world

Gunman opens fire at Oregon college; at least 9 killed, 7 wounded

179 Comments
By JEFF BARNARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

179 Comments
Login to comment

How to better prepare? LESS GUNS, NOT MORE.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

One student said the gunman asked people about their religion before spraying more bullets.

Another freedom slaughter brought to you this time by gun nuts and god nuts. That's just nuts.

Guess there's nothing that can be done about either except making body counts. America's greatest Freedoms are slowly killing millions of innocent people. It's harder and harder to see any of it as real freedom of anything. All those poor kids. America just doesn't make any sense.

-1 ( +9 / -11 )

Guns, guns, guns. How about let's investigate the shooters problems. He would do harm or damage without a gun in all probability. The gun was an object and it needed a disturbed person to misuse it.

Condolences to the victims and families as well the shooters family ( unless the shooter was way off the wall and unreported like Lanza was).

-27 ( +10 / -37 )

Oregon is an open carry state with pretty loose laws on guns if you take the time to read between then lines. Less guns would be better IMHO.

Gun loving, 2nd Amendment yahoos will say that legal guns aren't the problem and with more legal gun owners out there on the streets, you have a better chance to shutting down these massacres. So, why is it then that in every story we see, IT'S ALWAYS THE POLICE THAT END THE KILLERS' LIVES? Right, must be because they are not enough legal gun totting people out there or most if not all legal gun totting people out there have no formal training and freeze up when "the shite gets real" as they say.

Guns have no place in every day life urban/suburban life. The day 'Murica gets that through its thick collective head is the day they catch up to the rest of the modern world.

16 ( +24 / -8 )

There you go again... Can't wait to read the coming comments.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Another day in America.

9 ( +21 / -12 )

KnowBetter.....schools are gun free zones. If a student or teacher were able to return gunfire they wouldn't be heroes after the first week, they would be terminated or expelled.

An off duty police officer carrying his pistol did a fantastic job a few months ago halting 2 Islamic would be killers in TX.

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

gun control

8 ( +12 / -4 )

I remember what George W Bush once said - "they hate us for our freedoms".... is this one of the freedoms he was referring to I wonder? The freedom to own millions of guns and massacre innocent citizens under some deluded interpretation of the 2nd amendment?...

11 ( +19 / -8 )

The second ammendment did not murder. All law abiding, sane individuals share the second ammendment. So,so few do the wrong thing. What is their problem? Why do they abuse? Where is their empathy? Disturbed people do disturbing things.

Before you paint this guy as a religious wacko, let's get more information first. Until then, his motive is unknown and blamining religion is irresponsible.

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

No one is blaming religion. But it is odd that the identity of the killer hasn't been released.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

One student said the gunman asked people about their religion before spraying more bullets.

So it wasn't about religion?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Roseburg is also where one of the American servicemen who thwarted that terrorist attack on a French train is from. He may also have studied at the college. Quite a coincidence whether religion is involved or not.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It seems that America is ever cursed by guns. No one can do anything better. That is guns country's destiny.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said the gunman was killed during an exchange of gunfire with officers.

This is the same John Hanlin who sent a protest letter to the White House, opposing any new gun control laws after the Newtown shootings: "Gun control is NOT the answer to preventing heinous crimes like school shootings"

I wonder if his tune will change now that it has happened on his own watch.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/10/oregon-sheriff-umpqua-massacre-white-house-gun-control-newtown

5 ( +10 / -5 )

In case your keeping track, there have been 45 school shootings in the land of the free so far this year - they are almost weekly events. The depressing chart is at the end of this article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reports-shooting-umpqua-community-college-oregon_560d7658e4b0af3706dfdcd1?a70evcxr

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Ahh, America... Land of the enslaved under a sick ideology and the home of the cowards who shoot innocent people and then commit suicide by cop.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So apparently, the gunman posted on 4chan yesterday that he was gonna carry out this massacre.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OZGEjT1ilSUJ:https://archive.moe/r9k/post/22785729/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Some of the replies actually encourage him and offer him suggestions on how to be more lethal. I suppose they took it as a prank or a joke thread but my word are some people really screwed in the head. Reading that thread fills me up with rage.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Yet again. May the victims rest in piece, and the injured be blessed.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

All comments about how guns are bad, USA is bad and one how religion is bad and none with sympathy for the victims families. Seems a problem exists in most of us not caring for one another.

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

Just another day in the US, and not only the mass shootings that occur all the time, but the attitudes about them are changing to reflect just how numb indeed people are becoming to MASSACRES! "It's going to be a sombre day" DO YOU THINK SO??

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Lets be so thankful we live in a country here almost completely free of the danger of guns. We can expect the usual morons to come out now and insist that if all children and teachers carried guns, there would be no tragedies like this. More guns is the answer, they say. Shame on them.

Rest in Peace to the poor, innocent victims.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

All comments about how guns are bad, USA is bad and one how religion is bad and none with sympathy for the victims families. Seems a problem exists in most of us not caring for one another.

Yeah, we're desensitized since it happens every week or two.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Gun laws in the States exist for one reason, and one reason only, to promote the sale of guns.

It's Blood money, not "defense" of any freedom.

These poor kids went to school to learn that the guns laws were wholly inadequate to protect anyone's "rights". The gun laws exist only for the sale or more and more and more guns.

Blood money bought and paid for with human lives and the NRA. It's time to roll call the Congress. If membership and funds from the NRA and it's nefarious sub-groups is in the pockets of a Legislator that should be on the top line of every ID right next to the R or D.

Americans deserve to know which Legislators worked to bring this slaughter to the schools in their communities. Time for Transparency on gun control and who's in the pocket of the NRA.

So sickening. How many future teachers were killed, doctors, engineers, police officers? How many did the NRA kill today?

16 ( +20 / -4 )

The police in general harass people who assert their right to carry firearms and most states have laws against anyone having firearms on school campus except police. Almost all of these shooters do not possess the guns they use legally. Those that do is because usually they were not reported properly to be banned from firearms. The NRA is one of the largest supporters of police and military, they are also the largest gun safety organization in the world and most schools, etc. will not allow gun safety to be taught to children as it should be. Gun laws were started to keep minorities, mainly blacks, from owning firearms for self defense. Any idiot should know the US Constitution designed the second amendment to protect the rest of them.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Mass media does a fine job of desensitizing the sheep I suppose. Not that nuts exist or racial nuts exist or religious nuts exist. Just that guns exist.

The second ammendment was in place long before retail sail of guns. Blaming the NRA is silly, they simply stand for the second ammendment which is well over 200 years old. Should better 'restrictions' be placed on gun sales, sure, I want only law abiding "citizens" and police owning guns. Thugs, terrorists and nuts need not apply! Though if guns were outlawed tomorrow that same group would obtain guns ten years from now.

I am not NRA, I am not military or police, I an not a hunter but I own guns. Do I need them? No. In the past I've had a permit to carry but never did, I don't even want to use my gun to shoot a thug if ever had to. Take my car and valuables, I'll replace them. Do I enjoy shooting? Yes, target shooting. Archery is quite the challenge also. Target shooting is an Olympic sport. Why those worldwide gun nut using killing tools to shoot paper!

-17 ( +3 / -20 )

America will never change. Today people cry about this tragedy but Tomorrow most will forget it and smile/laugh as usual, as if such tragedy never happened. Just another day, isn't it?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Those who white wash the NRA's control of Congress and paint them a darling angels of peace should do a little research first.

Guns kill 32,000 Americans a year, but not one penny is given to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find out why.

Victims of gun violence can thank the National Rifle Association for squeezing off that funding.

source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/no-funds-studies-gun-violence-article-1.1809263

Why can't Americans get a handle on gun slaughter? Because the NRA will threaten, coerce and intimidate their way to selling more and more and more guns. That's the NRA some here are so proud of.

Sickening, Blood Money and the NRA bringing more death everyday to more innocent Americans than any other force known. That's the NRA today. Remorseless and greedy slaughter for profit.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

Why can't Americans get a handle on gun slaughter? Because the NRA will threaten, coerce and intimidate their way to selling more and more and more guns. That's the NRA some here are so proud of.

Guns don't kill people , Bad education does so

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Notice these maniacs always choose a location where guns are not allowed? See a pattern?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

President Obama said it best in his remarks immediately following the Umpqua tragedy:

"*When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them, to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

The notion that gun violence is somehow different — that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and do everything they do under such regulations — it doesn't make sense*. "

Even if you are not anti-car, responsible vehicle owners and the auto industry tend to support automobile safety laws, drivers' licensing and liability insurance requirements. Responsible gun owners, the NRA and the firearms industry should support the equivalent when it comes to guns.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Why can't Americans get a handle on gun slaughter? Because the NRA will threaten, coerce and intimidate their way to selling more and more and more guns. That's the NRA some here are so proud of.

I totally agree. The NRA could care less about gun safety. They use these incidents of slaughter to make people buy more guns to "protect" themselves from others who use guns. Whatever funding they give to the government is used to only protect their own interests. As long as they get money from gun sales to line their bloody pockets with; travesties like this don't sadden them one least bit.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

I'm so glad that in my country and in Japan, guns are not allowed. There's a reason why.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

And now a word from our sponsor:

Blah, blah....freedom....blah, blah, blah....second amendment....blah, blah, blah.....From my cold dead hands!

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I want to know more about the shooter. I'm pretty sure we're going to hear the same old spiel, "He was mentally ill!" in which case once again, how does a mentally ill person GET A GUN!??!

7 ( +9 / -2 )

'All comments about how guns are bad, USA is bad and one how religion is bad and none with sympathy for the victims families. Seems a problem exists in most of us not caring for one another.'

Allowing and supporting the population of a country to be armed to the teeth is the best way to care for your citizens? Tell that to the families of those murdered in yet another gun massacre. Yes, guns are bad. They really are.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The gunman has just been identified as Chris Harper Mercer from the Roseburg area.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I refuse to even debate this anymore since we'll never change. Oh look! My Mass Shooting Bingo card is full now!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

MarkG

All comments about how guns are bad, USA is bad and one how religion is bad and none with sympathy for the victims families. Seems a problem exists in most of us not caring for one another.

Pretending to have the monopoly on something like caring is a classic argument used by disingenuous people who don't have facts and common sense on their side (i.e., conservatives). When people say guns are bad, it's because guns allow bad people to kill more people than they'd otherwise be capable of. How is wanting to prevent future tragedies not caring about people? Condolences are nice, but I'm sure the victims families would've preferred this didn't happen in the first place.

Nobody is saying the US is bad. Just that it's gun laws could use some work. Sure there are a number of other issues involved, but why are you so against working on the most obvious?

The NRA is for safe and responsible use of firearms.

Yeah, that's what is was founded on, but now it's just a giant lobby that blocks anything that remotely resembles stricter gun laws. It's founders never intended for any idiot on the street to be able to own a gun.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

One more reason not to return home.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The NRA is for safe and responsible use of firearms.

@MarkG Name the last law the NRA championed or supported for the sake of promoting safe and responsible use of firearms.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

MrBum, your insults do show the lack of common sense or depth of thought.

Other methods exist to cause mass casualties. Your wrong there. Maybe because they are not in video games or Hollywood so much leave them less 'glamorous' for a nut job.

Who is the NRA? Why are they so powerful? Where is their revenue from? Why so large? Many are the family next door, you can't paint everyone a single same color.

Look at the tapes regarding the Planned Parenthood. Look at the complete videos, not the ones Nancy Pelocy claims are doctored. You know, those videos she also admits not ever reviewing. Is she agenda driven.....

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

And the gun manufacturing industry will once again see an increase in guns sold.

If you want to see pictures of the gun crowd, google (or us duckduckgo if you don't want to be tracked) "open carry" + "come and taake it".

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=come+and+take+it+iopen+carry&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIjrqH_9aiyAIVRaWUCh3BQwPj&biw=1280&bih=761

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Who is the NRA? Why are they so powerful? Where is their revenue from? Why so large? Many are the family next door, you can't paint everyone a single same color.

They all have the same gun nut color running down their spine; yellow. If its not an overwrought fear of the government its a fear of things that go bump in the night. I used to have quite a penchant for weapons myself, but I realized why, and stopped being such a chicken. I see the same fear in all those fascinated with guns. Guns make them feel powerful and safe. But its all a mind screw. Other people having guns with no training, no storage rules, and no psyche eval/ licensing required is what creates the real reason to be fearful. And trying to cover that fear with a gun of your own is foolishness at best. Its a totally false sense of security even if a lucky few do manage to protect themselves from another armed person. True believers have watched too many movies and are too easily brainwashed. America is full of people who despite all their excuses and attempts at reason, are nothing more than gun cultists who believe the almighty gun god will protect them from evil.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

How many more times

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"The Stars / In your Flag / America / Are like bullet-holes"

-- Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is what happens when the cost of tuition fees goes up three fold in less than a ten year period - STRESS!!!

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-harper-mercer-umpqua-community-college-ucc-roseburg-oregon-shooting-shooter-gunman-dead-eggman-4chan-name-id-identity-photos-twitter-social-media-facebook-youtube/

**One person responded saying, “I suggest you enter a classroom and tell people that you will take them as hostages. Make everyone get in one corner and then open fire. Make sure that there is no way that someone can disarm you as it it possible. I suggest you carry a knife on your belt as last resort if someone is holding your gun.”

Another poster said, “You might want to target a girls school which is safer because there are no beta males throwing themselves for their rescue. Do not use a shotgun. I would suggest a powerful assault rifle and a pistol or 2x pistols. Possibly the type of pistols who have 15+ ammo.”

Pretty scary, Prism missed that one or it's of low importance in the "contact local authorities" filtering ?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Wc626 The issue has become too polarized for either side to be truly objective. That said, I blame your side for being so obstinate and unreasonable first, thus causing the polarization and anger that ruined the chance for objectivity.

I am sure the majority of the gun haters would not scoff at having gun laws like Canada or Switzerland, if it came down to it. They may be chanting "ban guns" now, but I bet they would compromise with very little convincing. Their hard line stance would crumble the minute the gun cultists dropped their hard line stance, the hard line stance that ruined the discussion in the first place.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The US needs to take a leaf out of Australia's book and introduce a government buy-back scheme for automatic & semi-automatic rifles. Port Arthur in Hobart saw a massacre that left 35 dead. The govt. made a very controversial decision, but it has been a leading example of effective gun control. Granted Australia has a tiny population, but there hasn't been a single mass-shooting since that tragedy in 1996. To quote a recent Washington Post article:

Firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provided strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

I love the US & its people, but their obsession with the 2nd Amendment is getting them nowhere. There are currently 40mil guns (registered) in circulation nationally. I guess I don't get it?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

FBI is going to check all sort of social nedia as they dun't gave info on him. Be careful writing your imagination.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

These poor kids went to school to learn that the guns laws were wholly inadequate to protect anyone's "rights". The gun laws exist only for the sale or more and more and more guns.

I hate to break the news to you but gun rights are enshrined in the US Constitution. That's where people should be focusing their attention.

"The notion that gun violence is somehow different — that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and do everything they do under such regulations — it doesn't make sense*. "

There are already many restrictions on gun rights. For Obama to get the kind of 'modest' regulations that he has in mind that would actually stop people from illegally obtaining guns and committing these kinds of atrocities would require overturning the second amendment to the Bill of Rights. There are already severe restrictions on guns in Chicago but murders in Obama's home town have skyrocketed. Obama is unable to secure the US border from being overwhelmed by children - does anyone seriously believe he can keep out illegal guns?

In schools students learn all about their right not to be offended but they don't learn much about the Constitution - at least not anymore. They do learn that they cannot carry a gun on school grounds. As a result it seems that half the time some crazy person wants to slaughter a bunch of people they quickly head to a school campus where guns are illegal. Even crazy folks are not too dumb to realize that schools are easy targets.

There is no sense in Obama and others whining about the need for more gun regulations unless they are prepared to do the hard work of amending the US Constitution. Being that Obama is so used to just making up the law himself going through the correct Constitutional process probably seems like a stupid waste of time. But the fact that he never mentions changing the second amendment is all one needs to know to realize that his faux outrage is just an act to gain political points.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

An absolute disgrace. How many people need to die before something is done? We've had kids slaughtered in daycare. Worshipers butchered in a church and numerous cases of college coeds being massacred. What will it take to change? The US bleats long and loud about both its freedoms and its fight against terrorism. However, a population that lives under the shadow of being gunned down in the street is not free. Furthermore, terrorism is not just something that involves far off lands, today it happened on the streets of Oregon.

Wake up America before somebody puts a gun to your collective heads and blows your brains out.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

For Obama to get the kind of 'modest' regulations that he has in mind that would actually stop people from illegally obtaining guns and committing these kinds of atrocities would require overturning the second amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Entirely incorrect. For the first hundred years of American history, "a well-regulated militia" took precedence over "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It wasn't until the American political right began a judicial vendetta against this traditional interpretation beginning in the 1970s that the Second Amendment was reinterpreted, culminating with the Heller decision of 2008. This is one reason why electing a Democratic president in 2016 is so important: Interpretation of the Second Amendment must be returned to what clearly the writers had intended.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Here is an interview with a Umpqua student who was on campus and was carrying a concealed weapon at the time of the shooting, but did not intervene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mOJf9HW2Zo&feature=youtu.be

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Wolfpack But the fact that he never mentions changing the second amendment is all one needs to know to realize that his faux outrage is just an act to gain political points.

I think he's fully aware that so many very dangerous people want to believe that something written in 1790, when there were 4 million people (not counting the indigenous whose lands the whites were taking) who used muskets, not ivory handled automatic weapons, still pertains to todays's world.

Look at these pictures of people challenging the local police. Does any politician want to confront these American cultural extremists?

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=open+carry+come+and+take+it&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=491&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI7va-6OSiyAIVBSWUCh1apA_g

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Here we go again. What will the NRA say this time--again. We surely need stricter gun control regulation--increased background checks, a ban on assault weapons...oh and this thing about the second amendment, well that was for protection against the British, and our forefathers never envisioned assault weapons.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

'I love the US & its people, but their obsession with the 2nd Amendment is getting them nowhere'

I read it more like some people just love guns and use the 2nd Amendment as a justification for their sordid vice.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

A woman who claimed to have a grandmother inside a writing class in Snyder Hall, where a portion the massacre unfolded, described the scene in a tweet.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian,” she wrote. “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset."

Kortney Moore, an 18-year-old student at Umpqua Community College who was also in the room, told Oregon’s News Review that the shooter was indeed on the hunt for Christians.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Again guns kills yes most often in America murder is committed by hand guns in Japan by knives is it safe to have knives in the homes in Japan are dangerous? Is it safe to say that the crazies in Japan who murder with knives are insane and that all people in Japan who haves knives in their homes shouldn't have them? Most often the people who have hand guns at home rarely shoot them or carry them I have several and if you ask me when was the last time I shot it I couldn't tell you, as a matter of fact I don't even know the last time I picked it up. What I do know it is locked up in my home and the only way to get to it is to by pass three locks! Now I can bet anyone in Japan can get there kitchen knife out faster than I can retrieve my gun if in need. Most Americans who have guns are abiding citizens our constitution allow us to own guns regardless how one dies by gun shot or stab wounds death is death. Most often in Japan as a matter of fact recently some whacko broken into several homes and stabbed people entire families and probably with a knife from their home. Again death is death regardless of how it done so you posters can thumb me down all you want when should some one attempt to come in my home I rather have a gun than a knife lets just hope I can get to my gun before whacko enters. I tell you what posters you keep your knives and sticks I love my guns!

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Guns are the great equalizer. If any one of the victims had a gun, they could have put a bullet right between the eyes of the shooter.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

There are already many restrictions on gun rights.

Clearly not enough if nutjobs can legally get their hands on them with ease.

Obama is unable to secure the US border from being overwhelmed by children - does anyone seriously believe he can keep out illegal guns?

Where do you think those guns are made? If anything, those guns are coming back home. Most illegal guns start out as legal guns. Want to reduce their numbers? Stop making/selling so many guns.

There are already severe restrictions on guns in Chicago but murders in Obama's home town have skyrocketed.

They haven't skyrocketed. What's your source? Either way, strict gun laws in Chicago don't mean a thing if guns are readily available the next state over. Maybe they need to build a wall...

But the fact that he never mentions changing the second amendment is all one needs to know to realize that his faux outrage is just an act to gain political points.

Obama, Obama, Obama... Talk about misplacement of blame. It couldn't possibly be because he's actually saddened by the monthly tragedies but feels that almost everything stands in his way of doing anything about it, not the least of which is a considerable portion of the population that thinks like you. His inaction is to appease your side. It actually loses him points with a lot of progressives.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@ misunderstood:

What I do know it is locked up in my home and the only way to get to it is to by pass three locks!

then this:

should some one attempt to come in my home I rather have a gun than a knife

So lets get this right - you are going to kindly ask your fantasy home intruder to patiently wait while you unlock those three locks and take your gun out?

Is logic even on the agenda for these gun fanatics?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Another group of people sacrificing our lives so people can play with their guns. Time to erect another monument.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Superlib:

" Another group of people sacrificing our lives so people can play with their guns. "

I don´t understand your comment. According to the news, this was a "gun-free campus". The only one who played with a gun was the shooter. So what "people" are you referring to?

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Eventually what will hapen is a "controlled" gun gun control law will be passed. Values and unwritten morals etc used to keep this insanity in check, but thats long passed but some are still stuck in us vs. them and never transistioned to something more progressive. It will either be keep your gun in an armory supervised by civilians in order to keep the gov out of it as gun supporters fear gov tyranny, and use your weapon under controlled supervision, check it out with limited access to ammo etc. Sort of a misinterpreted version of the constitution, but as we see in Japan, anything can be misinterpreted, just depends on the times you live it, so it could be done. The second option is too develop a technology that is a game changer. "the right to keep and bear arms" does not define what an "arm" is. The current accepted idea of an arm is an ancient concept of an explosion driving a projectile,. once it leaves the barrrel its no longer controllable This could be outlawed. The gov has outlawed many things they feel is dangerous for the enviroment like CFC gas etc. They could do the same with projectiles and in its place a more controlled arm be developed for civilians, keeping in the definition of the 2nd admendment. Every projectile could be made to develop a magnetic field that could be countered with technology that could revese it etc. Obvisouly, I dont know what Im talking about when it comes to technology, but my point is a technology developed that would allow everyone protection from weapons. This would make weapons like projectiles essentially useless because if your going to shoot at somebody, it would be pointless as they could deflect it, but thats the point anyway, to reduce gun ownership

I dont see any other way of making it work. You cant follow GB or AUS lead as their laws are different and more progressive than the U.S. in many areas.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Jimizo

I read it more like some people just love guns and use the 2nd Amendment as a justification for their sordid vice.

I may or may not have been alluding to that! In any case, I urge everyone on here to check this hilarious video out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk

It's the now-famous sketch done by the comedian Jim Jeffries on gun laws in the US. Absolutely nails it!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You got to love the video from Sensato. The guy interviewed almost seems like a normal human being for his calm demeanor. But his dirty baseball cap and jargon give him away: American gun nut of barely average intelligence. Active shooter, close proximity, potential targets, response time....the language of the brainwashed.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@sighclops Thanks. He nailed it! It's not funny what happened in Oregon (and and and and), and it's not funny what whack gun owners do with their guns, and it's not funny what the nut jobs, who as Jeffries says so well can't admit it's just because they love shooting guns, not because of some man made 200 plus year old constitutional principle, but he does describe the mindset of gun owners so well.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Or there could be technology developend and enforced that required all weapons to transmit data and people could download an app that alerted them when guns were in the area. The data would also name the owner, type of weapon etc. This weapon would have to be certified annually etc. All sorts of things could be considered like this.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Japan banning of all handguns and strict controls on rifles, shotguns and sales ammunition has got the annual body count from firearms down to one-digit figures per year. I consider that admirable and worthy of emulation. My Yank friends are astonished when I tell them Japan had 8 deaths from firearm homicides in all of 2014.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Galappagos:

" My Yank friends are astonished when I tell them Japan had 8 deaths from firearm homicides in all of 2014. "

I don´t think you can compare a highly coherent and controlled society like Japan with the US. That is comparing apples and oranges. For that matter, Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership and also very few murders. So does Israel by the way, if you discount West Bank terrorism.

There are very different societies out there; if you pick them selectively, you can prove almost anything,

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

So in Japan a young man or woman is suffering from depression and may suffer from some social disabilities.. in that sad cases the fatal outcome most times is suicide....thus around the world Japan is like a suicide hell hole.

But the same type of disadvantage of emotional/psychological problems in the US... the outcome is shoot & kill every thing that moves in two legs...until you are killed by other trigger happy persons.

In that case, Japanese people have more respect for the lives of others.... you kill yourself and that's it...in the US you kill everybody else.

By the way before someone comes to say something, I said "most of the times", yes there are weapon involved kill/suicide crimes in Japan but the scale is smaller, there are no guns involved (90% of the time), so i am not denying nothing.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@5petals

The data would also name the owner, type of weapon etc. This weapon would have to be certified annually etc. All sorts of things could be considered like this.

My posts clearly label me as anti-gun and frankly, I wish you would cease and desist with such talk because you ruin the chances of reasonable discussion or compromise as surely as any gun nut screaming about infringement. Attempting to put gun owners in a citizen accessible data base as if they were sex offenders is un-American, fascist and a guarantee of more bickering.

In fact, I question whose side you are really on.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Will - so you are saying America is more violent? And you don't see that this should mean that gun control would be a better thing for the US than other countries? Quite the disconnect you've got there.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

NRA is the parasite for law abiding American residents. Kindly kids, uni students, movie goers, church attendants no one is safe from being shot. Children killed each other with parents guns.

Individual freedom should not be prioritized over river of innocent blood. USA is still in the medieval age era blood thirsty warriors are killing others for fun and pleasure.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The Second Amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Some have argued that the convoluted grammar obscures the meaning, but I disagree; "be" as a present participle is solely used as a reason clause (being an English fanatic, I would know this), so the Amendment could be rewritten, "Because well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, a " well-regulated militia" is the cause - the purpose - of allowing gun ownership, and devoid of that, no rights exist at all.

This is clarified by historical background. For example, the U.S. Constitution granted Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,...to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....” Ironically, Republicans should love this: The States are delegated sole right how to organize a militia and, thus, laws regarding bearing arms. This has been turned on its head by recent Supreme Court decisions which have stripped states of their rights to regulate their "militia" as they see fit.

A good solution would be to return to the states their historical prerogative. Some states might continue the status quo; others might ban private arm ownership altogether. I would like to see a system under which a potential gun owner must testify as to his/her need for a gun, and a system in which guns are subject to a modest tax each year - this would encourage those who have guns lying around to dispose of them lawfully.

The point is that nothing in the Second Amendment prohibits such common-sense measures; in fact, it demands it.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

USA is still in the medieval age era blood thirsty warriors are killing others for fun and pleasure.

Yep, especially in those ghettos where gangbangers, drug dealers, crooks, cop killers, "yet to be" deported illegal immigrants go around shooting everyone. But, but . . . but I thought black lives matter.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I guess that's what started all the gun/anti-gun posts on FB today. A couple of them:

1

Honduras, pop. 8.2M: Bans citizens from owning guns. Highest homicide rate in the entire world.

Switzerland, pop 8.2M: Requires citizens to own guns. Lowest homicide rate in the entire world.

2

323 deaths attributed to modern sporting rifles, 195,000 due to medical malpractice. That makes Obamacare 603% more deadly than an assault rifle. (someecards)

Anyone that wants to rage against the 603% figure (should have been around 60300%), please note you are raging against the lack of math skills in an e-card writer.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

They all have the same gun nut color running down their spine; yellow. If its not an overwrought fear of the government its a fear of things that go bump in the night. I used to have quite a penchant for weapons myself, but I realized why, and stopped being such a chicken. I see the same fear in all those fascinated with guns. Guns make them feel powerful and safe. But its all a mind screw. Other people having guns with no training, no storage rules, and no psyche eval/ licensing required is what creates the real reason to be fearful. And trying to cover that fear with a gun of your own is foolishness at best. Its a totally false sense of security even if a lucky few do manage to protect themselves from another armed person. True believers have watched too many movies and are too easily brainwashed. America is full of people who despite all their excuses and attempts at reason, are nothing more than gun cultists who believe the almighty gun god will protect them from evil.

Always the same arm chair psychologists straw-manning gun owners. I guess if you can ridicule and belittle someone enough, it makes it easier to strip away their rights. Yes, clearly gun owners are all cowards. All those hunters, sport shooters, people living in neighborhoods with frequent break-ins and 30 minute police response times, they're all just paranoid psychopaths one hardship away from going on a rampage. Heck, I bet they even have small private parts and are totally compensating!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I thought black lives matter.

No one is proposing taking the guns away from police.

Anyone that wants to rage against the 603% figure (should have been around 60300%), please note you are raging against the lack of math skills in an e-card writer.

So it would appear that the problem is not guns, but Americans. So logically, it would make sense to take guns away from Americans, since they are not able to responsibly use them.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Wolfpack: There are already many restrictions on gun rights.

The gun laws are patchwork provisions with plenty of loopholes which is exactly what the NRA works hard to do. They work to water down gun laws then they point out that gun laws fail.

They do learn that they cannot carry a gun on school grounds. As a result it seems that half the time some crazy person wants to slaughter a bunch of people they quickly head to a school campus where guns are illegal.

These people always, always, always want to be famous. How do you become famous? Shoot up a school. It's a clear path to stardom for the mentally deranged. To think it's because they feel "safer" killing people at a school is just something gun owners tell themselves to feel better.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

turbotsatOct. 02, 2015 - 02:06PM JST I guess that's what started all the gun/anti-gun posts on FB today. A couple of them: Honduras, pop. 8.2M: Bans citizens from owning guns. Highest homicide rate in the entire world. Switzerland, pop 8.2M: Requires citizens to own guns. Lowest homicide rate in the entire world.

You cannot do such simplistic comparison ...

GDP per capita :

Honduras 2,361

Switzerland 87,475

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Here's the problem with arguing the Second Amendment's intent from either side... it's not up to anyone but the Supreme Court to decide how it is applied. From 1939-2008, the Supreme Court followed a precedent that the Second Amendment was intended to apply only to armed groups (i.e. army, police, security, etc) not individuals. However, SCOTUS has used an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment since a more conservative court overturned a 30-year old handgun ban in Washington D.C. in 2008.

Australia was able to get its gun violence problems under control in the 1990s. Japan's model for regulating gun ownership would go a long way to helping the problem in the U.S. It's a political non-starter since any meaningful change would take longer to implement than a single election cycle. It's up to responsible gun owners to force the gun lobbies to act for change by voting with the wallets. Pull out of the NRA, AGA and NAGR and force them to champion the change in D.C.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Eppee ...

Poor people are more virtuous, making the disparity even worse.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@sighclops

The US needs to take a leaf out of Australia's book and introduce a government buy-back scheme for automatic & >semi-automatic rifles.

Automatic weapons require a Federal Firearms License. The FFL process is expensive, and so are automatic weapons. The people owning them are typically reasonably-wealthy law-abiding upper middle-class citizens. Semiautomatic rifles are much more common, but also make up a small fraction of firearms-related fatalities.

There are currently 40mil guns (registered) in circulation nationally.

We've had millions of firearms in circulation for decades. But 20 years ago, when I was in junior high, school shootings were almost unheard of. Why? Why does no one want to take a serious look at the data to determine what factors have changed outside of the weapons themselves?

@PTownsend

The guy interviewed almost seems like a normal human being for his calm demeanor. But his dirty baseball cap and >jargon give him away: American gun nut of barely average intelligence. Active shooter, close proximity, potential >targets, response time....the language of the brainwashed.

It's also the language of the military. If you weren't paying attention, he repeatedly mentioned that he was a veteran. He also clearly articulated that they did a quick risk assessment, recognized that moving around the campus attempting to pursue and engage the shooter would only increase their own risk of being shot by (uninformed) law enforcement responders, and chose to hold their position where they were still capable of providing a last line of defense for the people they were with if necessary. Hardly the reasoning one would expect from a "brainwashed" man of "barely average intelligence".

You seem eager to paint a picture of gun owners as some collective of stupid/uneducated rednecks, which I find both disingenuous and insulting. I'm an educated middle-class minority, and prior to moving to Japan, I kept 3 semi-auto rifles (2 SKSes and an M4) with ~1500 rounds of ammunition in my Miami apartment. The first SKS was just for general recreational target shooting. The 2nd I bought to modify and upgrade (the same way I modify and upgrade computers and cars that I own). I bought the M4 to help maintain my marksmanship skills while in the National Guard (we rarely had opportunities to train). I later gave my SKSes to my dad (a retired doctor), and the M4 to my brother (Secret Service). My mother, a software architect, keeps a .357 revolver in her house. We don't fit the mass-media image of crazy racist rednecks with more ammunition than sense, and we aren't the only ones.

On a somewhat related note, a friend of mine just this past weekend had a gun-related incident in Osaka. He was staying at some girl's apartment and was awakened around 1am when an intoxicated Hispanic-looking guy covered in tattoos burst through the door demanding to know who he was. At first he thought he had a fake gun until the guy stuck it in his chest. But then the assailant had to use the bathroom, and my friend took the opportunity to grab his stuff and flee. "From now on if I'm going to visit a girl I'm getting a hotel room." Kansai.....never a dull moment. 0_0

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Switzerland, pop 8.2M: Requires citizens to own guns

Switzerland doesn't "require" citizens to own guns. They're issued as part of conscripted military service and soldiers are given the option to keep the weapons upon discharge from service. If they choose to keep them, the weapons are converted from fully-auto to semi-auto. Switzerland still has a significantly lower gun ownership rate than the U.S.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Gun loving, 2nd Amendment yahoos will say that legal guns aren't the problem and with more legal gun owners out there on the streets, you have a better chance to shutting down these massacres. So, why is it then that in every story we see, IT'S ALWAYS THE POLICE THAT END THE KILLERS' LIVES?

I'm strongly in favor of gun control, but let's get the facts right.

First, it's not always the police who end the killers' lives.

Second, it's my understanding that you're not allowed to carry a gun on a U.S. college campus, so the police killing the murderer here says nothing about the issue of non-police being armed. (I happen to think arming non-police won't help.)
1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Noble 713 If you're going to quote me, please quote something I said.

I left links to websites showing pictures of the the extremists who hold 'come and take it' and 'open carry' rallies.

Every culture has its extremists; unfortunately it's extremists everywhere in the world who put everyone at greater risk.

And please don't be one of those people who tell me the people in the 'come and take it' rallies are freedom fighters because I'll tell you the names of other cultural extremists who use that same term to describe themselves.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Second, it's my understanding that you're not allowed to carry a gun on a U.S. college campus

Not quite. In Idaho, Utah, and Colorado concealed weapons are allowed on campus by law. In Oregon (and five other states), concealed weapons are allowed on campus by law but schools decide where on the campus they are allowed and who may carry.

In ~20 states, policy is left entirely up to the schools. In the remaining states, guns are either forbidden from campus by law or restricted to being kept in locked cars in the parking lots.

http://www.armedcampuses.org/

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Thanks, Sioux.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Noble713

We've had millions of firearms in circulation for decades.

Somehow I doubt this. Regardless, unless people are destroying their old guns, the number of guns in the country can only be increasing. There's one obvious change occurring for you.

Why does no one want to take a serious look at the data to determine what factors have changed outside of the weapons themselves?

Do you really think no one is looking at the data? Wealth distribution, mental health, urbanization, a certain party's glorification of gun ownership, etc. are all factors that are studied and talked about. Maybe not talked about enough, but let's face it, gun advocates don't talk about it either unless a shooting occurs.

And let's not pretend most on the pro-gun side are for doing something about those other problems, because actually dealing with something like mental illness would require massive public spending. I don't think I have to tell you which party tends to be against that.

I think everyone agrees that there's a problem. One side is just dead set to do absolutely nothing about it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

All comments about how guns are bad, USA is bad and one how religion is bad and none with sympathy for the victims families.

Steel phallus fetishists: "guns are bad crowd have empathy deficit!"

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

America, your 2nd Amendment is a charter for mass murderers. I will never understand why people feel the need to own weapons.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

As much as I moan about the state of the UK these days at least guns is only a minor worry and our police force for the most part can still go about doing their jobs unarmed. It's slowly getting worse but that day is still a fair distance away.

Far too late for America to do anything now, gun culture is too much in their blood and I really could see a civil war kicking off if an attempt to ban guns was enforced.

Oh, and money. Money is far more important than people's lives.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I apologize in advance for not being able to provide a link, but I read that the FBI's "definition" of a mass shooting is four or more victims at once. Using that as criteria, since the beginning of POTUS's second term, there HAS NOT been one week in which one or more of these unfortunate incidents have occurred. Stunning ! It is time to stop the discussion, and DO SOMETHING !

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Presidents, pregnant women, kids, babies, they've all been slaughtered in mass by guns and then a debate about gun ownership will follow and Obama will issue a statement and that'll be that till the next mass shooting.

America will never change. Even if the world were to reset, I bet Americans wouldn't change a thing.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

My posts clearly label me as anti-gun and frankly, I wish you would cease and desist with such talk because you ruin the chances of reasonable discussion or compromise as surely as any gun nut screaming about infringement. Attempting to put gun owners in a citizen accessible data base as if they were sex offenders is un-American, fascist and a guarantee of more bickering. In fact, I question whose side you are really on.

It would start locally, with like minded progressive people requiring all gun owners weapons to have wireless transmitting devices that would warn anyone with a cell phone the name of the person, how many feet away they were type of weapon etc. This would preempt many a mass killing, and do precisely as you hoped it would not; reduce gun ownership. Anyone found violating this local ordinance would be fined and if multiple offenses be asked to leave. Every round of ammunition would be taxed. If you dont want to live in such a city or county, then another pro gun county might satisfy you. It would not be violating the 2nd admendment, and let states make their own laws according to the 10th admendment. You speak of sex offenders, that is a different subject. In Aus and GB, to my understanding, what is a sex crime in the US is not one there, like prostitution. More guns does not mean less sex crimes, so I dont equate your logic. so Im on the side of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In many areas, the government is just an obstruction, but in this case, its clearly needed, at least at the local level.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Switzerland, pop 8.2M: Requires citizens to own guns. Lowest homicide rate in the entire world.

What an amazing claim to post on (ahem) Japan Today of all places!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"LESS GUNS, NOT MORE."

Fewer wackos would be even better.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

As Obama suggested, the days of emotional reasoning and polarizing politics are over. youve got US citizens now traumatized for life from PSTD, not from an experience in Iraq, but while sitting for an exam at a community college. Kind of boggles the mind. Its time for reform and action. It starts at the local level by clever mayors and governers, with judicial backing, engineering solutions around the 2nd admendment. There are many options. prayer meetings etc, unfortuanetly are no longer effective. many in the U.S. now are atheist anyway. They already started engineering ways around federal laws prohibiting drugs and other liberal fasttracked agendas like gay marriage etc, but still have the highest rate of imprisonment in the world for nonsensical crimes.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

America is kinda dangerous country. Foreign sightseers can't easily go there. It seems shootings happen everywhere very often maybe everyone has guns. It always reminds me of the movie "Bowling for Columbine".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

as has been quoted many times here to remove firearms from the people of the United States you need to remove the second amendment.

on top of this is the FACT that there are a lot of laws already in place by the government- these are good solid laws with mandatory sentencing guidelines yet are rarely prosecuted. that is why the US does not need any more laws- just the wish for someone to prosecute the ones we have.

As for the NRA ; as a group it has always been agnostic to race battles , it focuses on marksmanship, freedom to own, conservation works, and yes SAFETY.

do you really think things would change for a landbound country with insecure borders compared to an island with a nearly homogeneous population?

so go ahead and point to Australia, Britain and Japan as success stories, (please note the UK is not so successful as you think)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The US needs an organization whose goals like counter to the NRA. This group needs to get out their and do as much lobbying as the NRA does. Until then, the NRA will always 'win'.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

What's wrong with having fewer wackos?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No gun means no tears and no more candles. Obama is very frustrated and angry about countless tragedies. As a father he can feel the pain of losing the children. If Obama is the president of Singapore, all gun lobbyists will be locked up in the jail. He will ban not only Gun but also chewing Gum.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Another freedom slaughter brought to you this time by gun nuts and god nuts.

Seems this one was an anti-god nut. Just goes to show that a nutter is a nutter, regardless off their religion, race or ideology. Getting rid of religion, or wiping out a race, or destroying an ideology will not get rid of the nutters. What we have here is a terrible mix of mentally unwell people (whether they're anti/pro whatever) and easy access to weaponry. I respect Americans right to own guns. That's all fine, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE should own one. Seriously, grow up America. Make decent laws that allow responsible citizens to own guns and take away easy access for others. I know it's hard, but that doesn't mean you should do NOTHING. You can't start to make things better if you don't start at all...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If the current president of the United States cannot convince his fellow citizens to act and stop the regular killings, the future looks really bleak. Wasn't this country founded on Christian principles? Do these Christians find loopholes in their holy script, in the sermons in church, justifications to 'bear arms' and be able to use them in times of peace - not in the 16th century? Does the necessity exist in this well organized advanced nation? Is this nation really democratic, or safe for that matter? Do citizens really need these lethal weapons because they feel threatened all the time? Don't they realize they created the threat themselves?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Another day in America."

You wouldn't believe all the great stuff that happens in America every day, Cleo.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@PTownsend

If you're going to quote me, please quote something I said.

My mistake, I was quoting PeaceOut's post just above yours but tagged your name instead.

@MrBum

Noble713 We've had millions of firearms in circulation for decades.

Somehow I doubt this.

Well, here's the data from the Small Arms Survey, 2002, pg61: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2003/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2003-Chapter-02-EN.pdf

"Recent reports from manufacturers and brokers show that between 1995 and 1999, the last years for complete data, an additional 30.6 million guns reached American consumers. In recent years, American gun buying has declined from an all-time high of 7.8 million new firearms in 1993."

Regardless, unless people are destroying their old guns, the number of guns in the country can only be increasing. >There's one obvious change occurring for you.

But the incidence rate of mass murders/non-gang-related shootings/etc. is increasing at a faster rate than the growth in per capita firearms. Which suggests that the firearms aren't the major driving factor in the violence. If we built an equation from the data using an OLS regression analysis I strongly suspect the coefficients for the "other" variables would be significantly higher than the coefficient for "# of firearms".

@5petals

Your ideas for leveraging tech to restrict firearms are so unworkable it's not even funny. Given sufficient incentive, criminals can easily develop countermeasures to your wifi-tagged firearms sceme. For example, any competent machinist/engineer with a drill press and a 3D printer can make new weapons in his garage. And any neighborhood with an absence of cellphone warnings about nearby firearms is asking for a crime wave of muggings/home burglaries by criminals armed with knives or other improvised melee weapons. After all, they know the defenders won't have firearms to protect themselves, so their personal risk is reduced!

As for your previous idea of some sort of electromagnetic shield to protect citizens from bullets....the kinetic energy of a round is far too high for any sort of personal shield device to stop or deflect it. Not to mention that people would also start producing bullets with non-ferrous materials (there would probably be other losses in performance but most shootings in the US are <50m range, you can use some really crappy rounds that close).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"No gun means no tears and no more candles."

Wrong. If only if were that simple...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Wrong. If only if were that simple...

Agree, Serrano. This isn't a simple problem and there are no simple solutions. This is a cultural problem. Until that part of it addressed, nothing will work. The problem is that no one seems to want to talk about that part of the problem...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Not quite. In Idaho, Utah, and Colorado concealed weapons are allowed on campus by law. In Oregon (and five other states), concealed weapons are allowed on campus by law but schools decide where on the campus they are allowed and who may carry.

Concealed weapons allowed. This is a scary nation. If nation is the right term. It's more a conglomeration of entities with their own conflicting rules and biased priorities to satisfy themselves, not necessarily the people who are trying to make a living there.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The problem is that no one seems to want to talk about that part of the problem...

No, the problem is that fixing that part of the problem is even more difficult than fixing the gun problem.

For example, can you even identify what 'that part of the problem' is?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Another day in America." You wouldn't believe all the great stuff that happens in America every day, Cleo.

No doubt Cleo is aware of the great stuff and that it does not negate the bad stuff.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The second amendment is unlikely to be repealed even in the medium term. Gun ownership is seen as lynch pin of civil rights to all voters irrespective of class. Still of no real consequence to the victims or their families. Sincere condolences.

There is a compromise of sorts.........This case has some interesting arguments for future firearms control.

Supreme Court of the United States..... District of Columbia et al. v. Heller No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008...........

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept non-functional even when necessary for self-defence, violated that right

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

can you even identify what 'that part of the problem' is?

Yes. The concept of freedom versus the rights of individuals. How does an individual's rights to a safe environment to live in compare to the right to bare arms to protect that environment. Why is it necessary for people to believe that they need to own weapons to potentially kill other human beings in order to protect themselves from a democratically elected government. Why is the concept of "rights" enshrined as the ultimate goal when individual rights often contradict other rights and decisions need to be made over which are more important and in what circumstances.

...and why is ever talking about any of this painted by many as "unpatriotic" and an attack on the American way, when infact it is an attempt to make life better for people rather than sitting in the same old stink hole of indecision that has led to this mess in the first place.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I agree.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

2nd Amendment... A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

This was not fully defined until 2008 in the Heller case when the Supreme Court came down on the side of an “individual rights”theory in a supplement....

That the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense

This argument at present will overturn all precedents, but could this ruling apply to all states? It is not over yet. of course to enforce gun control effectively is another matter altogether. That last sentence could well be the NRA undoing.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

2nd Amendment is going down faster than a ratchet in Hollywood

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Your ideas for leveraging tech to restrict firearms are so unworkable it's not even funny. Given sufficient incentive, criminals can easily develop countermeasures to your wifi-tagged firearms sceme. For example, any competent machinist/engineer with a drill press and a 3D printer can make new weapons in his garage. And any neighborhood with an absence of cellphone warnings about nearby firearms is asking for a crime wave of muggings/home burglaries by criminals armed with knives or other improvised melee weapons. After all, they know the defenders won't have firearms to protect themselves, so their personal risk is reduced! As for your previous idea of some sort of electromagnetic shield to protect citizens from bullets....the kinetic energy of a round is far too high for any sort of personal shield device to stop or deflect it. Not to mention that people would also start producing bullets with non-ferrous materials (there would probably be other losses in performance but most shootings in the US are <50m range, you can use some really crappy rounds that close).

Yes, just pooh pooh any suggestion and let apathy and resignation take over. How many shootings have involved a home made machinist in his garage using his lathe or a 3D printer to make a pistol used to kill people? I havent heard of one. The problem is that guns are too accessible. The solution is to make them so difficult to get or keep and empower the public by giving them the means to be aware who is armed. As it is now, what defense does anyone have, except to arm themselves? Its a country of armed citizens, not against the government, but against each other. . Do you know what you have to go through to get a gun in Japan? The regulations and laws makes it almost not worth the effort to even try it. For the 1% nut who might be able to make a homemade pistol with a one or two shot capacity, Id say thats much better than some nut with an AK47 or other assault weapon, spraying whomever he pleases. Id require every pistol rifle and shotgun to have a transmitter, and inspected every quarter. Id do like they do in japan with a map to your safe, and require biannual safety meetings. Therre would also be a tax on ownership and any ammo purchased. Whats your suggestion? All is lost? Thats exactly what other countries want to hear from you. They dont care about yourr domestic problems; they are looking for weakness to exploit.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

America is kinda dangerous country. Foreign sightseers can't easily go there. It seems shootings happen everywhere very often maybe everyone has guns. It always reminds me of the movie "Bowling for Columbine.

You're watching too much TV. Yes, you have a couple of moonbats out there, but generally speaking, it's not anything like a John Wayne movie. Grew up half my life in L.A. Never once have I seen people running around with guns or shooting up the place.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Hi Noble713, If I could ask your opinion....would a legal (federal) requirement to keep firearms securely at a chosen Pistol and Rifle Club range effect your individual right to own fire arms?...Did your fire arms ownership stem from a home security requirement?...Honestly not asked in a judgmental fashion.

That quite a arsenal, the bayonet on the SKS has to be a optional extra?

M4 Carbine....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGElI9spHBk

SKS (Russian Model)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgCoG4eT0p0

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I guess if you can ridicule and belittle someone enough, it makes it easier to strip away their rights. Yes, clearly gun owners are all cowards.

@Illyas I was not referring to all gun owners, as I have owned firearms myself and probably would again if I went back to America. I was speaking of gun nuts, most NRA supporters and members, and those who have attacked every gun control measure ever suggested.

I will say this again: Most anti-gun people could be convinced to compromise with gun laws similar to those in Canada and other places. Its the gun nuts who refuse to compromise, probably because they realize they lack the intelligence to pass what would surely become the basic requirements of ownership.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The [dating site] profile describes [the alleged shooter] as "not religious, but spiritual" beliefs and was linked to a group called "doesn't like organized religion."

"Survivors of the Umpqua shooting told relatives that Harper Mercer asked people whether they were Christian or not. Anyone who responded "yes" was shot in the head and those who said "other" or didn't answer were shot elsewhere in the body, said Autumn Vicari, whose brother was in the classroom."

-- http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/oregon-shooting-umpqua-gunman-chris-harper-mercer-what-we-know-n437351

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Switzerland, pop 8.2M: Requires citizens to own guns. Lowest homicide rate in the entire world.

SenseNotSoCommon: What an amazing claim to post on (ahem) Japan Today of all places!

Switzerland doesn't have that homicides-disguised-as-suicides thing to deflate homicide stats, at least not much. People beating themselves to death, and so on.

Still, the Honduras/Switzerland poster's not far off: Japan 5th of 218, Switzerland 11th of 218, Honduras 218th of 218 countries, by homicide rate (wikipedia).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The information that is never released: the results of the toxicology tests on the gunman. What kind of pharmaceuticals was he on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You wouldn't believe all the great stuff that happens in America every day

You'd be surprised. But none of that great stuff makes those 10 people any less dead, nor does it make the other 294 people killed in mass shootings in the US so far this year any less dead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/2015-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/

It doesn't matter how good looking I might be, how well-toned my muscles might be, how much philanthropical good work I might do, how kind I am to animals, if I've got a cancer eating me from the inside out, I'm not doing too well. And if I won't even acknowledge that the cancer is hurting me - if I revel in my 'freedom' to be terminally sick - there's not much hope.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The media hype is agenda driven. Simple to see. I have no fear to go anywhere in the USA with the exception of a couple cities gang areas after dark. Other than that, I'll go anywhere anytime everywhere else.

Demented individuals are the problem and when they feel the need to go bananas there's not much one can do. Timmothy Mcv....in Oklahoma devastated the city w/o a firearm. Tsarvev brothers forever changed the Boston Marathon w/o firearms. And numerous others. Firearms are like candles. When used correctly they are fine. When they are not fires can happen. Candles are or where the leading cause of accidental home fires in USA at one point.

How can a ding-dong be prevented is my question. Is it the fame they seek? Is it total and complete absence of empathy? Both and more.....?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So, it appears the shooter targeted Christians, was a lapsed Catholic and an IRA buff.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

markG: Demented individuals are the problem and when they feel the need to go bananas there's not much one can do.

Well we could make it harder to get guns. Naaaaah.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The shooter is a self-described conservative.

He is also a gun nut and a conspiracy lover.

IOW, your typical right wing republican. The kind you see here at JT.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Super.....I'm all for it. And a more effective Federal system which has numerous holes in it. Enforce violent crimes, enforce crimes using guns and mandatory, no questions asked 5 years in jail if in possession of an illegal firearm and use of a gun to commit any crime.

Black Sabbath, you have a hate issue which is evident here. Look into the mirror you probably don't like what you see if you look closely. Terrible things to say from anyone. Terrible!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Gun worship is a mental illness itself. This killer was another conservative republican terrorist obsessed with religion as many on JT are as well. The difference, here in Japan we have gun laws so that in one year less people are killed than in this one shooting alone in the USA. A mass shooting like this happens nearly every day in the USA, every day. You NRA zombies have the blood of thousands of Americans on your hands due to your delusional beliefs about guns. More guns means more deaths. It is just that simple.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

MarkG

How about let's investigate the shooters problems. He would do harm or damage without a gun in all probability. The gun was an object and it needed a disturbed person to misuse it.

You don't get it Mark. Nobody is questioning the shooter had problems - it's a given in this case. The thing is, LOT's of people have the same problems worldwide. But they don't have ready access to guns, nor have social precedent that makes them think 'I'm going to go to the local Pawn shop, get a gun and then head to University and kill as many people as I can.' So read this carefully: If you eliminate the guns (the object, as you put it) you eliminate the mass killing. The evidence? The rest of the world. See, guns are a cowards crutch. They allow even the most feeble of people the opportunity to kill at distance. Take that away, and they are then presented with far more confronting courses of action if they still want to try to harm/kill people. Most people can't/won't do that. The evidence?

The rest of the world.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Sure am glad I'm a conservative. I want to share no HATE anyone has when used in a general sense.

Stupidity is not always a choice.

Dishonesty, they deserve no respect.

Inequality, not a single human alive is equall to another. Mother Nature see's to that.

Racism is like prostitution, always was and always will be in some form.

Robber Barons, cheats and swindlers are everywhere and as with above comment. Some seek the path of least resistance without any empathy on who they target.

Destroying my country is liberal policies. Have you seen the latest employment reports? Liberalism painted all over them.

Liberal and democracy don't quite fit together.

Hating is not a human attribute to be proud to have. The shooter hates, ISIS hates, Hitler hated. Nobody with any measurable degree of success hates. Quite disturbing! Like I said, I sure am glad to be a conservative. Most don't hate. And a recent poll found liberals divorce more than conservatives. I suppose were more cautious and accepting.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

@5petals

Yes, just pooh pooh any suggestion and let apathy and resignation take over.

To paraphrase Thomas Edison, he didn't find 1 way to make a lightbulb, he found 10,000 ways to NOT make a lightbulb. The process of iterating through ideas until a solution is found requires eliminating the unworkable ones and understanding the points of friction in play. That's neither apathy nor resignation.

How many shootings have involved a home made machinist in his garage using his lathe or a 3D printer to make a >pistol used to kill people? I havent heard of one.

Did you try Google at all? http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28597912/walnut-creek-murder-suicide-points-simmering-questions-ghost

http://fusion.net/story/5286/increasing-number-of-homemade-guns-being-used-to-kill/

Most of the people with the skillset necessary are also rational and disciplined enough to not go on shootings....but they instead sell their products on the black market. For now, it largely seems only economically efficient for major criminal/narcotrafficking groups to use such weapons, but forcing the big corporate manufacturers to include expensive security features could change that dynamic and make homemade weapons cost-competitive for "lower tier" lawbreakers.

For the 1% nut who might be able to make a homemade pistol with a one or two shot capacity,

Look on Amazon for the book "Expedient Homemade Firearms: The 9mm Submachine Gun". I bought a copy of the book when I was in high school, and while I didn't have all of the tools the instructions are fairly simple to create a smoothbore fully-automatic weapon with a substantial magazine capacity.

Id require every pistol rifle and shotgun to have a transmitter, and inspected every quarter.

How many personnel will it take to inspect every residence and place of business, four times a year, in a nation the size of a continent? What's that going to cost? Are the inspection dates known? How do you stop people from moving their stockpiles between Locations A (illegal stockpile not yet inspected) and B (clean location post-inspection) in-between inspections?

Whats your suggestion? All is lost?

We need to address the deeper issues in our society and our culture. To name a few:

-decline in personal responsibility, extended adolescence, and delayed maturity.

-repairing our education system so high schools once again produce viable members of the workforce (this will help to combat the problem above, having 18yo's forced to behave like responsible adults with 9-5 jobs and obligations beyond partying, taking some classes at community college, and living at home with mom)

-address the deficiencies in mental health treatment, particularly with regards to veterans as well as the over-proscription of psychotropic drugs which (IMO) are contributing to these explosive and sociopathic outbursts of violence

-violence in TV/movies. I don't even watch Japanese TV but during a month-long stay in the US last year I was taken aback at how overwhelmingly violent American TV is. And its cartoon violence where people rarely get hit, often suffer non-debilitating flesh wounds, just collapse and die immediately, etc. I think this unrealistic crap really disconnects people from the brutal and painful consequences of using firearms.

-Fix the economy. This is another hundred sub-points in itself. But basically, much of the inter-ethic violence, religious violence, etc. is exacerbated by America's growing population of stressed-out, overworked, under-employed, un-employed, and poor. People who are living in periods of relative abundance are too content to murder their fellow citizens.

@itsonlyrockandroll

would a legal (federal) requirement to keep firearms securely at a chosen Pistol and Rifle Club range effect your >individual right to own fire arms?...Did your fire arms ownership stem from a home security requirement?

yes, I would consider being forced to keep my weapons at a centralized location to negatively affect my rights. It deprives me of my personal responsibility and ability to provide for the security of my own home. Yes, my first purchase (the Yugoslavian SKS) was partially a home security weapon. At the time, I couldn't afford a decent shotgun or high-quality pistol, and wasn't comfortable with handguns anyway (not until I became a Marine Corps officer did I become proficient with a pistol). Although the houses in my Miami neighborhood are pretty stout structures with cinderblock walls, I kept hollow-point rounds to reduce the risk of over-penetration. For my M4 I think I had full metal jacket rounds but of Russian manufacture (Bear ammunition is WAY cheaper than Federal!). The M4 was kept in a hard case, unloaded, while the SKS, if I remember, I usually had loaded and propped up in a corner in my bedroom closet.

That quite a arsenal, the bayonet on the SKS has to be a optional extra?

Nope. The folding blade bayonet on the Yugo SKS was factory stock, and I don't remember the exact legal rationale but was perfectly legal. I bought it from a cool business in Miami that seemed to import and warehouse sizeable quantities of European bolt-action rifles, SKSes, etc. They had crates and crates, and even piles of rifles just stacked in corners in the office. That's an arsenal. ^_^

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Agree with Taramara! Even responsible law abiding gun owner can cause the unintentional accidents. One Gun shooting trainer who was an expert was killed by his 9 year old girl during shooting practice. 3 years old killed 1 year old baby girl with gun from the drawer. One young mother left her gun inside her bag while she was shopping. Her son 5 years old boy open the zipper of bag and shot his own mum to be dead. As Obama said Gun crimes and Gun accidents are daily routine for Wild West America.

No matter how mature or how competent or how responsible the gun owner is, tragedies will still occur as far as the Gun can still buy and sell like a loaf of bread. In Singapore, someone being killed by lightening strike is more possibility rather than being killed by Lunatic Gun man.There will be mad and crazy person in every part of the world not only USA. The difference is those crazy people can not access that extreme harmful physical object as U.S of A.

US gun lovers are still living in the fairy world as every gun owner will be alert, cautious, careful and respectful to their gun. Gun is the poison for law abiding decent American society. Founding fathers of USA will not tolerate any more tragedies caused by pointless cold blood killing.

Abraham Lincoln will wage the another civil war with NRA for liberating US from never ending massacre if he is still alive.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We need to address the deeper issues in our society and our culture. To name a few: -decline in personal responsibility, extended adolescence, and delayed maturity. -repairing our education system so high schools once again produce viable members of the workforce (this will help to combat the problem above, having 18yo's forced to behave like responsible adults with 9-5 jobs and obligations beyond partying, taking some classes at community college, and living at home with mom) -address the deficiencies in mental health treatment, particularly with regards to veterans as well as the over-proscription of psychotropic drugs which (IMO) are contributing to these explosive and sociopathic outbursts of violence -violence in TV/movies. I don't even watch Japanese TV but during a month-long stay in the US last year I was taken aback at how overwhelmingly violent American TV is. And its cartoon violence where people rarely get hit, often suffer non-debilitating flesh wounds, just collapse and die immediately, etc. I think this unrealistic crap really disconnects people from the brutal and painful consequences of using firearms. -Fix the economy. This is another hundred sub-points in itself. But basically, much of the inter-ethic violence, religious violence, etc. is exacerbated by America's growing population of stressed-out, overworked, under-employed, un-employed, and poor. People who are living in periods of relative abundance are too content to murder their fellow citizens.

Ha ha, more of the same from somebody who wants to keep their guns. The good old violence in TVs, fix the economy, mental health treatment etc. excuse. "We need to fix these issues..." So how do you propose they do it? Sorry dude, that train done left and aint coming back. It has nothing to do with the economy; the economy in the U.S. is actually not bad. Shootings happened under Clinton GWB and now Obama. What, if somebody is poo,r then they are excusable for shooting somebody? Japan has some of the most violent and sick cartoons out there, so you cant use the cartoon violence arguement. Id agree that allot of these people are isolated, alienated or have esteem issues. But thats all part of the U.S. experience now and all the culture changes you describe are as well. Its not 1970 or 80, times and technology has changed. Their going to have to change the 2nd admendment or engineer some solutions at the local level to get around it. Or we could do like you suggest and do some town hall and prayer meetings, soul searching and ask ourselves what is wrong....but I think thats what they were doing in SC when the young man arrived and started shooting in that church?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Don't like guns don't buy one. Don't want want to live in a country that allows people tye basic human right if self preservation don't live in The USA. Of the people at the school who got shot had access to a firearm there wouldn't be 10!dead and 20 injured there would be 1 or 2 dead and injured. What is a law going to do?? Pretty sure there is a law against killing people.... Think banning guns will solve the problem??? Pretty sure there is a law banning drugs in the USA yet I would have no problem going out and finding them if I wanted them. So basically what you want to do is take guns away from good people and leave them defenseless. Thanks but no thanks. If there are 6 million illegal immigrants at minimum in the USA how in the hell do you expect to keep guns out? They can even keep people out.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

-repairing our education system so high schools once again produce viable members of the workforce (this will help to combat the problem above, having 18yo's forced to behave like responsible adults with 9-5 jobs and obligations beyond partying, taking some classes at community college, and living at home with mom)

So the kids that were taking classes at the Oregon community college, they were at the wrong place doing the wrong thing? It seems most of these killings are at churches movie theaters schools and colleges. Last time I checked those werent places people hustle drugs or other crimes. Once again...your logic?

-violence in TV/movies. I don't even watch Japanese TV but during a month-long stay in the US last year I was taken aback at how overwhelmingly violent American TV is. And its cartoon violence where people rarely get hit, often suffer non-debilitating flesh wounds, just collapse and die immediately, etc. I think this unrealistic crap really disconnects people from the brutal and painful consequences of using firearms.

Dont quite follow this one either as most of the US programs I get on cable have to do with law enforcement, most of it preposterous crap but there is an over abudance of LE programs like CIS, NCIS, Criminal Minds, Bones etc etc. Agreed there is too much reality TV but thats the culture and times we live in. That cannot be changed at the grassrroots level, but gun control can be changed locally. Following that logic-

How many personnel will it take to inspect every residence and place of business, four times a year, in a nation the size of a continent? What's that going to cost? Are the inspection dates known? How do you stop people from moving their stockpiles between Locations A (illegal stockpile not yet inspected) and B (clean location post-inspection) in-between inspections?

I guess you misunderstood my suggestion. at the National level it would be impossible. But if a district town county etc wanted to enforce it in order to attract like minded people, it could be done. If you dont want to live in that communtiy, then you leave, because we are going to make it so miserrable for you that you dont want to come back. We are going to protect our life liberty and pursuit of happiness and if your not with that program then you go. There are ways to do this. Durring routine stops and checks, if a person carrying a firearm did not have the transmitter, then they would be cited and fined there on the spot. Gun free zones do not work as there is no way to tell who has or doesnt have. If you allow people to have them, but make it expensive and troublesome to use it, then they will gradually disappear. You must do that at every level to include crime and jail Ive read that once you get out of Japanese prison or other Asian prisons, your broke because they know how to break your spirit. The Asians have got this stuff figured out. many crimes that are not illegal in Japan etc are illegal in the US, but many crimes that are illegal in Asia are legal there. Id start at the local level; if progress starts and those communites start to prosper, then you can benchmark that against your loon towns living likes its 1800 in the wild west.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There are attempted mass murders, most do not succeed but wound four or more people, more than every day of the year in the United States. Attempted mass murders are far more common than most Americans are aware of. The last figure I saw published on my FaceBook page was 287 attempted mass murders wounding four or more people each so far this year I believe over eighty of them this year happened in schools.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/29/shoddy-stats-fbi-figures-tweaked-to-show-phony-increase-in-mass-shootings-says/

FBI figures tweaked to show phony increase in mass shootings, report says - March 29, 2015

... The bureau's annual reports tabulating and classifying a wide range of crime throughout the nation have been historically free of politics, but John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said the latest statistics contain numbers that are misleading at best and deliberately fudged at worst. Lott believes the numbers may have been presented to overstate for political purposes the true risk of being a victim of random gun crimes. ...

... James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology, law, and public policy at Northeastern University, agreed that the FBI numbers were being misinterpreted to overstate the incidents and risks of mass shootings. But he blamed the media, not the FBI ... “The media misinterpreted the report,” Fox said. “An active shooter incident is not the same as a mass shooting.” Fox said using news reports to compile crime statistics is not a reliable method, and said his own research has found no upward trend in mass shootings. “Since 1976, there have been ups and downs in incidents but there has been no trend upward or downward in mass shootings,” he said.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hi Noble713, Many thanks, the only occasion I have had the opportunity to handle firearms, other than discharging shot guns, was when an previous employer required personal to attend an executive protection programme. The training Institute offered fire arms handling 'prudence', the legal regulation use of weapons, ammunition etc as an opinion.

I must admit guiltily, to finding the experience quite exhilarating. The instructor stressed that the home provision of a firearms requires the person to be aware that to point a fire arm require the courage and strength to pull the trigger, this entails the possibility of ending the life of an assailant, I just don't process that capacity, my Catholic doctrine defines purgatory awaits such a expatriation, although I am no holy Joan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Don't like guns don't buy one.

Absurd. Your owning weapons capable of firing dozens, if not more rounds, has a direct effect on me, whether I like guns or not. It's like saying, "don't like drunk drivers? Don't drive drunk." I may not drive drunk but your decision to do so has a direct impact on those around you. Likewise, your decision to own guns effects me, and I don't have a say in that.

Don't want want to live in a country that allows people tye basic human right if self preservation don't live in The USA.

Ah, the old love it or leave it argument, because it really is THAT easy to immigrate. As one American, I find it incredibly sad that you feel the only way for self-preservation is to carry a gun wherever you go. Says a sad lot about our country.

Of the people at the school who got shot had access to a firearm there wouldn't be 10!dead and 20 injured there would be 1 or 2 dead and injured.

Speculation at best. Imagine if you had several people with guns. One person sees a "friendly" firing on the shooter and the next thing you know, he's got another person shooting at him and another person shooting at him.

What is a law going to do?? Pretty sure there is a law against killing people.... Think banning guns will solve the problem???

Oh, I don't know, why don't we ask literally every other developed nation that doesn't experience these massacres every few months- they seem to be doing okay!!

Pretty sure there is a law banning drugs in the USA yet I would have no problem going out and finding them if I wanted them.

Hey, you've got a point. Drunk driving is also illegal, but it still happens. I guess we shouldn't have DUI laws either? Lol

So basically what you want to do is take guns away from good people and leave them defenseless. Thanks but no thanks.

No, what I want is for America to have a logical, fact based discussion on how to curb gun violence. Unless you are Jeb Bush and think "things happen," surely you would agree.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@cardsfan5

I think your on point with your reply, but you cant apply that logic to the majority and argue your point, I mean just look at the bizare and illogical responses. If the Fed would, in this case, allow the 10th admendment (or stay out of it, it seems to knock down any arguement by the states when they assert their rights like with cannabis etc) then you and others who share the same "love your life libery and pursuit of happiness" be allowed to create and govern your own communities and make your own sensible gun contrrol laws. I see it going in either 3 directions; getting much worse then a national debate on the 2nd admendment, states deciding their own interpretation of the 2nd admendment or more federalism and control.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The US needs an organization whose goals like counter to the NRA. This group needs to get out their and do as much lobbying as the NRA does. Until then, the NRA will always 'win'.

@Strangerland - They already do, Michael Bloomberg's group Mom's Demand Action and Everytown for gun safety.

Another group of people sacrificing our lives so people can play with their guns. Time to erect another monument.

@Superlib - You make it sound like gun owners are the only people that sacrifice other people's live so they can enjoy a hobby or recreation.

More guns means more deaths. It is just that simple.

@zurcronium - No it is not, if that was the case then more knives would mean more stabbings and yet the number of knives in circulation increases but stabbings go down. The number of cars in circulation goes up but the number of people dying or wounded from cars goes down. The USA has added over 100 million+ firearms over the past 20 years and in that time gun homicides on a per capita basis went down nearly 49% and non-fatal wounding by firearms went down nearly 69%. Theoretically all the above should increase but we find when looking at the statistics we keep finding that it keeps going down.

You are purposely over simplifying it.

Either way, strict gun laws in Chicago don't mean a thing if guns are readily available the next state over.

@MrBum - That then begs the question why isn't the locations across the border more violent than Chicago? If distance plays that large of a factor than that means the locations where the guns are being purchased should be more violent than Chicago. It also begs the question why Cook County(Chicago) is the largest single source of guns recovered from crime scenes.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Every time there is a shooting like this in the US there is the inevitable duel of opposing positions and associated diatribe. Both sides bust out their respective play book and start to flog the dead horse with all the gusto and eloquence that they have fine tuned in past contests. But if you discipline yourself to read through a thread like this (146 posts, Wow!), you will find that it is just the same thing over and over. The same condemnations, the same accusations, the same comparisons. Same old, same old. And for what? An exercise in hyperbole? It might as well be because when it comes to firearm ownership in the US boys and girls, the cat is pretty much out of the bag.

It is estimated that one in three Americans owns at least one firearm, that’s over 100 million individuals. It is also estimated that there are around 300 million firearms in private hands. Add to that a cultural tradition of firearm ownership and resistance that is over 200 years old and enshrined as a fundamental right in the Constitution and you have a level of social inertia that is not easily dismissed. So, for the foreseeable future, firearm ownership will continue to be an American phenomenon; and the real challenge will be to find ways of mitigating the risk. When the American people want to change their firearm laws they will, that’s the way America works. It won’t come in the form of government dictate but as an expression of the will of the people. That might seem crazy to a lot of people around the world but let’s not forget that it’s America we’re talking about and well…… you know how those Americans can be.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Noliving: "@Superlib - You make it sound like gun owners are the only people that sacrifice other people's live so they can enjoy a hobby or recreation."

Glad you can admit that's what gun owners do.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Glad you can admit that's what gun owners do.

It is nothing to be ashamed of, everyone has a hobby or a recreation that sacrifices other people's lives so they can enjoy it. Alcohol consumption, which kills over twice as many people on a per capita basis than firearms, is a hobby or recreation that pretty much everyone here, including you Smith, supports and is willing to sacrifice other people's lives in order to keep it legal.

It is a very naive/incorrect statement/thought as well as hypocritical to suggest that gun owners are the only ones that do this.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What a ridiculous attempt at logic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What a ridiculous attempt at logic.

Explain.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sure, by 'ridiculous' I mean any of the 50% of the population above average intelligence can see the very clear fallacies in it.

Hopefully that clears things up for you.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sure, by 'ridiculous' I mean any of the 50% of the population above average intelligence can see the very clear fallacies in it. Hopefully that clears things up for you.

Nope, perhaps you can explain the fallacies.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nope, perhaps you can explain the fallacies.

50% of us already see them. And the other 50% have shown by their belief in these fallacies that they don't have the capacity to see them. So explaining would be a waste of time. Everything that can be said has already been said. If someone still doesn't get it, they aren't able to.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

50% of us already see them. And the other 50% have shown by their belief in these fallacies that they don't have the capacity to see them. So explaining would be a waste of time. Everything that can be said has already been said. If someone still doesn't get it, they aren't able to.

What a ridiculous attempt at logic.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

50% of us already see them. And the other 50% have shown by their belief in these fallacies that they don't have the capacity to see them. So explaining would be a waste of time. Everything that can be said has already been said. If someone still doesn't get it, they aren't able to.

If you can't explain how it is fallacious then you are proving my point that it is not fallacious.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Laguna;

Entirely incorrect. For the first hundred years of American history, "a well-regulated militia" took precedence over "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Wow, you know little of history. So you are saying that citizens did not own their own guns until a hundred years after the nations founding? People didn't get their guns from the local militia. They brought their own with them to drill with. The 2nd amendment has always been interpreted to mean that individuals can own their own gun for use in self defense. The 'well-regulated militia' phrase of the amendment does not prevent individuals from owning a gun. Individual ownership was taken as a given.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment must be returned to what clearly the writers had intended.

Care to tell us what this interpretation is that suddenly outlaws individual gun ownership in America when that has never been the case in American history? Again, if you want to take guns away from people, you must change the Constitution - but the Left is too lazy to do it. They just want to ignore the document and do whatever they want anyway.

I think he's fully aware that so many very dangerous people want to believe that something written in 1790, when there were 4 million people (not counting the indigenous whose lands the whites were taking) who used muskets, not ivory handled automatic weapons, still pertains to todays's world.

So your reasoning is that because the Constitution was written in the late 1700's it is no longer relevant? So the rights of citizens are whatever 51% decide it is? That's a pretty far fetched view of reality. The Constitution has a built-it process for modernization. It is called the amendment process. If the Left doesn't like something in the Constitution, they need to amend it. They just cannot clam it is archaic and ignore it. I think this way of thinking explains a lot of the rulings from the Supreme Court that have occurred over the centuries that are clearly against the plain text of the Constitution.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Guns are the great equalizer. If any one of the victims had a gun, they could have put a bullet right between the eyes of the shooter.

I just heard this stupid idea over the radio this morning.... Gun's equalize nothing, it all boils down to who has the most experience and knowledge on how to use it most effectively. If a criminal knows more about how to handle a gun and suspects the victim just might have a gun as well what do you think will happen?

One of the martial arts I've started to take requires me to learn about firearms and how to use them, to make it easier to disable a person who has one, and use it if it becomes available. I've learned that when working at a retail pharmacy it's good to invest in body armor etc because criminals love to rob us for narcotics.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Wolfpack So your reasoning is that because the Constitution was written in the late 1700's it is no longer relevant?

Yes, I do think a man-made document written in the late 18th century has parts that are no longer relevant to the digital era. Remember, the brilliant gentlemen who wrote the document were creating something never before seen; they had no ability to know what the future would hold.

They had zero idea as I said that automatic weapons would be created and that individuals would use their wording to have private arsenals of automatic weapons.

I fear that the 'come and take it' true believers (read Eric Hoffer) of the 'right to have private arsenals' would use their weapons to protect themselves, creating another US civil war. I truly believe US gun fanatics, especially in organized mobs (you know there are militias throughout the US), are as scary as any other violent extremist group on the planet.

I also know I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. And yes, I'm aware you have guns and I don't.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Quick history lesson: in the 18th century, a "well regulated militia" meant "armed citizens". The old meaning of "well regulated" simply meant well equipped. It did not mean organized, uniformed, or anything like that. "Militia" simply meant all citizens. Again, nothing about being organized. The writers were paranoid about a tyrannical local (American) government eventually taking the place of the tyrannical British. So, they added an amendment to the Constitution that guaranteed ordinary people the right to arm themselves in order to prevent it. It had no meaning about any organized military, national guard, or anything like that.

It is dangerous to use current definitions when reading old documents.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Vast

The old meaning of "well regulated" simply meant well equipped. It did not mean organized, uniformed, or anything like that.

Nice try but both meanings were used at the time. That's why it's still debated. But if you want a hint on the actual original intent of the amendment, why not look at the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution is based on? It's much more clear, saying "well-regulated and disciplined militia."

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well that blows that argument out of the water. And yet, you'll see the unintelligent parrot it out a million times more, ignoring the truth of the matter.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@PTownsend Yes, I do think a man-made document written in the late 18th century has parts that are no longer relevant to the digital era. Remember, the brilliant gentlemen who wrote the document were creating something never before seen; they had no ability to know what the future would hold.

It may surprise you to know that I partially agree with you on this. The reason why I can both agree with you to an extent and still believe that a document written over two hundred years ago remains relevant today is because it was created for change. In fact, it has been changed 27 times so that it would remain relevant long after it's authors have gone. The Founders understood that things change but they also understood human nature does not. Therefore the power wielded by people in charge of government must be limited. That fact frustrates people who want immediate change but if forces them to obtain a consensus before it is imposed on everyone. That is an important aspect of the Constitution for maintaining stability in governance.

So in short, if President Obama wants to model US gun law on the gun law passed in Australia, he must first amend the Constitution. Anything short of that will not stop killings that occur so frequently in places like schools that prevent law abiding citizens from carrying firearms that could deter and/or stop them.

I also know I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. And yes, I'm aware you have guns and I don't.

Actually I do not own any firearms. But I believe that the US Constitution gives others the right to own them for legitimate reasons.

Yes, it is very unlikely that we will change each others mind about the issue of gun ownership. I can understand why people think guns should be banned from private use. I am just trying to understand how gun control advocates believe that they can achieve their goal of eliminating mass shootings in the US without amending the Constitution or the confiscation of peoples firearms - by force if necessary. The debate over the right to bear arms and stopping criminal use of guns is leading no where. It is only an emotional response to a tragedy and is being used for for political gain and not leading to any solution to the problem of gun violence.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Many countries do not allow gun ownership, so the nuts use knives and clubs to kill people constantly. In fact most murders in the USA are done with clubs or hammers. The US is #111 in the world for murder rates. Without a few large cities in the East and Chicago it would be #211 in the world. It's the media who spread this stuff and make it look so bad. Everyday in Japan nuts are stabbing people, including many children. The same in China and other countries. And if you look close you can see a parallel between crime and the Muslim immigration in many countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark with the very large numbers of rapes constantly. No matter what Muslims say western and Asian women are not of loose moral character. And most gun owners are very responsible individuals, as are most prior military.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/us/oregon-roseburg-shooting-umpqua-community-college.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Ha-Ha. The people of Roseburg are actually embracing "gun ownership" in the wake of this incident. And they're telling obama to take a hike. Good for them.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That's pretty common after these shootings. Everyone panics, and reacts in fear, buying more guns.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Back in the day, attending a junior college used to be non eventful; it was a way to get into the workplace, improve your skill set, parrt of being a civilian participating in society. I cant remember 40 years ago as a kid, thinking that the future would involve shootings at a junior colleges. Things are supposed to evolve and move foward, not move backwards to a barbaric time. The constituition was written when there were slaves and it was justified, but we have long since moved past that issue.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@5petals

The constituition was written when there were slaves and it was justified, but we have long since moved past that issue.

Slavery was ended when the Constitution was amended (following the death of around 600,000 white people fighting the Civil War). America has long since moved past slavery by amending the same Constitution that once allowed it. So what is your point exactly?

If you think the US Constitution is obsolete please make your case. Or you can follow the built in amendment process and change it if you believe the times require it. I think the Left believes they are too good for the Constitution and would prefer to declare it dead and impose their own will on the people - the Constitution be damned. I would prefer to live under the Constitution and not the emotional whims of the Left.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Even the left loves the constitution. It just needs another amendment to fix the problems that have come with the second amendment.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@wolfpack

Thanks for your carefully worded reply but I see where your going. You and I both know that the 2nd admendment will never be changed anytime soon, so nice attempt at defeatism, or all or nothing logic for your side, but Im not buying. So I suggest the 10th admendment be allowed, and progressive minded people who expect the basic values that were supposedly enshrined in the constititution and declaration of independance from tyranny, that is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, be allowed to decide their own laws. Going to a movie theater church or college and being shot is not exactly an ideal the framers wanted. Dont hijack it to make it something its not to fit your own selfish agenda

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why do guns are forbidden in planes in the US ? For sure it's needed to protect passengers against an oppressive captain. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if people were armed in the cabin. What made people accept to be stripped of their right to defend themselves with guns?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Personally, I wouldn't be against an all-out ban, but I know a few responsible gun owners (who incidentally are for stricter gun laws). For their sake and that fact that an all-out ban would be harder to realize, I think insanely strict gun control is worth a try.

I don't think that would require a new amendment either. Just a re-interpretation of the 2nd that goes back to the original interpretation that lasted up to the 1970s. The "well regulated militia" part leaves an opening for drastically stricter laws.

Laws that might include requirements along the lines of prior military service or equivalent training. Something that would make it prohibitively hard for random idiots and nutjobs to buy guns and decrease the overall number of guns in circulation. Confiscation from those that don't meet those requirements might be necessary too. It won't stop all shootings, but it's at least an attempt at solving the problem.

By the way, I completely agree that the Constitution is a work of genius. In fact, I think it's ironic when Conservatives invoke it, since its authors would probably be called "elitists" by today's right. I have no doubt the authors never intended for the 2nd amendment to used to defend anything close to America's current gun climate. They lived in a time when hunting was an essential means to survive, and "arms" meant muskets that needed to be loaded after each shot.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They werent allowed to have arms in England and wanted to keep tyranny in check. It has evolved into something entirely different; its uncontrolled freedom unchecked with a more powerful government, if that makes any sense.

I think states, or even local counties cities etc should allow guns, but make it so difficult and expensive to have one, that it becomes almost socially unacceptable to do it. Once those places start to attract investment due to their progressive thinking, it will get the cycle going. If a state wants to keep people armed, in order to keep themselves armed against others who are armed and relive dodge city for eternity, that should be allowed as well, in accordance with the 10th, but once they start seeing people and money leave for safer communities, they too will change their laws. This is all within the context of the 2nd, so

I dont think any country should follow or cite Japan as some example to follow Japan does not allow guns for a very different and complex reasons; allot of its cultural. The upper caste did not want the lowers to even be armed. I think people should think for themselves what works in their unique circumstances.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@MrBum

I don't think that would require a new amendment either. Just a re-interpretation of the 2nd that goes back to the original interpretation that lasted up to the 1970s. The "well regulated militia" part leaves an opening for drastically stricter laws.

I do agree that guns can be regulated to an extent, but they cannot be denied to any law abiding citizen of sound mind. The problem with emphasizing the 'well regulated militia' part of the amendment is that it cannot be decoupled from the rest of the amendment which states that the peoples right 'shall not be infringed.'

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Furthermore, just because there are no state militias in the form that existed in the past does not mean that they may not exist again in the future should conditions in the country change once again. Unless the Constitution is changed then the government cannot confiscate guns owned by law abiding citizens.

@5petals

Thanks for your carefully worded reply but I see where your going. You and I both know that the 2nd admendment will never be changed anytime soon, so nice attempt at defeatism, or all or nothing logic for your side, but Im not buying

Whether you are buying my argument or not doesn't change the fact that it is not Constitutional to deny the right of citizens to bear arms in the US. The sooner people that support strict control of guns accept this fact the better off they will be. It would be more constructive to seek a new amendment rather than make law after law that get struck down in the courts.

I do not own any weapons and have no desire to own one but my personal views are irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says. If gun control advocates cannot gather enough support to amend the Constitution it is not defeatism - it is a failure to win support for your side of the argument. That frustration is palpable on the Left these days.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Whether you are buying my argument or not doesn't change the fact that it is not Constitutional to deny the right of citizens to bear arms in the US.

This is very true, which is why the constitution needs another amendment.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Wolfpack,

They cannot be denied to any law abiding citizen of sound mind.

Of course they can. By saying "law abiding citizen of sound mind" you're already placing restrictions not worded in the amendment. Limitations and restrictions are added all the time. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, despite the first amendment. It's all about reasonable interpretation, and the second amendment leaves plenty of room for it.

It's important to look at the true intent of the law. There's no way the founding fathers could've predicted the type of firearms we have today, and there's no way they would've supported this massive overflow we have.

You conveniently ignored the part where I mentioned the original interpretation which lasted for most of our history. This obsession we have with guns is actually fairly new, and even Conservative judges upheld a strict (non-permissive) interpretation of the second amendment as late as the1970s.

I'm for any method for enacting stricter laws, but it seems like you're insisting on a new amendment because it's harder and therefore less likely.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Whether you are buying my argument or not doesn't change the fact that it is not Constitutional to deny the right of citizens to bear arms in the US. The sooner people that support strict control of guns accept this fact the better off they will be. It would be more constructive to seek a new amendment rather than make law after law that get struck down in the courts.

There wont be a new admendment anytime soon; this isnt Japan we are talking about who can change their constitution in no time at all. The 10th admendment allows states to create their own laws;and through careful manipulation and interpretation, they could make owning guns an effortless procedure or a nightmare, and still be within the limits of the constitution. You choose where you want to live. Look at what Colorado did with cannabis, according to Federal law it is still a controlled substance but they are trumping that with the 10th. You cant trump the 2nd, but you can decide how to interpret it, as long as gun ownership is allowed. So, no, it wouldnt be more constructive to seek a new admendment, it would be more constuctive for states to exercise their 10th admendment right and enforce the law as they want.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@MrBum Of course they can. By saying "law abiding citizen of sound mind" you're already placing restrictions not worded in the amendment. Limitations and restrictions are added all the time. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, despite the first amendment. It's all about reasonable interpretation, and the second amendment leaves plenty of room for it.

Of course no right is unlimited and beyond restriction. The 'fire in a crowded theater' argument has it's own parallel in the kinds of restrictions allowable under the second amendment. A canon is basically nothing but a very large scale gun. Yet no one argues that citizens have the right to own a howitzer. It is safe to say that neither side disagrees on this fact. But free speech is still protected and the right to bears arms is also protected. But like the second amendment the Left also want's to heavily restrict the first.

What Obama and the Left mean when they say they want 'reasonable gun restrictions' is gun confiscation and the outlawing of any gun ownership to the vast majority of people. This is commonly known because that is what Obama is always telling us. The Australian model is the model he proffers for America. Yet he refuses to propose it to Congress because he knows it goes against the plainly written words in the Constitution. But nothing less than a huge reduction in the number of weapons in circulation will make any dent in the rate of gun deaths. Instead he plays the political game where he proposes minimalist measures to appease his base. At the same time it inflames millions of gun owners who understand his political philosophy. Like race, his actions only serve to divide Americans from one another for no one's benefit except his own.

@5petals

There wont be a new admendment anytime soon; this isnt Japan we are talking about who can change their constitution in no time at all.

That's funny because Obama will often claim he doesn't have the authority to do something and then all the sudden he does what was un-Constitutional just days before. Who needs a Constitution when the Chosen One has a phone and a pen.

The 10th admendment allows states to create their own laws;and through careful manipulation and interpretation, they could make owning guns an effortless procedure or a nightmare, and still be within the limits of the constitution.

Yes, that is true. But the Left doesn't believe in states rights so they put their efforts towards national laws that control everyone and look past the difficulties of fighting the battle 50 times in every state.

You cant trump the 2nd, but you can decide how to interpret it, as long as gun ownership is allowed.

Right, you cannot trump the 'reasonable' right to bear arms without amendment.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites