Shooting with multiple fatalities at theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.

originally posted by: krosnos
a reply to: beezzer

There you go whining again. Grow up.

No more from me, you either got the whiners or the gunners who don't even want to discuss common sense actions.

Truth hurts, doesn't it.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: JacKatMtn

For a nation with 300+ million guns (that's a gun for and every person) it's near impossible for any state to put any amount of legislation in place to limit the level of gun violence out there. Take New York for example... in 2012 they seized approx 9,000 guns in that year and around over 80% of those weapons originated from outside of State lines.. most of them coming from Virignia:
www.thenewyorkworld.com...

No amount of gun legislation in one State is going to limit the fluidity and accessibility of guns in this country. It may slow down abit, but not make much of a difference. US states can't enforce gun laws in the same way that individual sovereign nations do. Borders are open, movement is free.

You can't legislate 100% safety....

No, you can't legislate 100% safety. You can however address America's out of control gun violence and shootings which are among the most in the world. It's a problem and sweeping it under the rug isn't going to solve it. To put this all in perspective, the United Kingdom has a population density 660 people per square mile compared to the US with 35 people per square mile. Japan has 330 people per square mile. Yet both Japan and the UK have far lower rates of gun violence compared to the US. Far lower. We shouldn't just accept this as the 'norm' as evidently it's far from it.

What is your knowledge about Japan to qualify you to compare it to the US?

a reply to: ventian

In this instance, white + mass murderer appears to be the magic formula. Any other ethnicity would have been declared either a terrorist or a thug.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: JacKatMtn

For a nation with 300+ million guns (that's a gun for and every person) it's near impossible for any state to put any amount of legislation in place to limit the level of gun violence out there. Take New York for example... in 2012 they seized approx 9,000 guns in that year and around over 80% of those weapons originated from outside of State lines.. most of them coming from Virignia:
www.thenewyorkworld.com...

No amount of gun legislation in one State is going to limit the fluidity and accessibility of guns in this country. It may slow down abit, but not make much of a difference. US states can't enforce gun laws in the same way that individual sovereign nations do. Borders are open, movement is free.

You can't legislate 100% safety....

No, you can't legislate 100% safety. You can however address America's out of control gun violence and shootings which are among the most in the world. It's a problem and sweeping it under the rug isn't going to solve it. To put this all in perspective, the United Kingdom has a population density 660 people per square mile compared to the US with 35 people per square mile. Japan has 330 people per square mile. Yet both Japan and the UK have far lower rates of gun violence compared to the US. Far lower. We shouldn't just accept this as the 'norm' as evidently it's far from it.

Those are complete bs stats, as both the UK and Japan and France and Germany could fit in just texas alone.

You used population per square mile to push a bs notion you support.

Post the numbers by population, the US is no worse off than the UK knife murders.

Don't try to play these games here, this is ATS, we know stuff and junk.

originally posted by: krosnos

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: krosnos
a reply to: neo96

So is it working? Or does the process need an update and make it harder.

Gun control sure isn't working, and will never work.

Reason being some people have self diluted themelves in to thinking human behavior can be legislated.

Which it can't.

What it does do is punish the 99% of the population accountable for something they will never do.

But i forgot that is the modern equivalency of 'social justice'

American gun owners have made sure that gun laws are ineffective. Answer me this, just where do you think these illegal guns are coming from?

It has yet to be determined where the shooter gun came from.

I don't like the term illegal gun.

I prefer 'undocumented' gun.

a reply to: Monger

Truly, we live in a "brand name" society.

We are living in hell on earth and it is truly scary. Just take a mental note of all the horrible things that have happened in very recent times, look at how crazy the people are becoming..everywhere.

I feel so sad for everyone involved except the gunman.

This is becoming SO common now that victims of future crimes (like this one that just happened) have probably been among the many informed of these events, done research of these events, said a prayer for victims of past events, maybe even posted on the internet or these boards about those types of events like we are doing now, and hoping and praying it never happens to them and then it does. I told you it is scary. I hope to god it never happens to me. The list of places I am staying away from and things I am doing is staggeringly long and growing - thanks to the murderers, psychos and freaks that walk among us hiding in plain sight.

My thoughts & prayers out to the victims and their families.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

Bullsh!t!!!!!!!

The "logical" path would be to heal the SICK MAN!!!

Cheee-rist Almighty!

Blame the guilty party, not the object involved.

So going by that logic, if a worker gets his arm chopped off at work, well using a machine he's not been trained to use and has no safe guards or emergency switches, then the blame should be completely on the worker who was operating the machine, right?

a reply to: notmyrealname

What is your knowledge about Japan to qualify you to compare it to the US?

What specific knowledge do you speak of? You mean states? The fact they had 11 homicides in 2008 alone? That their gun laws are far tougher than the US? That they have a far higher population density? What knowledge are we talking about here? Be more specific eh?

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

Bullsh!t!!!!!!!

The "logical" path would be to heal the SICK MAN!!!

Cheee-rist Almighty!

How bout both?

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Heavier mental illness cross checks for gun permit. Inevitable. Most of these guys have mental illness, far as I know.

I mean you can try to take away guns from everybody, but:
a) Crazy people and criminals will find a way to get them anyway
b) People of sound mind and good morals will not tolerate

Some of these cases are unpreventable without getting rid of all guns or curing all mental illness. Yet many also could be prevented by implementing better checks. I think we'll do a little of everything:
1) More cross checks for mental illness to acquire gun permit
2) More restrictions on type of gun and ammo
3) More funding for mental health services and research

Try this:
1. All US students begin firearm familiarization and safety training from a young age in school.
2. All US students are allowed/required to take firearms classes as part of their curriculum in school until High School graduation.

Encourage knowledge and respect for a tool and it is no more of a problem than any other tool.

Listen to the forensic psychologist in this video. Share it every time this happens. It starts @ 1:30.

I wish that one man's problems weren't taken out on society. We all have our problems. We all have our issues. Some are pushed to the brink, others not that far. Regardless, it should sadden all of us that we allow people to be pushed this far. And over what? More likely than not, money.

Why do we continue to be a people that allows suffering and despair over something so trivial as money?

Maybe the person that committed this tragedy wasn't at his wits end over money... I don't know.

But what man hasn't been content when he truly possesses land, a family, and the means to care for them?!

I tire of these incidents. Incidents of violence and despair.

a reply to: beezzer

I agree that the primary focus should be on a improving our mental health system but why not a two prong attack? I'm not seeing the harm in preventing individuals with severe mental illness from acquiring any number of items with a potential for use in mass murder, be it firearms or fertilizer.

This is a tragedy.

If it could have been prevented it would have been.

I agree with many that mental health is likely an issue, but requiring everybody to go get a mental health assessment is a bit over the top. I say that if the person is already being treated for mental health issues then there is your indicator.

I on the other hand, who do not take any of these SSRI's, have no prior convictions for violent crimes, etc.. should not be subject to any type of health assessment to purchase a firearm.

Have any of you seen pieces of the DSM 5? Hell, none of us could have guns just for being members of this forum. Everything is a mental disorder according to that piece of nonsense.

The people who expect me to be subject to that type of quackery are the ones who need to be analyzed.

Just my two cents.

originally posted by: Monger
a reply to: johnwick

I wasn't aware I had clicked a thread about black violence. Huh, fun. A thread about a 50-something white male murdering innocent bystanders hoping to enjoy a comedy film has transmorgified into a thread about black inner city violence. Funny how that happens.

I didn't start that conversation did I?

No I merely agreed it is a far worse problem per year in one city, than all mass shootings In the last 10 years combined.

But let us table that and concentrate on a much smaller problem because it fits your agenda...

a reply to: Southern Guardian
There are plenty of firearms (mostly pistols) in Japan. They are not legally owned. The heavy restrictions and penalties placed upon the weapons has not stopped their import or distribution throughout their organized crime syndicates. All this in a country that has never allowed legal possession of a pistol for any civilian in their history. Never mind that they are a completely isolated Island without any natural borders to another country.

How does Japan's gun laws change any of these facts?
How can you compare Japan to the US when the situations are completely different?

The real world is not what you read in a spreadsheet or talking points you gleaned from somewhere; if you are going to make these bold assertions, have some reason to back them up like having lived there and understanding what really goes on there.

a reply to: johnwick

as both the UK and Japan and France and Germany could fit in just texas alone.

So you're saying they have such a low gun violence because of the size of their nations? Should I bring in Australia? Canada? I'm unsure how the size of their nations are relevant. I would understand why population density is relevant to the debate. The more people you have contained in a mile, the higher the chance of gun violence. Yet these countries seem to show far lower stats compared to the US.

These are legitimate stats. Take them as you wish.

Post the numbers by population, the US is no worse off than the UK knife murders.

I don't think a knife is just as dangerous as a gun. You can't compare an AR15 to say, a kitchen knife. Guns are a whole new ball game, and unfortunately in the US, guns are far more accessible than anywhere else in the world.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: beezzer

I agree that the primary focus should be on a improving our mental health system but why not a two prong attack? I'm not seeing the harm in preventing individuals with severe mental illness from acquiring any number of items with a potential for use in mass murder, be it firearms or fertilizer.

Those systems are already in place in most states. It doesn't seem to change the minds of the mentally disturbed that they are breaking the law when buying an illegally attained weapon. More legislation simply further restricts responsible people from protecting themselves.

Look at the bill that they are trying to pass regarding Social Security recipients not being able to own firearms….

a reply to: Southern Guardian
Statistics are BS and everyone knows it. US stats are generally skewed as they include all police shootings along with the criminal shootings when they are calculated. If things were evaluated properly, you would probably not be so sure of your statistical viewpoint.