "less guns" folks try to ignore. The only way 'less guns" works is if you go out and take the majority of the guns in circulation now and destroy them, but legally you cannot do this in any practical way I can imagine. The Second Amendment makes gun ownership a right of the people and the courts have upheld this right so you cannot take it away, short of removing the second amendment. Plus, short of going out and doing an exhaustive search for weapons (think of jackboots going door to door) and confiscating them the only people you will disarm by making guns illegal are the very people you really want to be armed. Exhaustive searches are also a constitutional problem, so you are going to need to make another change or two in that pesky bill of rights.
So stop this emotional "Less Guns" idea. Where I understand the emotional appeal, it's totally unworkable as an idea due to the Bill of Rights, will arguably have exactly the opposite affect you desire, and simply cannot solve the problem.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Chuckle. Because being in compliance with the law is certainly at the top of any mass killers list :D
Donald Trump knows how to make 11 million living, breathing Mexicans 'go away'. I'm sure he can get rid of a few hundred million guns...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
the reason for Amendment #2 is precisely because government tyrants love their own guns.
That's one interpretation of "A well regulated militia being...". There are others, including some that hew a little closer to the meaning of the words in, oh, the English language.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
What? Ok, they may be denied a CCP, or even a handgun permit. But there are plenty of "no paperwork" firearms that ANYONE can get.
Only illegally. In the State of California, ALL firearms transfers must be completed through an FFL dealer; any out-of-State firearm must also be registered with the State.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes it is! more laws will stop them! Just like how speed laws stopped speeding, Drug laws stopped drugs, and there is zero prostitution cince they passed those laws against paying money for sex.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I will defend this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic. You ever hear that one?
Lol. "Sensible speech control". This is going places.
Or you can compare one nation against itself, before and after. Of course, that would require you to be intellectually honest.
I'll skip the fallacies and go straight to the factual errors.
We don't need 250 million guns.
Excessive hyperbole.
310 million civil firearms in the USA in 2009
civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Excessive hyperbole.
355 mass shootings this year so far.
On the other hand
There are more criminals than cops
I was surprised but that one hods true: In 2008, 1.2M police officers vs. 2.4M incarcerated people. To put in perspective, USA represents 4.4% of the world's population and 24.7% of the world's incarcerated population.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I guess it could minimize fatalities, but I'm thinking of a bunch of armed people firing at each other in a relative small place and wondering if as many people would end up struck by "friendly" bullets as by the mass shooters.
Your imagination doesn't match reality.
Given how media favors gun control, every single incident where a citizen killed bystanders with "friendly fire" would be widely reported on as evidence for guns causing more harm than good.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?
Enigma
So you're using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
I'd be curious as t how many mass shootings have ever actually been met with resistance by armed citizens (not police or other armed security types). I got this list from the Washington Post, which the writer intentionally excluded off duty police our soldiers from (I'm not sure if that's fair or not):
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I think having armed citizens might prevent some, but probably not all mass shootings. I think this idea that just blindly adding more guns into the mix is just going to make things safer seems a leap without a good deal of evidence behind that.
Also consider that, no matter how distressing mass shootings are (which, I suppose, is the point why these people do them), they make up only a tiny percentage of gun crimes in America.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But not all Muslims are bad, as compared to those gun owners that are all bad.
How do we do that? The closes before and after I can think of is Australia.
In Australia firearm use in homicide has dropped by nearly half since the their gun laws were brought in. There has been a rise in sharp instrument usage though.
1996 was when the strict gun laws came in and from 1996 back to 1979 only 1990 & 1989 had under 600 gun deaths in a year (595 & 545) respectively. 1997 had 428, 1998 to 2001 were averaging around 320 and from 2002 to 2012 the number floated around the 230 mark.
In the same period homicides, by ANY method, were at the 340 level (range 312 to 360) in the years up to 1996 and then dropped to about the 250 level (ranging from 164 to up to 273) for the period after. Interestingly the total change in homicide rate is close to half the decrease in firearm deaths.
This may totally be the case of correlation and have absolutely no direct link. But that is about the best comparison I can find of a recent before vs after in a developed country.
Information is taken from http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea... I make no statement as to the bias of the website, if any. I also have not done my own rigorous double blind study and acknowledge that statistics can be skewed to paint what ever picture you want it to. I also acknowledge that Australia shares no land borders with other countries meaning illegal importation of firearms is significantly harder, that Australia does not have the level of racial tension as the US, or has a 2nd amendment equivalent, and is just down right a different country.
Three guys driving up in an SUV, shooting up the place, and driving away must be quite an office dispute. Sounds more like an intra-office war over a red stapler.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Wasn't that supposed to be the way things worked in the Old West? Funny, you'd think that if that had been such an effective technique, it would have spread, instead of being fairly uncommon even in places where going open-carry was once supposed to be the norm.
I'll let others debate the wisdom of adding even more ammunition ricocheting about, but what I find more interesting is that supposedly the entire nation of Germany (not exactly known for being "faint-hearted") fires off less police ammunition in an entire year than a single SWAT raid in Atlanta uses.
The USA believes that guns are magic and can solve all problems. Don't like being told you can't smoke in a diner? Stand Your Ground and shoot the employees! Laid off? Go back and klll them all! Don't like Planned Parenthood? Exterminate! Rejected for a date? Blow away your school!
I really don't care if gun ownership is restricted or not in the abstract. My house is chock-full of things that can kill people. Heck, I have cabinets full of bottles with more than 3 ounces each in them! Whether you have a gun or not is less important than how responsibly you use it. If certain people can be reliably be determined to be prone to irresponsible use of guns - or for that matter, for anything, then it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to want to limit their access.
Something needs to be done, and I doubt that simply passing laws is going to solve it. We've gotten to the point where mass shootings are like Windows Virus alerts - so common that people have begun to give up even taking notice. Ho-hum, here we go again.
So you're using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
Sometimes it is. There are no shortage of defensive firearm shootings in the US.
The people with a vested interest in pointing out the cons have not done so. Is it because they're too stupid to calculate the numbers? Or is it because they don't think it will help their preferred position?
When "highly trained" police officers shoot nine innocent civilians [cnn.com] when trying to shoot a suspect, what are the chances that Joe Blow (who hasn't been to the range since he got his concealed carry permit) will avoid collateral damage?
Low.
It takes dedication to get a CCW, and Joe Blow will get sued for millions and become the Public Enemy of America if he screws up.
Joe Blow has skin in the game. The police don't have a legal duty to protect you.
our number includes suicide, theirs doesnt. take 2/3rds of that number to make it more apples to apples
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Numbers of guns aside (we are talking 300 million plus here) there is the issue of the Constitution. You have to remember that in the US the Constitution is above Federal law. All laws have to conform to it, it overrides, and thus the rights in the Bill of Rights section of it are rather sacred and protected.
Now if can be changed, but it is quite hard. It's only happened 17 times (the first 10 came in when the Constitution was first signed). First an amendment hast to be introduced. That requires either 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to vote for it. If either doesn't meet that super majority, it isn't introduced. Otherwise is requires 2/3rds of states to apply to congress to call a national convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution (this has never happened).
However that doesn't amend the Constitution, just introduce an amendment. Then it goes to the states themselves. 3/4ths of the states must then vote to ratify the amendment the Constitution. If enough states don't ratify, it doesn't become law.
So getting rid of the second amendment would requires a VERY large amount of Americans to support it to happen. And pure numbers don't matter, distribution does since it comes to the states. Even if 100% of the population in the populous states wants an amendment, if enough of the less populous don't want it, it can't happen.
Well, without getting rid of the second amendment, a gun ban can't happen. There have been numerous court rulings affirming that it is an individual right, as the other rights are, and thus the government can't just ban gun private ownership. They can regulate it, and they do, but they can't outright ban it without changing the Constitution which would be real, real, unlikely to happen.
I'm wondering, could the government simply buy both the guns and gun licenses back?
No.
Make it voluntary, and make it worth doing (ie buy the guns back for more than they are worth). Would that even work, or is it just a complete waste of money?
Waste of money. Gun "buy-backs" are mostly used to get rid of (and get more than scrap value for) worthless rusted-out scrap guns and untraceably dispose of stolen guns and guns used in murders or other crimes. (Then there was that bad divorce where the gun collector's disgruntled wife stole his multi-million-buck collection and handed it to the cops for pennies on the dollar, just to annoy, and cause trouble for, her estranged hubby.) Pay enough and you'll also get people buying (or making!) cheap guns to "sell back". But you'll never get any substantial number of privately owned decent guns - even if you paid the much higher price that they'd bring at a gun store, rather than the usual pittance. Armed people are generally armed because they WANT to be armed, not because it's cheap.
The whole 'cold dead hands' thing is troubling. I've never understood why people need so much fire power.
Look into the origin of the right: The people who wrote the Second Amendment had just OVERTHROWN their LEGITAMATE (but recently gone tyrannical) GOVERMENT. They were trying to set things up so that they would be able to do so if they needed to again while simultaneously deterring a repeat - both of tyranny and its needed overthrow.
The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting. It's about revolutions and avoiding tyranny and genocide. It's about defending yourself against bad guys - at the retail and wholesale level - rather than depending on others to do it for you (and to put your interests ahead of their own). The "cold dead hands" crew believe it is, not just their right, but their DUTY, to be armed. Like fire insurance, being armed and competent to use arms is a price you pay to mitigate rare-but-costly disasters.
Is our society really that violent? Crime stats say otherwise.
Our society is not very violent, despite all the hype. People of European descent have substantially lower victimization (murder, robbery, etc.) rates than the same ethnic group in "The Old Country". People of African descent have substantially lower victimization rates than the same ethnic group THEIR old country. Ditto with Asia, South and Central America, etc.
When comparing rates, watch out for some gotchas:
- The US counts a murder when there's a body and signs of foul play. The UK counts a murder when there's a con viction.
- If daddy kills his three kids, his wife, and then himself (or makes an attempt to kill himself) the US counts four murders and a suicide, while Japan counts five suicides. ("Family Suicide")
and so on.
- Count "crimes", not just "gun crimes". (You're just as dead if you're clubbed or cut to death as if you're shot, but the latter is a higher percentage where guns are available then where they're not. Also: You're more likely to survive a shooting, and if you survive you'll generally recover more quickly and completely from a shooting than a clubbing or stabbing.)
But while you're at it, don't forget to count the dead in wars, "ethnic clensing", and other organized and government/power-group sanctioned mayhem. Armed populations strongly deter such activities - compare the last 2 1/2 centuries in Eurasia (with their world wars and genocides) vs. the US (one revolution, one "Civil War", the frontier expansion conflicts, various civil rights movements. The rest is mostly getting dragged into stuff "over there" - often by "our" own "leaders" working in interests other than that of the general population.)
It has been observed that EVERY genocide has been preceded by the disarmament of the victim population. "Never again" includes "... will we be disarmed and powerless."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So a guy gets into an argument, runs home, tells his friends, the three of them decide to suit up, grab their 'long rifles' and a bunch of pipe bombs and head back to the community center and shoot it up??? Wow.
"My house is chock-full of things that can kill people. Heck, I have cabinets full of bottles with more than 3 ounces each in them! Whether you have a gun or not is less important than how responsibly you use it."
Killing is a gun's sole utility. None of your other household items share that quality. In a pinch, of course they could do the job, given you have enough strength to overwhelm your opponent, or they're left unaware. Responsibility is kind of a moot point of comparison given how difficult it is to "accidentally" kill someone with a wrench.
Instead, there is silence on that topic because citizens using guns in self defense save lives.
Actually, a University of Pennsylvania study (DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099) examined over 600 incidents in the Philly area, and found that carrying a gun actually increases ones chances of getting shot and killed:
* https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
And not by a small amount: by 4.5x (450%). You're actually much safer being unarmed, statistically speaking.
Yawn. That argument has been total bullshit since the day it first oozed out of someone's ass. Shootings happen in all kinds of places, and good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns. It's a fantasy, and we should stop basing policy on fantasies.
There have been multiple studies on this. The majority conclude that the firearms laws of 1997 had no affect on homicide by firearm rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We currently have more firearms in Australia than before the buyback in 1997 (I don't know the comparative rates though). Either way, ownership rates dropped precipitously in 1997, and as the homicide rate by firearm continued it's already established downward trend (a fairly linear trend starting well before 1997) the ownership rate has climbed.
Australia has had multiple mass shootings and other mass murders since 1997 (you often hear claims Australia has not had any).
New Zealand is the best example of sensible firearms laws. You could practically use them as a control group against Australia's too stringent laws. Most importantly, they have a lower homicide rate by firearms than Australia, and a lower overall homicide rate than Australia.
New Zealand have not restricted semi-automatic rifles, high capacity magazines, or particular firearm calibers. License periods are longer, and there are fewer registration requirements for firearms.
Militia means the common people being called upon to fight. Straight away this encompasses all citizens.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/g...
http://www.constitution.org/co...
(and for future reference, the English language is not static, so interpretation must be done in the context of the period a piece was written)
California has every single law you asked for except an insurance requirement, and it still happened here. I seriously doubt adding an insurance requirement would have stopped this.
"We should be doing the same for guns at a minimum."
California already requires a license, with an associated test to purchase a firearm. The license is called a Firearms Safety Certificate. It has been required here for years.
The license needs to be renewed every five years, and you must pass the test again in order to renew.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fs...
It used to be called the HSC for handguns, but a few years back they changed it to the FSC for all firearms.
" If your gun is stolen and used in a crime you would share in the liability, - especially if your gun was not stored in a safe manor. "
Safe storage in a secure container is the law here. It is a misdemeanour with loss of firearms rights for 10 years if you are caught not storing it correctly. Additionally you are liable for any crime that was caused by your firearm if it was not stored properly and an unauthorized individual got a hold of it.
"A gun should have a title associated with it that gets transferred even in the event of a private sale"
All guns must have a serial number on the frame. The serial number is registered to the owner and the registration is transferred even with a "private sale", inheritance, or any other legal transfer.
As an aside, there are no "private sales" in Californa. All sales must go through a licensed gun store. Even gun shows.
The only exception to this is "Curio and Relic" firearms, meaning the gun 50+ years old, and they have to be on a list designating them as such. Usually to get on this list it means they no longer make ammo for the gun. Last time I looked, there was only a handful of times a C&R firearm was used in a crime since they time they started keeping records.
"gun dealerships should be expected to perform due diligence before selling anyone a gun"
California requires a background check on all persons, they must also wait 10 days and posses a valid FSC before taking possession of a firearm. The purchaser must show two forms of ID, one must be a California state ID (or driver license) the other must have your address on it. The address must match your ID. California also requires a safe handling demonstration where the buyer must show they know how to safely load, unload, and operate the safety of the firearm they wish to purchase. The firearm shop is expected to do these checks.
The owner of the gun shop faces criminal liability (meaning go to jail, not just fines) if the shop does not follow the law. Some gun shops were shut down in the southern part of the state recently due to the owner being "not good".
"More to your point, certain kinds of mental illness would lead to the loss of gun licensure and if your mentally ill son shoots up a mall with your guns, you will be held responsible. "
This is already law here. A 5150 (going nuts and being admitted to the hospital for observation) results in an automatic 10-year loss of guns rights.
The state department of justice has a group called APPS, (that had some growing pains when they first started) that goes out and confiscates the firearms of people who were 5150ed before they get out of the hospital.
Any persons who provides a firearm to an ineligable person is guilty of a felony. If you give a gun to your crazy kid and the cops find out then you go to jail, even if your crazy kid didn't shoot up the mall.
More firearms laws won't fix this. All they will do is annoy the folks that have firearms as their hobby.
We need a culture change where crazy people don't feel that killing a bunch of people is the solution to their problems.
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
Firstly I'm not actually arguing that Australia's gun laws aren't too strict. As a competitive pistol shooter they are seriously annoying around things like the number of shoots per pistol. Especially since I like to use different 22s for different comps and this means I have to do a stupid number of matches a year to be compliant. I also have a pistol that can be chambered for two different rounds so it counts as two separate pistols for compliance (BLERGH).
That said this whole thing started with a comment about comparing the US to Mexico. Mexico is fucked up in all kind of ways that will skew crime figures an absolute mile. I would be kinda depressed if I was living in a first world country and trying to use a developing country as a way of arguing my system was ok. Australia does not have its system perfect, and whether it made a difference is always arguable because we don't know what Australia would look like without the laws.
In the end the US has a crazy level of gun violence. That gun violence might just be a symptom of a society that has issues, or it might be an issue with firearms. I think, though, that there are limited arguments against making it harder for guns to end up in the black market, or making it harder for people to own guns. Christ they are talking about making them register flying a fucking drone, but making people register their guns and to have a valid reason to own them is too far?
As for Australia
Mass shootings in Australia since the 28-4-96 Port Arthur Massacre.
21-10-2002 - Huan Yun Xiang - 2 people killed at Monash university
29-4-2011 - Donato Anthony Corobo - 3 people killed, 3 injured
9-11-2014 - Geoff Hunt - Murder Suicide - Killed his wife and 3 kids before killing himself.
Please let me know if I've missed any.
There was a downward trend in firearm related homicides prior to 1996 but there is a significant vertical step in the trend line that occurred in 1996. See here - http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
Licensed gun owners in Australia:
2001 - 764,518
2010 - 873,625
2012 - 730,000
Number of registered firearms per 100 of population
2012: 12.499
2010: 12.44
2001: 11.22
Now how good a shot is Joe Blow? Grandma?
Good enough. When's the last time you heard the Media reporting that a Joe Blow or Grandma caused the wrongful death of an innocent bystander?
If it's such a problem, why is the Media not reporting on it when it happens? Is it because gun manufacturers have silenced the Media?
Or is the Media not saying anything because it does not happen, because it's not actually a problem?
We really need media control.
No. Because someone (or some group) would have the power to decide what gets censored and what doesn't. And that power would be abused horribly eventualy, there's no way to avoid it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Except most people shot in the US are contained in pockets of festering inter-generational poverty. Account for that variable and the US is just as safe as Europe if not more so.
The organized mass shootings in France are notable for their level of organization and the fact that they weren't limited to impoverished housing estates.
For Slashdot reader, the danger of being shot is the same in the US as it is in Europe. Any hysteria to the contrary is just people allowing themselves to fall prey to media propaganda.
In one incident, France managed to instantly catch up to all of the recent shootings that the media actually cares about in the US.
If anything, the prospect of well organized mass shootings and suicide bombers makes France FAR more dangerous to the average Slashdot reader.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Bullshit! A long gun is:
- Difficult to conceal
- Much more powerful than a gun that isn't a long gun
- Much less powerful than crew served weaponry
- Not generally capable of projecting explosives at range
- Less able to be maneuvered at close range or in buildings
- More capable of punching through light cover
- Able to fire more powerful rounds, and at longer ranges, than other weapons
The long gun could be a rifle or shotgun. It's not obvious which from long distance glimpses, so to claim it's a "semi automatic rifle" might be wrong- it could be a shotgun.
It's tactically useful, it's descriptive, and unlike bullshit media fuckstick terms, it's *correct*. It's also common parlance among anyone who deals with guns.
Or you live in any developed country other than the USA...
So because the solution is hard and would take a long time we shouldnt do it?
Welcome to modern America folks!
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
True. But the sherrif that gave that information was used to the term "long gun" in his daily work conversations so he probably just used it naturally.
What is the function of an armed population? The answer is to balance the power of the people and government. They are for the protection of the people against a government that would coerce the population, that is why you have the right to bare arms in countries, so the population can respond to domestic threats. These events are an unfortunate consequence of having that freedom and any discussion about the merits of an armed population must be weighed up against that.
The question I'm wondering is why does this happen so frequently in the U.S whereas it doesn't happen in Canada or other armed populations? Making them illegal won't help because a criminal won't care if it is an illegal weapon, weapons training, whilst useful isn't helping, nor is it a law enforcement issue because police have plenty of powers of arrest.
It is fairly easy to see what the issue is *not* so is there a cultural issue driving these shootings? Are people so excluded from society that they feel this is the only option left?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Especially since "rifle" refers to the groves in the barrel, not the size of the weapon.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
The jews were disarmed before they were rounded up during WWII. How did not having a way to protect themselves work out for them?
Are you seriously suggesting that the German Jews of the 1930s, if they had not had gun ownership restrictions, would have been able to successfully resist the Gestapo, SD, SS and Wehrmacht? Or that the above organizations would have said to themselves, "Whoa. Our political ideology is based on blaming 'international Jewry' for the economic woes of the Aryan German volk. Since the early '20s we've been very clear in saying we'd like to see them out of Germany entirely... one way or another. But some of them have rifles or handguns, and AMG (Ach Mein Gott!) concealed carry permits! Let's back off and not implement the Final Solution."
And, by the way, the majority of Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland, Soviet territories or otherwise outside Germany. How did not being subject to Germany's confiscation of Jews' guns work out for them? How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?
There are plenty of valid reasons for responsible people to own guns. To claim that one of them is because it will prevent tyranny by one's own government in the modern era is totally fucking batshit insane. Find a real justification.
"95% of all Slashdot
Moving to Switzerland, I was delighted to learn about the marriage procedures.
EVERYONE gets "married" in the local council offices. You can bring some witnesses along, you can dress up nice, but you can't sing, pray or do anything that the mayor has not authorised. And the mayor is NOT authorised herself to permit singing blahblahblah. It's a legal process. The end. No coffee and tea, no hymns, no anecdotes, no booze. You get your 30 minute window, then you get the fuck out of the way FAST so the next marriage can proceed.
AFTER THAT, you can to the church of your choice and do a "wedding" if you want, but there's no requirement to and no obligation either.
The wedding has NO OFFICIAL STATE RECOGNITION. Never has.
And this country is resolutely Christian in its culture.
Most people willingly pay the "ecclesiastical tax" to either the protestant or catholic church organisations.
The parent is correct. There's an easy win fix to the problem, but no will to do so, cause then OH NO - TEH GAYZ WILL PERVERT OUR KIDZ !!!
Fucking Americans are fucking stupid.
Nothing will stop a bad guy with a gun. Not a good guy with a gun, not many good guys with bigger guns, not a police force that takes 15 minutes to respond, and not a disarmed population. But that is because Bad Guys are Bad Guys before guns get into the equation - victims get up and go about their day, while Bad Guys plan to do terrible things in advance and enter the victims' space intending to do harm. These aren't wild west gunfights in the street, these are more like guerilla surprise strikes.
This is dumb as hell that when someone does something horrible to someone else with a gun, we flip our shit about the gun. But I suppose you can't legislate people to be nice to each other, and it's good play to attack your opponent du jour for not doing enough to restrict the guns that "caused" the problem.
We're a melting pot of different cultures and beliefs, we welcome everyone from the doctors to the dregs of every society to come here. We embrace the diversity, which is wonderful. But that includes the assholes, the bigots, the hateful, the prejudiced, those who intend to do harm, and those who can be swayed to do it. As a people we cover almost the entire spectrum of every conceivable faith, dogma, moral structure, opinion, and incompatible code that can possibly exist in this world. As a country we throw our weight around and stick our noses into everything we can, we bring out way to the corners of the globe because it is right, and of course it is, it must be, and we welcome even those people that we offend into our lands with open arms. Even internally we divide ourselves, label our enemies as left/right wing nutjobs, draw political lines, and point fingers at each other because we didn't vote for the leaders in charge. And somehow removing legal guns from the equation will make everything perfect. It's all so simple, no wonder we're so mad at the NRA.
i think there plenty of other countries around the world with guns laws disagree.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I love how you write ZERO in all caps, but then state that it would take an afternoon. Me thinks you have ZERO knowledge of the definition of ZERO effort.
I'd say the average CCW holder goes to the range far more often than most police officers. I go at least once a week, but my officer friend only goes when he has to qualify.
That's pretty mean to say about France.
Look, my state wants to make cold medicine prescription only. They want to do this to fight meth. Yet almost no meth today is made with cold medicine. Cold medicine is almost always bought by legal users who will never make meth. Most meth now is made by bulk chemicals brought into this country from mexico. It's easier to work with, cheaper, and less risk.
The same can be said about guns. Most users are legal and will never use their gun in a crime. Mass shoots are rare and just like drugs, if we make them illegal the users will find other means of getting their insanity in action. The only thing taking away guns will do is hurt the legal owners of guns. It will not deter crime, mass shootings, or anything else. The only way this could even start to work is if we could find a way to collect all our existing guns. In my state alone that would be impossible as there are no records of gun owners from person to person sales.
The answer here imho is to enforce existing gun laws, improve the background check process to include databases for mental illness, create a federal universal standard for CCW that is accepted in all 50 states (My state for example requires no tests, just some cash and fingerprints), and remove restrictions on conceal carry. You ever notice most mass shootings are at places and events where it is illegal to carry a gun?
Lastly, if Australian gun laws are really something the country wants to do we better start working on a constitutional amendment. Without changing the constitution any attempt at this will fail.
And, by the way, the majority of Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland, Soviet territories or otherwise outside Germany. How did not being subject to Germany's confiscation of Jews' guns work out for them?
Mind you, at the time, a number of these states had restrictive gun ownership laws that were fairly similar to those of Nazi Germany. So in many cases, there was no real difference with regard to the capability (or lack thereof) for Jewish self-defence. That having been said, in this whole context it is vitally important to remember that the Nazis managed to keep the true nature of the Holocaust a secret from the majority of the population, including Jews that were still at large, or living in ghettoes and such, during the entire duration of the Third Reich. Sure, anti-semitism was widespread, and far too few people objected to "the Jews" being taken away for "deportation", or to "labor camps". These were the reasons that were publicly given for removing Jewish people from their places of residence: and to their shame, hardly anyone in the non-Jewish population batted an eyelid to this happening (as if "just" deporting an entire part of the population was a tolerable thing to happen!).
However, had they actually known that the place "the Jews" were headed to was not just "labor camps", but actual death camps - well, there is no way to say what would have happened, had people actually known this. IMHO, at least Jewish self-defence would likely have been much more pronounced: if you know that you are going to die anyway (as opposed to being sent to some labor camp, which sounds at least theoretically survivable), you become much more motivated to make any sort of attempt to fight back.
There was actually a precedent why the Nazis decided to keep the Holocaust such a state secret, even with Anti-Semitism being rampant in the population: and that was the outcome of Aktion T4. Basically, there was such a public outcry over their earlier programme to straight out kill mentally handicapped people for "reasons of public health", that the programme had to be halted. To put this into full perspective, you have to realise that this push-back against Nazi policy took place while Nazi Germany was already a fully developed police state that was at war. And still public opinion was so much against T4 happening, that the party leadership caved in. No wonder that they chose to do their dirty work in total secrecy from then on.
How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?
You do realise that the main reason for the Warsaw Uprising to fail was the swinish behaviour of the Soviets in the whole matter? The Polish Underground Army started the uprising to co-incide with the Red Army reaching Warsaw in time to join in on the whole thing, which would have made the outcome of the fight a foregone conclusion. What they had not counted on was that the Polish underground fighters were, by and large, not communists - and were therefore expendable to Stalin, and were rather seen as a problem by themselves. So the Soviets patiently stopped on the outskirts of Warsaw while the uprising went on, waited until the Germans had finished off the Poles, and only then took Warsaw.
So the failure of the uprising is hardly a valid data point to argue against armed insurrections in general. You just have to time them right, and pick the right sort of allies for them to succeed.
You will note that those gun free zones were within larger areas with easy availability of guns, and insufficient protection between the gun free and non gun free zones.
E.g. schools in Canada don't get so many gun shootings even though they are gun free. I.e. because Canada as a whole doesn't have easy availability of guns and protection between the US and Canada is strong. But they would if the only protection Canada had from American guns was a signboard with "gun free zone" printed on it with many exclamation signs.
So being gun free is not what encourages shootings- it is the porous border between gun free and non gun free zones.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
There were 10 attackers according to that article, so that's 3 victims each. Do you think really think 10 attackers armed with guns and murderous intent would have only killed 3 people each?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
good guys with guns never, ever stop bad guys with guns. It's a fantasy
A recent CDC-commissioned report found that defensive gun use happens *at least* as often (if not more often) than criminal gun use. But let's see a list of things that "never ever" happened:
In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”
In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”
In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested.
Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.
In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty.
In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to
How did the Warsaw uprising work out for anyone?
The Warsaw Uprising worked quite well. The German occupying forces were significantly weakened by Polish insurgents just prior to the arrival of the advancing Russian forces, exactly as intended. That the Russians decided to pause their advance just outside of Warsaw, allowing the decimated Germans to slaughter the remains of the Polish insurgency before capturing Warsaw for mother Russia, is no fault of the Poles.
While the Warsaw Uprising has nothing to do with confiscation of arms, this transparently dickheaded move by Russia is but one of countless reasons why Poles, generally speaking, hate them.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Statistical analysis of multiple states' CC permit holder rosters, has proven that CC permit holders are 4x less likely than police to commit a crime. In fact they are the single most law abiding grouping of citizens identified. To hold a CC basically subjects you to constant background checks as the state has to monitor to see if they need to revoke said permit. Professional Sportsmen are under no such microscope.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
So, what is your response to France who has had 3 shootings in the past 8 months or so with rifles? They have far stricter gun control than the US, guns are in fact outlawed there. France should be a utopia with no gun violence if gun control worked to stop gun violence.
Face it, gun control is unconstitutional. If you want to live somewhere with strict gun control, feel free to move out of the country. Until you get a constitutional amendment passed, all gun control is technically unconstitutional. Be happy with the amount of gun control there is, as going much further will result in a supreme court battle.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
... [unlikely to be successfully] ending up a successful vigilante peacekeeper after a few hours training.
If you'd taken the training, you wouldn't be misusing the term "vigilante". One big part of it is to NOT be one.
FYI: Self-defence, (and legitimate defence of others) occurs from the time the attack on you/others (or creditable threat) begins until the time there is no further creditable threat - usually when the attacker is incapacitated and under restraint, or on the run.
It's always vigilantism if you try to hunt down the attacker once he's out of sight. (Before that, jurisdictions vary on when self defense ends and whether you're allowed to use deadly force to accomplish a citizen's arrest. For instance: Oregon did, and may still, allow you to shoot at a housebreaker even if he's dropped his gun and is running to his car: Case law said it's reasonable to believe he may be trying to get another, bigger, weapon from his vehicle to resume the attack.)
Police are just formalized, professional, vigilantes. Citizens in most jurisdictions retain many of the same powers as a civil right.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
List the Joe Blows that have successfully prevented mass shootings with their concealed carry?
Already linked it. Now get some integrity, and start doing your own research.
If you can't argue using reason, then just start calling names and see how that works out for you...
I pulled incident reports from the link that you didn't read, liar. Criminals with arrest warrants who pull out guns to shoot at the cops are not innocent people getting shot, liar.