The NRA owns Trump as well.

[highfigh]

5% of what? How do you define death by a mentally ill person? Does that include suicide? Most of the mass shootings we've had, more than likely by mentally ill people, also involved suicide of the shooter. If you count only the mass-shooting-related deaths, that might be 5% of the total.

The paper I linked above says in 2015 there were 22,018 suicides by gun out of a total of 36,252 gun-related deaths in the USA. That's 61% – far more than the 13,463 homicides (37%).

"In 2015, 36,252 people died of a firearm-related injury in the United States, approximately the same number of deaths as occurred in motor vehicle crashes. The same year, more than eighty thousand people were non-fatally injured (CDC 2017). The distribution of firearm deaths in 2015 is typical of the distribution over the past several decades: the majority of firearm deaths were suicides (22,018), followed by homicides (13,463) and then unintentional firearm injuries (fewer than one thousand)."​

Clearly, the biggest problem is not mass shootings, but gun-related suicides.

Although I agree that the NRA's mental health argument is BS, a smoke screen meant to distract the opposition, the mental health issue is highly related to gun deaths. I don't know how many people among those 22,018 suicides were mentally ill, but I would guess it would be quite a few, as many as 100%. Where in the constitution does it say the government may not regulate sales and manufacture of the weapon of choice for mentally ill people to commit suicide?

You (well, I do, anyway) might hope this would be self-regulating, but since people can hardly control themselves, it's the reason we have laws. When someone comes up with a reason to kill a lot of people, it's anyone's guess as to why unless they make it known. It's uncommon for so many tips to have been given to law enforcement and still have the even take place- we need a full investigation into why it happened and make sure it doesn't repeat.

Unfortunately, I knew a lot of people who committed suicide, mostly by gun. All had reached what they saw as a point of no return in how badly their lives had gone off the tracks, in various ways. I can't say that anyone saw these coming, but in retrospect, they all had problems but I wouldn't call any of them insane.

 

[highfigh]

5% of what? How do you define death by a mentally ill person? Does that include suicide? Most of the mass shootings we've had, more than likely by mentally ill people, also involved suicide of the shooter. If you count only the mass-shooting-related deaths, that might be 5% of the total.

The paper I linked above says in 2015 there were 22,018 suicides by gun out of a total of 36,252 gun-related deaths in the USA. That's 61% – far more than the 13,463 homicides (37%).

"In 2015, 36,252 people died of a firearm-related injury in the United States, approximately the same number of deaths as occurred in motor vehicle crashes. The same year, more than eighty thousand people were non-fatally injured (CDC 2017). The distribution of firearm deaths in 2015 is typical of the distribution over the past several decades: the majority of firearm deaths were suicides (22,018), followed by homicides (13,463) and then unintentional firearm injuries (fewer than one thousand)."​

Clearly, the biggest problem is not mass shootings, but gun-related suicides.

Although I agree that the NRA's mental health argument is BS, a smoke screen meant to distract the opposition, the mental health issue is highly related to gun deaths. I don't know how many people among those 22,018 suicides were mentally ill, but I would guess it would be quite a few, as many as 100%. Where in the constitution does it say the government may not regulate sales and manufacture of the weapon of choice for mentally ill people to commit suicide?

It doesn't- they wanted the Federal government to be small and non-intrusive, with the states handling their own problems unless it became a national problem. This is a national problem, but Congress has once again decided what we need, for us, for a fee.

 

[Alex2507]

I get that some people are just evil, but they would have to have some sort of personality disorder right?

I think we could classify them as severely anti-social.

 

[highfigh]

I think we could classify them as severely anti-social.

Lots of words could be used- I can think of several, but they're definitely not 'clinical' terms.

 

[3db]

highfigh, Your argueing for the sake of argueing.. You say well adjusted people don't go out on a shooting spree, you stated that people get upset when kids get slaughtered but you fail to admit that automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be controlled much tighter than they are now. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too but life doesn't work that way. Gun control DOES work as Australia has proven it.

 

[Swerd]

It doesn't- they wanted the Federal government to be small and non-intrusive, with the states handling their own problems unless it became a national problem. This is a national problem, but Congress has once again decided what we need, for us, for a fee.

I'm glad to read this morning just how much in agreement we are. Clearly, this has been national problem for some time now. And Congress has no intention of doing anything that might change the status quo, not as long as the GOP majority is on the NRA's leash.

Maybe the tide has finally turned. This morning I saw the announcement from D!ck's Sporting Goods that it would no longer sell military/assault style weapons, and it will not sell any gun to those under 21 years. In addition D!ck's publicly asked elected officials to enact some common sense reforms of laws on the sales and ownership of guns. I am certainly not making a commercial plug for this chain of large stores, but I think their list is a very good starting point:

 

[KEW]

Who would do something like this if they were sane? I guess well-adjusted is another issue, but either can be a factor. Happy people just don't do this.

This is a good question and goes back to my earlier point that we don't really understand crazy (or insane) very well!
Humanity has a long history of mass (and individual) murder during wartime. We kind of think in terms that our side is sane and the opposition is insane, but also recognize that is a gross over-simplification. As an extreme example, we might accept Hitler as insane, but was everyone in his government/militia insane? Much of war is about convincing people that the enemy is taking something precious from you (or your society, culture, or religion). So, if a white supremacist goes on a shooting spree in a black church is that insane, or merely an act justifiable based on white supremacist principals? If someone bombs an abortion clinic with patients/staff, is he insane or following his religious principals (as defined by specific people he listens to), or sanely reacting to the outrage instilled by anti-abortion groups?
I think many killings are completely justified in the minds of the killers and intelligently determining exactly which of these justification are sane vs insane is difficult.

Looking at this as a mental illness issue is useful, but only for the small percentage that are obviously insane (the kind of person a mature and wise gun seller might hesitate to sell a gun based on 5-10 minutes of interaction).
The Florida school shooting should not have happened. It is relatively unique in that the people around him saw it coming and reported it. That was clearly a F-up!
However, so often, the people around the shooter never saw it coming or merely noticed that he was a little withdrawn/preoccupied before the incident

 

[KEW]

We have seen some major (and relatively sudden) changes in the tides - most notably with the "#me too" movement!
I am somewhat optimistic that perhaps this call for change will extend into the mass-shootings arena.
To my knowledge, this is the first time we have the victims (students) unified and taking a stance of "we will not let you forget". I also don't remember such vocal challenges to out politicians for taking NRA lobby money. It has taken too long, but it is good to see the shift of blame partially going to the NRA and companies/investment agencies being challenged for their participation in the NRA.

Now we have one of the larger sellers of firearms presenting their own set of practical suggestions on how to, at least, reduce the frequency/severity of these events.

This should not be so hard or take so long as it has proven to. The problem is that NRA has convinced too many people that any concession (such as eliminating assault style rifles) is tantamount to inviting the government to go door to door and take away their guns.

 

[KEW]

Let's diverge from guns and look at global trends:

Most major "political" arguments started out with maybe 5% extremists on both ends and a comfortable 60% or greater moderates in the middle. Contemporary (maybe 20 years?) media has started broadcasting arguments between the outlier extremes which is polarizing the topic and the moderate faction is gradually being pulled to either side (because of the fear that one of the extremes could actually be getting close to becoming the reality). The media does it because we get sucked into it - their eyeball count goes up!

Most recently it has become clear that the Russians have deliberately been playing on these fears and presenting extreme viewpoints reinforced by hundreds of bot saying "me too" so that they become "trending" viewpoints on social media sites and therefore gain a prominent position in the margins of you face book page (or whatever) which will trickle over to water cooler chat, etc.

I think we also have to admit that 911 changed our country. Before then we naturally maintained a general demeanor of wizened and calm security. But having such an attack provokes us to look a little deeper into "what if" worse-case scenarios...

I really don't know what the f*ck I'm talking about, but I think a good sociologist would!

 

[highfigh]

highfigh, Your argueing for the sake of argueing.. You say well adjusted people don't go out on a shooting spree, you stated that people get upset when kids get slaughtered but you fail to admit that automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be controlled much tighter than they are now. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too but life doesn't work that way. Gun control DOES work as Australia has proven it.

I have written that the people here are different form other parts of the World and others have told me that I'm wrong, but haven't told me why they think I'm wrong.

Australia and Canada have a good amount of autonomy, but still fall under the umbrella of the British Empire and have been governed very differently from the US. The general temperament of the people is different.

The fact that we have had freedoms unknown to most of the World is part of our problem- people like to push the boundaries and some have made it their way of life. That includes buying things they really don't need. Does anyone actually need an AR-type weapon? I doubt it, but it has made survival possible for some people when a group broke into homes and businesses (google searches will show this). Many don't know the difference between need and want but then, when they hear about someone taking something from them, they over-react and buy everything in sight.

With freedom comes responsibility, but too many are being irresponsible- that's my point. I think it's time to demand that people act like they'e somewhat civilized- is that too much?

 

[Swerd]

This is a good question and goes back to my earlier point that we don't really understand crazy (or insane) very well! …

In addition the list of common sense reforms to gun laws, I would add what Ponzio mentioned about mental health care earlier in this thread. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration ended Federal money to states that ran mental health care hospitals. (He did the same in California earlier in the 1960s when he was governor.)

As a result, mental hospitals closed, sending out many hundreds or thousands of patients onto the streets. These people were clearly unable to fend for themselves. Despite the (popular at the time) idea that mentally ill people should be free from incarceration, no professional experienced in mental health care agreed. These patients did not benefit from their new freedom. This national negligence is indirectly related to the national gun violence problem. The 22,000 suicides per year by gun indicate something is wrong. The present health insurance practices & laws about committing someone to prolonged involuntary mental health care are simply inadequate.

It's a national disgrace. Both problems, long neglected, must be fixed.

 

[panteragstk]

I have written that the people here are different form other parts of the World and others have told me that I'm wrong, but haven't told me why they think I'm wrong.

Australia and Canada have a good amount of autonomy, but still fall under the umbrella of the British Empire and have been governed very differently from the US. The general temperament of the people is different.

The fact that we have had freedoms unknown to most of the World is part of our problem- people like to push the boundaries and some have made it their way of life. That includes buying things they really don't need. Does anyone actually need an AR-type weapon? I doubt it, but it has made survival possible for some people when a group broke into homes and businesses (google searches will show this). Many don't know the difference between need and want but then, when they hear about someone taking something from them, they over-react and buy everything in sight.

With freedom comes responsibility, but too many are being irresponsible- that's my point. I think it's time to demand that people act like they'e somewhat civilized- is that too much?

I talked with my father-in-law about this yesterday. He's a State Trooper and has had numerous guns over the years. He even has a license to own fully automatic weapons.

He told me that at one time he had about 60 guns including a fully automatic rifle (I forget which one). One day he was thinking "why do I need these?" He realized he didn't and sold off most of them. He's got a few things now just from being an officer, but nothing like a fully auto rifle. Just doesn't see the point.

Another thing he talked about what how easy it was for people to get things at gun shows. He doesn't think that should be allowed at all. He was also all for a centralized database of everything people have purchased.

I was surprised he was as open minded as he was considering he is very much for people owning guns, but he also stopped his NRA membership once they went away from training people on proper usage and went to lobbying, so he is the more level minded gun owner as some of us are. He just thinks their cool, but also realizes that people are way too lax in how they treat their weapons.

I see people be more responsible with power tools than guns...

 

[GO-NAD!]

The entire mental health issue is BS as it relates to gun deaths. Only 5% of gun deaths are by way of a mentally ill person.

I think your statement has already been sufficiently addressed by others, but I will respond anyway. I was thinking of mass shootings when I made that comment, because it would appear that the vast majority that have occurred over the last few years appear to have been committed by people who - in retrospect - could probably have been diagnosed as suffering from a mental health condition. Since most of the shooters died in these incidents, it's difficult to prove now. However, when you look at all gun deaths in the USA, where about 2/3 of all such deaths are suicides, mental health issues are clearly indicated.

Addressing mental health issues would, of course, not be a panacea. But, it could go a long way towards reducing gun violence.

 

[KEW]

I think it's time to demand that people act like they'e somewhat civilized- is that too much?

I'm on board!
Just tell us how we could accomplish this with real results!
Most people who are uncivilized know how to pretend to be civilized until they are ready to "shoot into the light"!

 

[rojo]

Semi-automatic rifle vs. water bucket:

 

[Irvrobinson]

However, when you look at all gun deaths in the USA, where about 2/3 of all such deaths are suicides, mental health issues are clearly indicated.

I'm of a mind that suicides are immaterial. Perhaps my libertarian side is too dominant, but I don't think it's anyone's business to interfere in another person's decision to take their own life. This whole notion that we need to save people from themselves strikes me as one of the worst of all personal intrusions. Sure, some people who commit suicide are mentally ill, but to assume everyone who chooses suicide is mentally ill is, to me, immoral. When I think about gun violence I don't include suicides.

 

[KEW]

I'm of a mind that suicides are immaterial. Perhaps my libertarian side is too dominant, but I don't think it's anyone's business to interfere in another person's decision to take their own life. This whole notion that we need to save people from themselves strikes me as one of the worst of all personal intrusions. Sure, some people who commit suicide are mentally ill, but to assume everyone who chooses suicide is mentally ill is, to me, immoral. When I think about gun violence I don't include suicides.

I'm not sure I agree fully with you, but I certainly would not consider it the same level of crime as a mass shooting or even a "standard" homicide!

LOL! If I were "King", suicides would be legal, but you would have to apply for suicide a week before you committed it. That would avoid using it rashly (such as out of immediate anguish).
Suicide is all too often a "long-term solution for a short-term problem".

 

[KEW]

I've solved the "crazy" dilemma! - just give everyone a puppy!

 

[Irvrobinson]

I've solved the "crazy" dilemma! - just give everyone a puppy!

That's crazy.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Who would do something like this if they were sane? I guess well-adjusted is another issue, but either can be a factor. Happy people just don't do this.

No, not when they are in a happy mood.
But then, when they slip into an unhappy mood, who knows.