world

Lots of talk, little action in Congress after shootings

113 Comments
By MATTHEW DALY

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

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.


113 Comments
Login to comment

We have hundreds of millions of guns and easy access to them. School shootings are just a part of life.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Firearms are NOT the problem, its the licensing of them, the US needs to do more background checks, and mental capacity exams on people wanting to purchase any firearm.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

Trump and Republicans have already acted.

Last year they reversed an Obama policy that made it harder for mentally disturbed people to get guns.

Why? Because it interfered with their "right" to a gun.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

The core problem is how US society deals with mental illness.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

The 2nd Amendment needs an amendment.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Over the past decade there has been 30-35,000 people killed by guns each year in the US. Of those, around 60% were suicides and 10% were accidental deaths (mostly children). These records have been collected since the late 1960’s and in that time nearly double the amount of US citizens killed in WW2 have been killed by guns in the US. Regardless of this recent spate of mass-shootings in schools, it is very clear that having so many guns in communities is not for the better. Australia did the ‘gun buy-back’ nearly 30 years ago. The youth suicide rate dropped by 50% in the first year after the buy-back. And, there has not been a mass-shooting in Australia since the buy-back. Yes, criminals will still get guns, as they do in Australia, but that does not mean everybody should have one either.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

It's hardly surprising. After Sandy Hook I realise no incident will ever make the corrupt politicians on both sides tackle the ridiculously powerful gun lobby.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The 2nd Amendment needs an amendment.

Not really, we need to enact the laws that are already in place severely and we, but we shouldn't politicize the issue right now, the left can't even let these people mourn their dead, they just jump up and scream gun control! There is a time for everything and now is not the time, but there are so many other important factors we need to look into like, what was his underlying motivation, how was his mental health, what was his childhood like, where did he purchase his gun and how was he able to purchase it? Those are the real issues we need to discuss.

-26 ( +0 / -26 )

the left can't even let these people mourn their dead, they just jump up and scream gun control!

Why is it the "left"?.... perhaps it is just ordinary people who are sick of the cycle of violence....

17 ( +17 / -0 )

Firearms are NOT the problem, its the licensing of them, the US needs to do more background checks, and mental capacity exams on people wanting to purchase any firearm.

If the FBI had been able to locate the shooter (not sure why not....) I doubt he would have been able to buy even a semiautomatic legally.

FBI was warned about alleged shooter nearly 5 months ago, tipster says

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/nikolas-cruz-fbi-warned/index.html

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

"Wash, rinse, and repeat" Sadly that is all that seems to happen. Folks talk themselves until they are blue in the face, nothing changes.

American's are not pissed off enough yet, nor have they seen enough death, destruction, and carnage, to effectively change the system.

People have become immune to the news, and are resigned to the fact that it's just a matter of time until it happens again. But they NEVER think it will happen to them, or anyone they know.

"Wash, rinse, and repeat" Until the next time!

13 ( +13 / -0 )

The core problem is how US society deals with mental illness.

...of loving guns.

There I fixed it.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

@bas4 laws that are already in place

As you know full well, the NRA does whatever it can to stop all discussions regarding guns. I'm not talking about gun owners in general, instead about the NRA and the highly profitable gun industry they represent.

As an NRA member, are you going to get involved and try to get them to lobby for greater support to enforce those laws, which would require increased funding?

As an NRA member, are you going to lobby their leadership to say no one on terrorist watch lists should be allowed to purchase a gun?

As an NRA member, are you willing to ask them why Russians used them to funnel money to Trump's campaign? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-07/the-nra-should-disclose-any-russian-ties

As an NRA member, are you going to try to get them to reconsider their efforts to block funding for gun death research? How about bump stocks? Automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Magazines holding more than 4 or 5 rounds? Large caliber rifles and handguns?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The gun lobby and their moneyed politicians ( ie Paul Ryan over $ 300k from NRA) having been telling us that we don’t need more gun control reforms, we just need enforce the existing laws on the books.

It’s put or shut up - the right wing control every branch of the Federal govt and majority of the states’ governorships. If these mass murder events continue to happen under their watch, we need to start pointing fingers at the leaders who are failing to enforce existing gun laws!

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@lizz I doubt he would have been able to buy even a semiautomatic legally.

The NRA (see below) wants him to be able to buy guns. After all, anyone who buys a gun increases their profits. (Yes, I'm aware the ACLU went along; please don't deflect.)

How about selling guns to people on terrorist watch lists?

How about a tax on guns and ammo to fund checkups on gun and ammo buyers?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/3/14496774/congress-guns-mental-illness

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Said who yesterday? Oh, right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's hardly surprising. After Sandy Hook I realise no incident will ever make the corrupt politicians on both sides tackle the ridiculously powerful gun lobby.

Assault weapons were banned in New York and Maryland after that event, and Connecticut strengthened their restrictions. Action is going to pick up at the state level with each of these shootings. At least make semiautomatic rifles harder to obtain than handguns.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The thing is, "Disillusioned", the mass shootings are never committed by the criminals. Criminals do crime of gaining, with aim of receiving something in return, brainless meaningless murder is beneath them. The most profound degenerates have as much access to the guns as those criminals do under American law. People would still be killed by criminals, but there would be many times less deaths if the guns were taken away from the average simpleton "defending" his worthless freedom. Criminals would still have access to lethal weaponry because they have either established seemingly legal factories or because most societies are sickeningly corrupt.

I strangely feel less contempt towards the said criminals than I do to mass shooters and AMERICAN gun fanatics. Most likely because one party actually employs logic, however crooked it is.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Isn't it just insane that american kids go to school with a chance of being killed.Isn't it insane that this happens so often.Isn't it insane that these kids practice lockdown drills as if it is a normal part of life,just like japanese kids practice earthquake drills.Isn't it insane that still after so many years of this no legislation has changed.And finally isn't it just completely insane that most people on hearing about a mass shooting in the US just shrug their shoulders and say "ah another one"

6 ( +6 / -0 )

There is a time for everything and now is not the time

If now is not the time, then the time is never.

Yes bas, I know that's what you meant to say.

there are so many other important factors we need to look into like, what was his underlying motivation,

he was a looney

how was his mental health,

He was a looney

what was his childhood like,

he grew up in America

where did he purchase his gun

In America

and how was he able to purchase it?

By following the law - you pays your money, you gets your gun.

Now all those important details are dealt with, are you ready to take about taking guns out of the hands of every Tom, Dick or Nicolas itching to shoot up the neighbourhood?

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Why is it the "left"?.... perhaps it is just ordinary people who are sick of the cycle of violence....

I'm talking about the usual Democrat bunch.

As you know full well, the NRA does whatever it can to stop all discussions regarding guns. I'm not talking about gun owners in general, instead about the NRA and the highly profitable gun industry they represent.

Yes and so is the grievance industry.

As an NRA member, are you going to get involved and try to get them to lobby for greater support to enforce those laws, which would require increased funding? 

I do yes, but at the same time I think we come to a middle ground on this one.

As an NRA member, are you going to lobby their leadership to say no one on terrorist watch lists should be allowed to purchase a gun? 

Without a doubt, particularly people that use a radical version of a religion to justify killing people that are infidels and will use guns and anything and everything else to murder people on a massive scale.

As an NRA member, are you willing to ask them why Russians used them to funnel money to Trump's campaign? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-07/the-nra-should-disclose-any-russian-ties

There is no proof whatsoever that this took place.

As an NRA member, are you going to try to get them to reconsider their efforts to block funding for gun death research? How about bump stocks? Automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Magazines holding more than 4 or 5 rounds? Large caliber rifles and handguns?

We shall see, it's not a cut and dry issue, funny how the left want serious gun control, but enforcing our borders , building a wall, stoping chain migration, stopping that is just so inhumane. Give me a break.

-19 ( +0 / -19 )

  We shouldn’t politicize the issue right now

When would a good time be to politicize the issue? After everyone’s dead or after 50 school shootings (in about a month) or after the reasonable members of the NRA stand up and say No More and Demand their Lobbyists STOP funding more relaxed laws that allow more killers to kill more people (like The OrangeHead with Small Hands did)?

Or perhaps, uh, like you want and your Lobbyists will ensure: Never?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

you pays your money, you gets your gun.

What?

Now all those important details are dealt with, are you ready to take about taking guns out of the hands of every Tom, Dick or Nicolas itching to shoot up the neighbourhood?

Again, I don't think we need to radically change the 2nd amendment, but I do think we can come and tweak it a little, but I am more concerned about the mental status of thousands of Americans that shouldn't be on the streets or have access to guns.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Bass4funk, while its painfully clear where your alliances lay,

Don't politicize.... what a non-commital lack of any sense of humanity and the goal of being better.

It IS a political issue, one of law and deciding as a society what kind of country you want to have.

I know that the small government "don't take MY money" people think government is mostly terrible but thats where the laws that govern our lives are decided, from what side of the road you drive on, what healthcare you have, what public schools you have access to and, yes how and where you can have guns..

How many times do people need to be "free to grieve" and then people think oh gee just another mass shooting and nothing changes?

An amendment is by definition the way a change or addition, its time for some additional amendments and changes to represent the times we live in.

While I see and agree there risks of radical beliefs these aren't the people generally causing the mass shooting issues in the US are they....

Immigration and citizens killing themselves, their families, people in their neighborhoods and schools has little to do with with each other, and a demonstration of what seems to be a recent disturbing trend of "what about-ism" that the right seems to have embraced whole heartedly.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@bas4 but I do think we can come and tweak it a little, 

Please expound. I'm curious to hear what tweaks you think might be possible.

but I am more concerned about the mental status of thousands of Americans that shouldn't be on the streets or have access to guns.

Likewise, please expound. Given how many whack Americans there are, this will require greater funding. How do you propose to do that? A deflection, e.g. libs and taxes, is not an answer - nor are any deflections.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The left can’t even let these people mourn their dead..

Because only the left believe children shouldn’t be shot to death in a school.

The right are waiting for a good conspiracy to prove it didn’t happen - like Sandy Hook and like the ISIS ordered the Las Vegas shooting.

The right are waiting for Faux News to tell Fake45 what to think and regurgitate.

The right don’t care about the 11,000 ‘Mericans! killed every year by.... terrorists? ISIS? Immigrants? No! By ‘Mericans! We Made America Great (In denial)! We Made America Great (In murdered citizens)!

Proud to be a Traitor (not applauding your CheetoDictator) and a Lefty (grieving over the death of children).

8 ( +8 / -0 )

As a former firearm owner and also as one who tends to support the Constitution (although I have not lived in the U.S. for quite a long time) I think Americans need to admit that yes, guns are the problem. How many kids have to die before people realize this is issue needs to be addressed.

The one issue is how to "confiscate" (I hate that word) guns that are in circulation. Realistically this is an impossible task due to the quantity of unregistered, illegally purchased firearms in circulation in the U.S.

This is a problem that will be difficult, if not impossible to solve as restrictions being put forth on new weapons will do nothing to deal with the over 320,000,000 firearms KNOWN to be in circulation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If I was an oil tycoon with jihadist sympathies I would be regularly donating to the NRA.

Just sit back with my feet up watching the simple folk do your work for you on Fox News.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

bass4funk

talk is cheap, action long in the tooth.

you have happily lived in Japan for many years with any guns in your collection so why do you need them in America but not here?

Sport and hunting in Japan is usually only shotguns, rifles and some handguns for sports but very limited. There are less gun years in a decade than a single month in America.

The assault type rifles can be banned without any changes to the 2nd Amendment.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Just make it a federal law banning all assault weapons, if New York can do it why not. Doesn't affect your 2nd amendment rights to carry a gun is you so wish. Spineless politicians are more worried about their political future and their donors than the families they represent. The NRA and corporate lobbyists and all corporate monies should be banned from politics, do the American people really believe they have rights, sadly they lost any rights they thought they might have had. Most politicians are just part of corporate America, protecting them, their donors, over the American people who voted them in office.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Lizz - Firearms are NOT the problem.

Yes, that’s right! It’s the bullets that are the problem. (Roll eyes)

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@zichi - curious about your post (not criticizing) - you stated there are "less gun years in a decade than a single month in America". Is this what you meant to say (quantifying the amount of guns)? I think you might be off by a factor of 10. Maybe less gun years in 100 years then a month in the U.S. Anyway the point you make is very valid and quite interesting.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bass4funk

what was his underlying motivation, how was his mental health, what was his childhood like, where did he purchase his gun and how was he able to purchase it? Those are the real issues we need to discuss.

But, bass, that's all they ever DO talk about. And. Nothing. Changes. America needs tighter gun control, end of.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What do you expect from the gun-nutters? Wasn't their kids, so who cares? Hell, one of FOX's "news" casters talked about how "safe" the gun used was -- same gun used in MOST recent gun massacres in the US. Maybe not all of the 18 so far of this year, but all of the biggest ones.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

bass4funk

what was his underlying motivation, how was his mental health, what was his childhood like, where did he purchase his gun and how was he able to purchase it? Those are the real issues we need to discuss.

but none of that discussion is required when actually buying a gun. In most States, show ID pay and walk out with your weapon or just buy one online. You can't drive a car unless you take a driving test but you can buy guns without any single type of test.

Tokyo-Engr

@zichi - curious about your post (not criticizing) - you stated there are "less gun years in a decade than a single month in America". Is this what you meant to say (quantifying the amount of guns)? I think you might be off by a factor of 10. Maybe less gun years in 100 years then a month in the U.S. Anyway the point you make is very 

Should have written more gun deaths in a month in America than a decade in Japan. But on numbers. America is only 4% of the world population but owns more than 30% of the total number of guns. Of the 8 million new guns sold very year, more than 4 million are sold in America.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It's hardly surprising. After Sandy Hook I realise no incident will ever make the corrupt politicians on both sides tackle the ridiculously powerful gun lobby.

Same here. I honestly thought Sandy Hook was going to be the catalyst 'needed' (sadly, unfortunately) to enact much stricter gun control laws in the us. How wrong I was.

Not saying stricter laws would resolve everything the way it did in oz (the problem itself, oz society, gangs, crime etc are completely different and it would be naïve to think 'it worked in oz therefore it will work in the us') but it would change the way ppl see/think guns. And that's imo what the us need right now; acknowledge the pbm  i.e. 'hi, we are the us and we are gun-addicts' and then come up with a plan/solution that fits your society and yes, unique rapport with guns. Gun control should be a bipartisan issue (politics AND pro/anti guns).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes, that’s right! It’s the bullets that are the problem. (Roll eyes)

I was responding to that statement, not writing it, but there is obviously something more going on. These guns have been around for decades and in the past we went years between these type of incidences with a greater diversity of weapons used. Now it is weeks or months. Something has certainly changed and it isn't the firearms initiating the change.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

There's no way there will ever be any substantial gun law changes. The best people can hope for is to chip away at it with small revisions to it, but even these don't look possible

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"America . . . It's a great country, but it's a straaaannnge culture."

......George Carlin

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eugene Stoner invented the AR-15 in 1959. The assault rifle was created as a military weapon — Stoner's family spoke out:

Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47. 

He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.

The American population is 4% of the global one but Americans own more than 30% of all global weapons.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. 

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

These guns have been around for decades and in the past we went years between these type of incidences with a greater diversity of weapons used. Now it is weeks or months.

Guns may have been around for decades, but they've gotten more powerful, plentiful, easier to use, etc. At the same time a certain segment of politicians have spent decades making gun laws looser and lighting and then fanning the flames of America's obsession with guns and the 2nd amendment, turning it into a wedge issue.

Something has certainly changed and it isn't the firearms initiating the change.

Maybe not the firearms, but the people pushing them on us. America's obsession with guns is more recent than most people think.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

the left can't even let these people mourn their dead, they just jump up and scream gun control!

The problem seems to be that the Republicans never want to talk about gun control, let alone do anything practical.

You do see this, don’t you?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

the right can't even let these people mourn their dead, they just jump up and scream mental health problems!

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The solution is not rocket science. It’s blatantly obvious what needs to be done and that is:

More stringent background checks on all gun purchases.

A mandatory waiting period for all gun purchase so the above process can be completed.

A total ban on all assault rifles.

Restrictions on the number of weapons a person can own.

An amnesty period where illegal weapons and those who own more than a maximum number can hand them in to authorities.

Mandatory classes for any individual who wants to own a gun to educate them on gun safety and use with a set standard that all people must achieve before a license is issued.

Education in all schools that has as its focus the aim of reducing gun ownership and the number of firearms in circulation.
5 ( +5 / -0 )

Gun violence in the U.S, What do the statistics reveal?

On average . . .

96 / day 96 Americans die every day because of guns

13,000 / year 13,000 American homicides per year

50 / month 50 women every month in the U.S. are shot and killed by an intimate partner

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I am more concerned about the mental status of thousands of Americans that shouldn't be on the streets

bass, you keep telling us there are so many looney Americans out there. Why do you think there are more crazies in America than there are in other countries that do not suffer from regular shoot-ups? I appreciate you want more asylums to lock the crazies up in, but what is it that's making them so crazy, in your opinion? How can America stop its people from going insane in such huge numbers?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It's kind of ironic that after the Sarin gas attack in Syria, the U.S. was quick to condemn and swiftly took military action in response to the killings of innocent people. Yet here we see their own citizens being killed en mass in their own home-country but the legislators (and incompetent president) fail to do anything about it.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Top 5 Senators With the Most Contributions From the NRA

John McCain (R, AZ) – $7.74 million

Richard Burr (R, NC) – $6.99 million

Roy Blunt (R, MO) – $4.55 million

Thom Tillis (R, NC) – $4.42 million

Cory Gardner (R, CO) – $3.88 million

Top 5 Representatives With the Most Contributions From the NRA

French Hill (R, AR) – $1.09 million

Ken Buck (R, CO) – $800,544

David Young (R, IA) – $707,662

Mike Simpson, (R, ID) – $385,731

Greg Gianforte (R, MT) – $344,630

In the 2016 election, the NRA spent $11,438,118 to support Donald Trump—and another $19,756,346 to oppose Hillary Clinton. That’s over $31 million spent on one presidential race.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Firearms are not the problem? I'll believe that when I start seeing mass stabbings take over the headlines in the US.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

And the whole right to bare arms to protect against a tyrannical government - sorry but most gun owners never take a gun safety class or shooting lessons. And most have zero combat experience. And most are also not part of a wackjob paranoid militia group. So millions of individuals running around shooting up towns and cities after they feel the "government" has gone haywire won't do anything for anyone. It's just typical BS from gun nuts.

If they want to keep adhere to this right and the year it was written - OK - then each person has the right to purchase and own 1 x 1800's era musket. But then they will say no no no, this is 2018, so it's a different time. If it's a different time which allows you to buy machine guns in any number you want, then it's a different time and this "right" needs to be corrected with the time.

The US makes you jump thru endless hoops to register a car, get a drivers license, get a passport, buy a house, etc. They make you prove on many levels that you can have that item. And they make you pass tests to prove you can use it (car, for example). But there are no talks of car grabs, or car restrictions.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

the left can't even let these people mourn their dead, they just jump up and scream gun control!

Given there has been a basically a fatal shooting for every week of this year already. When exactly is the "left" meant to let people mourn and push for gun control. If they allow a week of mourning, statisically next week another one sadly may have happened, so they should what allow another week (and another shooting) to pass?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yea, no knee jerk reactions and more prayer. That will help.

Wait until the news moves on to the next Trump debacle, and the politicians can get their million dollar payoffs from the NRA with a clear conscious.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Well you know they can’t do much about these mass shootings, if they actually took any preventive measures the NRA might go out of business! Couldn’t allow that to happen:-/

so if more innocent people have to die, so be it, just place the blame on someone else and continue to deny the truth and facts, those things are no longer relevant.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The only thing that stops a bad student with a gun is a good student with a gun (paraphrased)...or 300 students with guns. Arm the whole lot. Arm teachers too. Why not (that last was actually a real proposal by some)? No swords thought, because second amendment defence is from NRA, which cares not about the right to bear all arms, not just firearms.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Surprised they still show this on American TV. Like the footage of the Syrian war, people get used to it so its not really news anymore. Sad...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I believe Americans actually like the shows, dramas, news, everything that's around events like that, they have a morbid interest in those. It keeps people busy, gives them something to discuss and fight about.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Trump and Rick Scott exposed as HYPOCRITES for vetoing stricter gun laws. American politicians TAKE BRIBES from the NRA. So brace yourselves for lots and lots and lots more MASSACRES.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Its almost impossible and highly unlikely that America will ever change its Constitutional right to "bear arms" but laws and regulations could be made stating which types of arms should be allowed to be owned by the civilian population.

Ban all automatic and semi automatic assault weapons. Weapons using large caliber bullets. People don't have the right to own C4 and explosives or nerve and chemical agents.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

There is a time for everything and now is not the time,

So when is it the time?! Sorry to burst your bubble, but at the pace of these massacres, there isn't enough downtime to grieve before the next massacre happens. The problem with conservatives is that their solution is simply to put their heads in the sand and imagine that the problem will go away. Their so-called 'action' is 'inaction'. They are too afraid of change, even if it makes so much sense.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

In US way too many people lack good judgment. These people elect crooks as politicians. Politicians are not financially independent, they have very small salaries. Politicians must be paid significantly more. It is very easy for big corporations to buy these poor politicians. The only way to get rid of violence is to totally get rid of guns. Everybody must realize that guns are very dangerous and we must ban them ASAP. USA, please be smart! You don't need to reinvent the wheel, just copy a country like Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are too afraid of change, even if it makes so much sense.

The politicians are too afraid of the loss of campaign financing from the NRA and the NRA's ability to mobilize their voters against them in support of someone who will back the NRA.

The politicians are beholden to the NRA and any restriction to gun laws are feared will escalate.

These people elect crooks as politicians. Politicians are not financially independent, they have very small salaries

The problem is the cost of election campaigns and the power to influence politicians and regulators.

Individual voters currently have a statistically insignificant chance (power) to influence legislation or regulations one way or another, i.e., to get a law passed or to oppose a law.

Special interests and corporations have more than a 66% chance to influence legislation or regulations one way or another. Therefore, most laws and regulations give more power (and money) to special interests and corporations, which furthers the disparity of power, to the detriment of the majority of individuals.

Special interests and corporation (people under current law) contribute large sums to election campaigns and can spend millions on lobbyists to sway politicians and regulators. They have the real power in America, not silly individuals who vote.

The laws that need to change first are the laws dealing with campaign finance.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The 2nd Amendment needs an amendment.

I'm not sure it does.

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

The right to bear arms strongly implies strong regulation and membership of a state-run militia. This would mean that the intention behind it is more akin to the Swiss model, where men of fighting age who are irregulars in the army and keep guns at home.

The 2nd amendment is clearly not the right to bear and gun that you want just because you feel like it. Unless you are a member of a legal militia (police, National Guard etc) the second amendment does not guarantee you the right to bear arms.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I think it time for the Dems to offer Trump a deal, tighter gun laws and well give you money for your wall. Could you imagine the mental battle that would result in Trumps head!!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

how was his mental health, total BS argument, many gun owners have perfect mental fortitude, but either through trauma , war, family tragedy they become mentally unstable. You cant track the mental health of millions of gun owners constantly. Mental instability is a condition, it comes and goes. The only proven way to reduce gun violence is to regulate what type of guns can be available to the public.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

JimizoToday  10:04 am JST

The problem seems to be that the Republicans never want to talk about gun control, let alone do anything practical.

You do see this, don’t you?

I wouldn't expect too much of shills who faithfully parrot everything fed to them by the GOP, the NRA and the right-wing elements of the media.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Every time there is a mass shooting in the U.S, it saddens me. I hate seeing tearful parents scream "why?" as they mourn the loss of their children. In part, Donald Trump is right... in that the issue of mental health needs to be addressed, but he ignores the elephant in the room. It's the fact that mentally unstable people can easily access weapons of mass killing - weapons highly restricted in other countries - that magnify the loss in events like these. While the idiocy of arguing that any gun control will lead to complete government tyranny exists, then nothing will change. It's you're choice, America. Democracy can work. Let your local politicians know EXACTLY what you think about this. Hold them accountable.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Ah_so

The 2nd amendment is clearly not the right to bear and gun that you want just because you feel like it.

Maybe that wasn't its intent and I'm obviously not a constitutional lawyer, but here's how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2016;

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that it has rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-10078/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Stop!Hammertime

Thanks for the context and the research done. Much appreciated. That covers the "bear and (any?) gun that you want" part of the original post, but do you have anything in reference to the "just because you feel like it" part, as that really is the crux of the issue.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Maybe that wasn't its intent and I'm obviously not a constitutional lawyer, but here's how it was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2016;

I agree that it has constitutionally been interpreted in such a way as to ignore the initial part of the Amendment ("a well regulated militia"). The amendment is clearly founded upon the requirement to have a well-regulated militia, in an era before large free-standing armies. Like you, I am not a constitutional expert, but it appears that for whatever reason, the highest courts in the USA have deemed it appropriate to ignore the link to legally recognised armed forces - the very foundation that the right rests on.

This youth was not a member of the armed services, so did not need to have a gun.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

These 7 States "Already Ban Assault Weapons, And SCOTUS Won't Change That"

California. Connecticut. Maryland. Massachusetts. New Jersey. New York.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/128306-these-7-states-already-ban-assault-weapons-and-scotus-wont-change-that

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Hi Meija and Ah_so

This youth was not a member of the armed services, so did not need to have a gun.

I absolutely agree with that.

I guess it comes down to how we define 'well regulated Militia,' and 'the people.'

Like I said, I don't know much about the constitution. I'm not even American. But I found this;

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

3 ( +3 / -0 )

but I am more concerned about the mental status of thousands of Americans that shouldn't be on the streets or have access to guns.

Ahhh so we should fund health care to help the mental state of Americans. Maybe we are getting somewhere.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ahhh so we should fund health care to help the mental state of Americans. Maybe we are getting somewhere.

... But Republicans voted for a tax bill with massive deficits. Those corporations and the super wealthy needed a break, so mental health will have to wait.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

... But Republicans voted for a tax bill with massive deficits. Those corporations and the super wealthy needed a break, so mental health will have to wait.

Yes, all these Democrats needed a break, poor them.

These 7 States "Already Ban Assault Weapons, And SCOTUS Won't Change That"

California. Connecticut. Maryland. Massachusetts. New Jersey. New York.

Why? I wish they these same States would ban sanctuary cities as well.

I wouldn't expect too much of shills who faithfully parrot everything fed to them by the GOP, the NRA and the right-wing elements of the media.

It wouldn’t help one bit.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Tokyo-Engr: How many kids have to die before people realize this is issue needs to be addressed.

Lots and lots and lots more.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"These 7 States "Already Ban Assault Weapons, And SCOTUS Won't Change That" California. Connecticut. Maryland. Massachusetts. New Jersey. New York. - Why? I wish they these same States would ban sanctuary cities as well.

Thank you, bass4funk. Your post perfectly sums up the argument. Apparently, wanting to protect people who may not have been born in your country but yet positively contribute to it is worse than trying to protect those same people and others in the general populace from being murdered by mentally unstable individuals with assault weapons. A classic example of a strawman argument. The young man who committed this crime was NOT an immigrant and was NOT in a state with "sactuary cities"... To put it to the logic test, it is a clear FAIL.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

@stop!hammertime - Clearly an unorganized militia do not form part of a "well regulated militia", so only (1) would be in scope.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A classic example of a strawman argument.

Indeed. The straw man argument is always the refuge of those who cannot defend their position.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Gun supporting politicians will tell us it's a mental health issue, then they will pass no mental health funding. Then it will fall out of the headlines and we will wait for the next incident, then it all starts over again.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The NRA are the enemy of the people and spend million to lobby and ensure there are no gun control laws.

They have a file on every member of Congress rating them from A+ to F. A+ is an angel of the NRA while an F is the devil.

Those A+ are the politicians receiving the highest levels of donations from the NRA including Trump in the White House.

When it comes to guns, the majority are controlled by the minority.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Ah_so

We can argue the intentions, definitions and interpretations of the second amendment until we are blue in the face. People much smarter than us have almost certainly done so.

Surely then, an amendment (change or changes made to the words of a text) to this 250 year old document is not totally unnecessary.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hi zichi, you are a cleaver guy, rightly or wrongly the numbers speak for themselves and explain fully why the NRA can lobby effectively.....

A different smarter approach is needed, a common denominator, registration maybe.

America’s Gun Business, By the Numbers......This is 3 years old! .....

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566

2 ( +2 / -0 )

itsonlyrocknroll

yes but I'm not sure at least 100% of the numbers. For instance, the majority of Americans/household even own a firearm/gun. More than 90% of all weapons are actually owned by less than 5% of the people.

There are both democrats, republicans and independent people who want more gun laws and restrictions including the more deadly weapons like the assault rifles.

How far are people willing to go with new gun controls. Far more and far further than Congress is allowing. The NRA opposes any kind of registration system.

For sure, something must be done as the funerals in Florida are now happening.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It’s interesting that the Right wants no change to the 2nd amendment (so that crazy people like The Cheeto can get weapons) but want to jump all over the 1st amendment until what was a democracy is whipped into a theocracy. At the point of a gun, of course.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

That is clever, by the way, cleaver, is almost surreal under the circumstances. 

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Zichi, politically, a starting point needs consensus. A form of national federal registration of gun ownership could be reached through a independent body.

I am at a loss having never visited the United States.

And my American friends are insistent, to the point of paranoia in respect to the right to bear arms. I guess there is a reluctance to abandon the characterisations of the wild west.

Stated with condolences to all the victims families.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Itsonlyrockandroll

The Second Amendment and the "right to bear arms" and probably all of the constitution are important to Americans and to some that 2nd amendment is more important, even though that person does not own any weapons and might even be opposed to the type of assault weapons used in the tragic crime in Florida.

Obama tried to introduce a registeration system but was opposed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Zichi I am not suggesting you are mistaken in taking a stance to focus on limiting gun control. The reality, well, the industry is established, and ingrained. There is a report. The numbers are astonishing, mind numbing.       

Firearms and Ammunition Industry Economic Impact Report 2017......

https://www.nssf.org/government-relations/impact/

Hammering away at registration of gun ownership, I feel is the way forward, it will take time and probably more harrowing news of fatalities.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Again, party politics seems to be clouding peoples views here... @Zichi quotes Republican senators being in the pockets of the NRA... but the Republicans have only been in Power for a Year, so what about all the prior shootings ?

The US is really messed up, wrt their Amendments that can't seemingly be Further Amendended... their Founding Fathers must be turning in their Graves over how inflexible things have become.

So what's going to happen.... ? Annual gun license recertification or some other administrative control ? And where will the money come from in order to fund that ? Change has to come through a bi-party review of the out-dated constitution in order to bring it in line with the Modern day "free" world.... though clearly this is simply pie in the sky and will never happen since no one can agree on anything except that they disagree with each other.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@meija

do you have anything in reference to the "just because you feel like it" part, as that really is the crux of the issue.

Columbia vs Heller (2008?) upheld an individual’s right, unconnected with service to the militia, to possess a firearm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

itsonlyrocknroll

Hammering away at registration of gun ownership, I feel is the way forward, it will take time and probably more harrowing news of fatalities.

How would registration have prevented the Florida shooter from buying numerous weapons. Several semi automatic rifles, rifles and at least one hand gun. Guns are available for purchase online even without any ID or proof of anything other than actually paying.

One main opposition to any registration is that the details of those owners, their addresses and the types of weapons, could fall into the hands of criminals who would then know which households have weapons. Some would come more armed, some would try to steal those weapons and others would just target households not listed owning guns.

I don't know all the American gun laws, since I'm a Brit living in Japan with little interest in guns. Certain circumstances require a license like when wearing a concealed weapon.

I don't think the second amendment will be changed to ban all weapons. A push to ban or limit the more dangerous like the assault weapons are banned would go some way.

I have previously supported the idea of registration.

mmwkdw

but the Republicans have only been in Power for a Year, so what about all the prior shootings ?

republicans have been members of congress since time beginning and also have a vote. I don't think it's just about which party is in power.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Hi mmwkdw, the US has one of the most democratic, self determining Constitutions.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Yes there will be questions into the costs to/of registration of firearms an almost absurd contradiction.

Saving lives is the ultimate paramount objective. All of little consequence now for families of the deceased teens cut down at there high school.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

NRA bribes. Says it all. Get the guns out of the society.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Zichi, registration of firearms will not prevent another massacre for the reasons you have previously stated.

However, politically it is a small tentative step to establish a framework for a future legislative process to regulate control and ownership of semi automatic assault rifles.

The premise that the security into any registration process could be compromised is, forgive me,  ultimately a political red herring.

A qualitative risk analysis would define the probability of breach to secure a primary method of/to prevent any occurrence.  I suggest blockchain the register

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The Americans should be the ones with their mouths shut in this argument, and they should be listening to what people from countries where mass shootings are NOT a regular occurence have to say.

But no, as usual the Americans are all yap-yap-yapping, and NOTHING is being done.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

itsonlyrocknroll

Zichi, registration of firearms will not prevent another massacre for the reasons you have previously stated. However, politically it is a small tentative step to establish a framework for a future legislative process to regulate control and ownership of semi automatic assault rifles.

Yes. I agree with you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass4funk: ""hat was his underlying motivation, how was his mental health, what was his childhood like, where did he purchase his gun and how was he able to purchase it? Those are the real issues we need to discuss."

I find it amusing that you wonder about his mental health, and Trump says the kid was mentally ill (he would know!), and yet you guys fail to mention that Trump signed HJ Resolution 40, which rolled back Obama's attempted measures after Sandy Hook to limit their access to firearms. Trump, the coward, in fact refuses to release any photos of him signing the law, which shows how wrong he knows it is, and how maniacal he is for rolling back said attempts by his much wiser predecessor. The White House, which routinely publishes such photos (and did of another bill signing the same day), also refuses to even comment on the photo -- because they are scared.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It seems the US Congress is only interested at stopping the killings of criminals , druglords and their cohorts in the Philippines rather than finding a way to stop the shootings and killings of their schoolchildren and policemen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Columbia vs Heller (2008?) upheld an individual’s right, unconnected with service to the militia, to possess a firearm.

Just shows that the US judicial system cares little for its own constitution. The 2nd amendment is already being ignored!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FBI has failed again.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The lack of gun control led to the inevitable again.

Those children were murdered not just by the shooter but by those that sold him the gun and ammunition. By those who did not change the law to stop him buying that gun. By those that blocked the regulating gun ownership - the politicians and the gun lobby. And finally those citizens who who consider that they are true Americans and that they have a God given and constitutional right to bear arms. They all contributed to these deaths and share responsibility for those deaths. They are willing to see children die to satisfy their gun/death fetish.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I find it amusing that you wonder about his mental health, and Trump says the kid was mentally ill (he would know!),

The Democrats in all their looniness don't believe a mentally deranged person should be institutionalized.

and yet you guys fail to mention that Trump signed HJ Resolution 40, which rolled back Obama's attempted measures after Sandy Hook to limit their access to firearms.

It wouldn't have changed a thing. The guy was so unhinged, he could have used a bomb (remember, he was equally obsessed with them) then what would have happened. You can make a bomb out of anything, how do you ban that? We have over 300 million guns, you will never get all of them, so it doesn't matter what congress comes up with, they will never send Feds to come to a persons house to confiscate firearms, never will happen.

Trump, the coward, in fact refuses to release any photos of him signing the law, which shows how wrong he knows it is, and how maniacal he is for rolling back said attempts by his much wiser predecessor.

Total BS, the Democrats supposedly tried to do something, but whatever they come up with, congress will never and should never ban the 2nd amendment, not going to happen. But I want to focus more on building or reopen mental asylums and commit people that are a risk (Democrats would be a good start) of committing acts of violence.

The White House, which routinely publishes such photos (and did of another bill signing the same day), also refuses to even comment on the photo -- because they are scared.

You talked to them about that? How would you know?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

As long as we value guns more than kids, then kids will die. I wish there was some way we could limit the damage of guns to gun owners.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I'm offering 200:1 odds that hopes and prayers aren't going to prevent the next school massacre.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

cla68Today  07:21 am JST

The core problem is how US society deals with mental illness.

I agree that US society does deal with mental illness poorly, but your argument that this is the core of the problem does not hold up to logical scrutiny. Japan deals with mental illness just as poorly - maybe worse - and gun violence here is almost a solved problem.

In fact, though mental illness might be dealt with in different countries in different ways, the genetic component of it would suggest that mentally ill people would be equally distributed around the world, with the exception of countries suffering nation-wide long-term trauma. And yet violent crime is no where near equally distributed. So mental illness is a problem, but it cannot be said to be the core of the gun problem.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I agree that it has constitutionally been interpreted in such a way as to ignore the initial part of the Amendment ("a well regulated militia"). 

Rephrasing the amendment as a conditional syllogism, its first premise would state: If a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (p), then the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (q). The founders were familiar with logic and It is a fallacy actually derived from classic Aristotelian logic to assert that "not p" = "not q". But even if you don't accept that part of the argument most state constitutions had state provisions referring explicitly to a right to have guns for protection of one’s home or for hunting. It didn't come up as a big issue in the courts until 2008.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Democrats in all their looniness don't believe a mentally deranged person should be institutionalized.

And the Republican gun lobby opposes preventing the mentally ill buying guns.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Here we go again.

This:

Why would liberals care, most in congress and Hollywood, pay someone with a gun to protect them. But the rest of us law abiding Americans shouldn't? LOL

is a completely irrelevant response to this:

Conservatibes in all their ignorance don't believe that firearm violence would be lessened if there were fewer firearms.

. . .

Maybe if the FBI would have focused more on warnings about the shooter more seriously than going after Trump this tragedy COULD have possibly been prevented.

Yes, because the FBI is only capable of investigating one thing at a time. Yoinks.

 The real logic is, the left can't and will never be able to do anything about the 2nd amendment.

And the right care more about being able to purchase a firearms simply because it is your 18th or 21st birthday than keeping kids in schools safe.

I was talking about banning all firearms.

The stock, "I was talking about something completely different" response when corrected. Brilliant rhetorical skillz.

Attacking me isn't helping your argument, quite the opposite, focus, please,

I'm calling into question your credibility, which does help my argument by showing that you lack credibility.

anyway it is essentially the same thing,

No, it isn't. Use a dictionary.

the repeal that the Dems would want is just the beginning, a gateway to the next step and that would be to ban certain types of firearms and then up the ladder you go until you have completely banned all firearms. It wouldn't be all at once, it would be slow and methodic. But to even think the lefts goal is to NOT take the rights away from gun owners is ludicrous.

Uh . . . First, the Dems do not want to repeal the second amendment. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. Focus please.

Second, if the second amendment were repealed, there wouldn't be a steady escalation because there would be no need for that. Repeal the second amendment and the government could wholesale confiscate firearms. No rational democrat or liberal is advocating for this.

No, that's just being lazy, there are many ways and certain parameters that you can put in place to properly weed out potential radicals or abnormal behaviors, there are also ways to better secure a school, increase security without tackling a losing battle by trying to find ways of taking guns away from people.

Ummm . . . those parameters would cause firearms to be taken away from people, so . . .

Wow.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

here are many ways and certain parameters that you can put in place to properly weed out potential radicals or abnormal behaviors

You mean like the rule that Obama put into place that Trump repealed? Or banning those on the terrorist watch list form being able to buy firearms?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Might as well setup execution chambers in every school paid for by the NRA and your local official

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Even if someone who has a gun doesn't have mental health problems now they can develop one later.

Also, it's not only people with mental health issues that go on shooting sprees, sometimes a person just gets absolutely pissed off and goes on a rampage. You can't stop these kinds of things.

Making access to guns difficult is what will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk: "It wouldn't have changed a thing. The guy was so unhinged, he could have used a bomb"

Prove it. I can prove he had access to guns and "countless magazines" thanks to insane US gun laws (and lack thereof), and that thanks to that more 17 are dead. You can't prove he "COULD have used a bomb" without the guns and more than your other hypotheticals always fall flat in your defense of the lunacy of guns.

"You can make a bomb out of anything, how do you ban that?"

How many bomb massacres at schools so far this year? Are you telling me your actual defense of gun massacres is that if they didn't exist people would have bomb massacres all the time and despite "being able to make bombs out of anything" said massacres don't happen?

"Total BS"

Not BS at all -- Trump and the White House will NOT release photos of him signing the bill. It's fact. But hey, we know how you love the alternative facts.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I 'm having a hard time deciding who is more insane, this young kid with mental problem who just threw his life away after committing mass shooting and murder or those who defend his right to do that by allowing even young people with serious mental problems access to any number and types of weapons only limited by his cash.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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