Here Nova

>>TL;DR version: there are many solutions to this problem. More restrictions, better mental health screening. You're implying that there is only one solution to the problem. You can have many. No guns, no guns of a certain type, much better mental health screenings for purchasing guns, limiting access to these guns, etc. The fact of the matter is that mental health is not the only factor in these shootings. Easy access to semi-automatic rifles and automatic rifles is definitely a factor. Mix that with mental illness, and you have a much higher chance of this happening. Take away one fact. Take away the guns. Now, that makes it much harder for this mentally ill individual to purchase a weapon that is used only for mass shooting.

I agree that there are many solutions to the problem. The biggest, most practical, efficient and effective solutions do not involve heavier gun control. The government doesn’t even enforce many of its gun regulations. Not because they don’t want to, but because they’re simply impractical to enforce. It’s impossible in the United States. However, even if it were possible, it shouldn’t be, and similar gun control measures have been proven to have no effect in the past. For instance, from 1994-2004 we had something similar to what you propose, called “The Assault Weapons Ban”. It banned such features as high-capacity magazines, pistol grips, and other inconsequential, aesthetic things. During this time, there were several “mass shootings”, including Columbine, and the overall gun crime rate in the country did not deviate from it’s already downward trend. There was no effect. This is why it was allowed to expire in 2004. Also, those diagnosed with severe mental illness are not supposed to legally own a firearm. In the background checks, there is a question that asks if you have severe mental illness. This is then checked in the NICS. However, due to privacy laws, state governments cannot be forced to disclose medical information, and they shouldn’t be. This is part of our nation’s many checks and balances so that our democracy stays safe from federal abuse. There are a host of other reasons why this information should stay private as well, but that’s another discussion altogether.

A much more practical and effective solution is to increase the quality of the horribly inept mental health system in the US. How we can do that is outside of the scope of this discussion, but Europe’s low gun crime rates, and low “mass shooting” rates, are directly connected with the high quality of mental healthcare (that includes diagnoses and treatment). Even before the gun ban in the UK, gun crime was dropping at a steady rate, and was not noticeably changed by their ban on guns. Mass shootings in Europe as a whole were never a frequently occurring tragedy like in the US, and, like I said before, the evidence points to their lower poverty rates and better mental healthcare system, along with the vast difference in culture towards violence (notice I said violence, not guns).


>>No one attempts to kill dozens of people in one sitting with your normal handgun. Possible? Duh. But how many of these past shootings have involved just your average 9mm Ruger?

Actually, the Virginia Tech shooter used a 9mm pistol and a .22 caliber pistol. The criminology study conducted after the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown is one of the many scientific studies that show that approximately 24.6 percent of mass shootings has an “assault weapon” used, with handguns in 47.9 percent.


>>Take away the mental illness. Now, you have a sane individual with a AK-47. Basically, nothing happens. They go shooting in the desert, take pictures for intagram. That's it. Though, this isn't a defense weapon, and everyone knows that. There's no need to actually have one besides the "fun" factor. It's not going to do you any good if someone breaks into your home and tries to harm your family. That's what your handgun is for.

There are several things blatantly incorrect with this part, but I’ll try to keep this short. For one, it’s not up to you or the government to decide what tool I should or should not use to protect myself or my family. Also, handguns are a terrible tool for self defense. The only reason they are so prevalent for this use is their convenience: small, short, light. However, their ability to stop an attacker is abysmal (most people shot by a pistol live, and most don’t stop after the first shot, regardless of caliber), they have more muzzle flash and report, they recoil more, they’re less reliable, and they’re hard to shoot accurately. Pistols are only used long enough to get to your rifle or shotgun. In addition, pistol bullets, just as s typical self-defense 9mm load, will penetrate much more than a self-defense 5.56mm/.223 round that the AR15 shoots. The AR15 “assault rifle” is more suitable than a pistol for many reasons, and in a self-defense situation in the home, it is largely considered one of the most effective tools. It has low recoil, easier to put more rounds on target faster, less risk of over penetration and hurting an innocent bystander, and more likely to stop an attacker and keep your family safe.

>>Occasionally, though, there are people who do not have mental illnesses and who also kill. You used Juarez. The cartel members have these weapons and they are only meant to kill and intimidate. Sane individuals with weapons only meant to do as much harm as they possibly can within a shorter time frame. Terrorists. Just like those in the middle east and elsewhere.

This goes to show how little you’ve actually looked into the subject. It is a fact, like it or not, that EVERY mass shooting has been committed by people with mental illness. A mentally sane person WILL NOT go on a shooting spree, otherwise they aren’t mentally sane.

>>Now, let's talk about the fucking second amendment. The Bill of rights was ratified in 1791. 223 years ago. The first semi-automatic rifle didn't come into existence until 1885. The first semi-automatic shotgun in 1902. Long after the amendment was put in place. Now, does anyone remember what the Bill of rights (and rest of the constitution) is for? It's to protect you. From the government. You can form your militia, take up arms against the government. Fine. But, please, with all honesty, do you think that the founding fathers ever imagined that weapons would exist like the ones we have today?

The founding fathers didn’t write “the right to bear muskets” or “the right to bear “muzzle-loaders”, they said “the right to bear arms.” Speculating that they couldn’t imagine the weapons we have today is just conjecture and is kind of silly if you’re trying to prove a point with facts. Personally, yes, I’m sure they believed more effective firearms would exist today, that dispense much more firepower than the muskets of their days. Even during their lifetimes, there were huge advances in making firearms more practical and effective in use.

>>Using the 2nd amendment as your defense is just like when people use the 1st amendment to defend their bigoted speech on tv. "This is America and I can say what I want." No. You can say what you want and suffer the consequences, but the government won't arrest you for speaking out against it publicly.

Here we simply have differing values. Yes, the 1st Amendment *does* allow people to spew bigoted nonsense on TV (or at least, according to the Constitution and my opinion, it should). The government, or anyone else, should not be able to prevent anyone from saying anything, even if it’s stupid and offensive. You don’t have the right *not* to be offended. If you let an organization start deciding what can and cannot be said, you give it the power to shut you up for the wrong reasons and saying things that may be unpopular, but correct. Words don’t hurt anyone. They can’t. People hurt people, and anyone that would visit violence upon another just because they speak words, no matter how infuriating and offensive, is committing an act of physical aggression and should not be tolerated by any government that supports free speech.

>>Like Brian said, keeping guns in the hands of the right people is key. Doesn't mean you have to arm every teacher. But doesn't mean you have to take them from law-abiding, mentally stable citizens either.

Who gets to decide are the right people? The government? Even if the government we have now is perfectly benevolent and makes the right decisions all the time, you can be certain that that will change at some point in the future. One day, we might not have such a benevolent government that has our best interests at heart (not claiming that the one we have now is good either). Be careful giving them more power. Like George Washington said: “Like fire, [the government] is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” I never suggested that the government should forcefully arm people either, that would be just as ludicrous as what you suggest. If you are not a registered felon, you should be able to own the firearm of your choice. Also, fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s, and even more regulation was added in the 1980s. These laws have had no statistical effect on crime, but the fact that you refer to “automatic weapons” as part of the problem shows that you haven’t looked into it much, as automatics have been effectively banned for a long time. Unless you are impossibly rich and are willing to jump through massive amounts of government red tape and wait a long time, you can’t get an automatic legally.


Just make it much more difficult for the wrong people to get their hands on them. The black market will exist, yes. extreme measure is no guns. Which, Americans would be too stubborn to ever do. Even though other nations have very little to no gun violence (typical or otherwise). But whatever. We'll avoid that.

In principle, I agree that we need to make it more difficult for mentally ill people to obtain guns. However, federal gun regulations are not the answer, and numerous scientific studies show that this would not have an effect. The biggest key is improving the mental health state of the United States.