What will reduce Gun Violence in the U.S.?

[Sombeech]

I'd like to start a civil discussion in the wake of another school shooting. Sure some comical memes will be thrown around here and there with 1 line jabs, but what are some real solutions?

Less guns, zero guns?

More guns, better access to guns for defense?

Is there a certain policy you've heard or studied that would set us on the path to less shootings, namely mass shootings?

[Iceaxe]

The first thing that needs to happen is the laws surrounding HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) need to be amended. The HIPAA Privacy Rule prevents states and doctors from reporting certain information to local law enforcement and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The NICS helps to ensure that guns are not sold to those prohibited by law from having them, including felons, those convicted of domestic violence, and individuals involuntarily committed to a mental institution. However, the background check system is only as effective as the information that is available to it.

If you follow these mass shooting the guns are usually obtained illegally and are used by those forbidden from possessing them. New laws are useless until you can enforce the ones already on the books.

If you want to curtail gun violence lets start with the easy things first....

We have a broken mental health system that needs to be fixed.

We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago.

[nelsonccc]

The problem I have is what trust do you put in the government to enact new gun control legislation when the current laws aren't enforced or effective? I'm not opposed to smart gun control in some form if it will truly decrease the chances of a school getting shot up. I just don't know what that would be. It certainly isn't gun confiscation or an outright ban. Neither one of which I think would be effective or realistic.

Maybe closing the loop hole for long guns and gun shows, craigslist, backpage, etc. Though I'm not sure how that would work. I'm not totally opposed to a background check on all gun purchases and have personally met people in parking lots to sell and buy hunting rifles and such. I enjoy buying a rifle on line and having it shipped to my local FFL dealer and saving tax and a wad of cash. I know they run a background check then.

If that loophole is closed then technically it would be very difficult to obtain a firearm without a background check. If the background check is then linked to health records (like Shane mentioned above) it could keep crazies from getting guns. However if gun control doesn't work now, what guarantees that additional gun control will work? That hasn't been the case in cities like Chicago and DC.

I do think that "gun free zones" are a joke. A mass shooter will pick a weak, easy target, so why advertise that you're that kind of a target? As a recent CCW permit holder it is eye opening to realize how many people are carrying on a regular basis.

[nelsonccc]

Forgot to mention that I do feel that the media's treatment of mass shooter is part of the problem. I think if the media took a black out approach to the shooter then it would lose the allure of being famous to these shooters that seem for the most part to be socially inept.

[Sombeech]

I would like some solid answers on which proposed gun laws, existing or hypothetical, would produce ACTUAL results in stopping these events.

I've heard too many "but it's a start" excuses, we've had many many "starts", so what gun laws would "FINISH" these events, if any?

The Sandy Hook incident would not have been stopped by any law. No law would have stopped him. Is there any law that would have stopped the Oregon shooting?

[Iceaxe]

I would like some solid answers on which proposed gun laws, existing or hypothetical, would produce ACTUAL results in stopping these events.

I already gave you that info. The mentally ill are not allowed to have firearms. We need to stop them from obtaining them by revising HIPAA.

In both Sandy Hook and Colombine the shoots were already in the mental health system and should not have been allowed to purchase firearams. Several of the other shooters were also in the system, but those are the two I know of for certain. Because of HIPAA the shooters don't show up in the background check.

[Brian in SLC]

In both Sandy Hook and Colombine the shoots were already in the mental health system...

In the Sandy Hook case, wasn't the shooter using mom's guns?

Would you prevent an entire household to have firearms if one person in the family/home had a mental illness?

Wouldn't need to revise HIPAA...just let the insurance companies drop dime on them...ha ha... Seriously, though, if you've ever been prescribed any medicine for mental illness, and, you submitted an insurance claim...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us...arms.html?_r=0

Hard to know where to draw the line...mild symptoms, ADHD, paranoa, people than rant online about the president (ha ha).

Registration would be a start, but, most of the firearms used in these latest mass killings were all purchased legally.

Re-instate the assault weapons ban? Ahh...too much material in the pipeline now.

Mandatory military service (which would include firearms training, presumably)?
Take 'em away?

Do what Australia did?

Bigger yet, how to shift the US away from being a gun culture?

[BruteForce]

An Armed society is a polite society.

Now, the mental background checks are all fine and well, until the government screws it up. I've already heard about legislation (not certain if in progress, or just discussion) about classifying some veterans or those under VA assistance as "at risk". Too easy for the government to flag a class of people as "insane" or at risk.

I think we start by hard-enforcing existing laws on the books before effecting more meaningless laws.

Then, we can start looking at technology. Biometric auth before a firearm is enabled, for example. That would reduce crimes resultant from stolen or "borrowed" firearms, but still allow legally owning wackos to murder.

[dougr]

The only solution is a decent populace. Children raised well. Moral standards taught and upheld. The old and now largely discarded principles of our society once again taught in schools.

[Sombeech]

In the Sandy Hook case, wasn't the shooter using mom's guns?

Would you prevent an entire household to have firearms if one person in the family/home had a mental illness?

This is a great point, if my son ends up having a mental illness, should my whole household now give up the right to defend themselves?

I think the stubborn fact is, no matter what laws exist, a mentally ill person can still find a way to steal, find, borrow, or even 3D print a gun. So the laws will never stop mentally ill folks completely from getting a gun.

So then what's the next step, knowing that it will always be possible for guns to be in the wrong hands? Is there something that the mentally stable can do, besides pass laws?

[Brian in SLC]

The only solution is a decent populace. Children raised well. Moral standards taught and upheld. The old and now largely discarded principles of our society once again taught in schools.

Being a "glass half full" guy...I think, by and large, our society is a decent populace. In the bell curve of our society, though, will be folks at either end. Those overly decent folks maybe are the ones that jump in front a bullet. The overly indecent are the ones pulling the trigger.

Always been that way.

What discarded principles do you think need to be taught in schools that would prevent mass shootings?

[Brian in SLC]

I think the stubborn fact is, no matter what laws exist, a mentally ill person can still find a way to steal, find, borrow, or even 3D print a gun. So the laws will never stop mentally ill folks completely from getting a gun.

Maybe not, but, having to steal a gun to commit a crime is a pretty big roadblock.

Nearly all the guns used in mass shootings were legally procured.

[Iceaxe]

I found this to be rather interesting.....

How They Got Their Guns
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...guns.html?_r=0

[Rob L]

It is in the American psyche to own guns, to use guns, to shoot each other (there is no-one else to shoot). The "whichever" amendment is not relevant, because nothing will change. The problem is with that amendment in the first place, and that is old history now.

The rest of the world are generally amazed how you put up with these mass killings. It will not change, because of your nation's fanaticism with personal armament. The rest of the world (along with you living there) wait for the next one.

To be fair, the rest of the world has them too, but not quite so often.

But nothing will change, sadly.

[BruteForce]

@Rob L. This isn't unique to America. In fact, I am coming to a personal conclusion that some of these events are staged by our government. Those tragic events that aren't are horrific to be sure, but its lunatics. As for

there is no-one else to shoot

, I know many of us veterans would prefer a less restrictive ROE where we could unleash the beast in the middle east. ISIS would be WASWAS (bad, I know).

Technology can prevent many of these events for non-legally owning folks that just lose their minds!

[Rob L]

Well I'd disagree that they are being staged by your government.

Rob

[middlefork]

Technology may help with firearms purchased when it is present, but not much help for all the guns that are available to the public now.
Registration, Background checks ect. will not prevent anyone who wants to from getting a gun.

I would repeal the gun free zones. At least it might allow someone to slow things down.

[nelsonccc]

I found this to be rather interesting.....

How They Got Their Guns
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...guns.html?_r=0

That is very interesting, especially to see just how much mental help was needed in a lot of those cases. Your idea of linking mental health records to the background check would have made it so that a lot of those guns would not have passed the background check. There were also a few instances where people got their guns simple due to poor record keeping and a timely response. That was eye opening and probably happens quite a bit.

[Iceaxe]

It is in the American psyche to own guns, to use guns, to shoot each other (there is no-one else to shoot). The "whichever" amendment is not relevant, because nothing will change. The problem is with that amendment in the first place, and that is old history now.

The rest of the world are generally amazed how you put up with these mass killings. It will not change, because of your nation's fanaticism with personal armament. The rest of the world (along with you living there) wait for the next one.

To be fair, the rest of the world has them too, but not quite so often.

But nothing will change, sadly.

A couple thoughts here Rob... Its not a gun culture in the US, it's more of a freedom culture. As a nation we tend not to totally trust any government, including our own. Or maybe to be more accurate we are suspicious of all government, including our own. Many of the citizens of this country think the rest of the world is crazy for trusting their government to always do the right thing.



Protecting the Second Amendment is extremely important to many American's for several reasons. First off is you either support and believe in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights or you do not. You don't get to pick and choose the parts you support and those you don't. Giving up a right guaranteed to us in the second Amendment is a very slippery slope. If one right is taken from us it sets a precedent for taking the others. Also it's often said the 2nd Amendment is the Amendment that guarantees the others. There is provision in our Constitution for removing/changing/adding an Amendment but changing one of the original 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) is pretty much seen as sacrilege.

Or maybe a simpler way to put it is freedom isn't free, it's always paid for in blood.

And to be totally fair.... most statistics on mass shootings in the world compare apples and oranges by not correcting for population, let’s get a chart that makes sense, shall we?







...And BOOM!!!

The United States falls from number one to number seven when correcting for population.

[savanna3313]

Personally, I don't think it's a matter of gun control. If someone is hell bent on killing, they will do it with any means at their disposal. Daily we hear of suicide bombers who strap explosives to their bodies and wipe out dozens of people in one split second of time. Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds with one device in OK. I've read of several mass killings in China where the killer used a knife. It's not the instrument that is chosen to kill, it's the person who chooses to do such a horrendous thing. jmho I am someone who should be extremely anti-gun because my father was killed by his own brother with one. My parents did not keep a gun in the house because they were raising their 5 year old grandson and felt that "better safe than sorry". My father had no way to defend himself against his brother when he burst through the door and pulled a weapon. If my Dad had kept a gun, would things have been different? We'll never know, but he might have had a chance.