@MilkmanDan, let's say he didn't have a bump stock. Do you think it would have meaningfully affected this tragedy?

If he had killed 10% fewer people (while it would obviously have been better for those people and their families), this would still have been the deadliest mass shooting in the US.

Basically, my argument is that plenty of people have managed to go on mass shooting sprees without bump stocks, and banning them won't stop the next mass shooting.

It's kinda like banning texting while drunk driving. Sure, you really shouldn't do it, but it's not the main problem!

Two words easily dismiss your entire argument: predator drones.

Look, there are plenty of other countries with high gun ownership rates, but a few sensible regulations stop this kind of shit happening, and guess what? Those countries aren’t oppressive dictatorships, they’re modern, progressive societies.

Meanwhile, the USA, for all your talk of guns preventing dictatorship is a disgrace. You have have bigoted asshole running your country, your healthcare is barbaric (and they’re trying to make it worse), your tax system is ridiculous and your minority citizens are being criticised for daring to protest about the systemic racism they have to endure.

Gun control won’t make your country “less free”, because it’s already ranked pretty low there. But it will certainly lower the number of mass shootings.

You knew what was coming from the title so it wasn't a total shock at the end. But for all the production value and emotions, I'm conflicted about their message (I agree mass shootings or really any shootings are horrible).

See that kid over there, the loner that doesn't socialize well? Does he have any hobbies that could conceivably be used as a weapon against others? Bingo, possible mass shooter and candidate for reporting.

I looked all over their website to get a better idea of the exact message(s), but you have to sign up to receive via email any of their guides and I wasn't that dedicated.
I did see mentions of mental health, reducing bullying and the warning signs of violence, but then you hit the store with nail polish. Plus some of their stats don't even remotely add up.
"About 409 deaths occur every year from police intervention. Of these total yearly deaths about 17 of them will be 18 years or younger. This means about one death per day."

Hard to believe it happened 4 years ago though and the topic as a whole needs plenty of attention still.

Or someone kidnaps your daughter and thanks to your preparedness and special set of skills you realize you're actually Liam Neeson.
This whole guns-for-safety-schtick has been debated online a thousand times. You know what protects you from crime? Tackling the very real social issues like poverty and racism that cause crime.
You have so many guns and yet your crime rate is so shitty. Mass shootings are routine in america. Where are all the good guys with guns to stop the bad guys when you need them?
It's not working. It simply isn't, crunch numbers all you want. Just look at Canada. They have guns. Yet, they seem to live so much safer lives. Is Mexico such a dangerous place because they don't have enough guns? They got the good Heckler&Koch rifles, you know.
You want to fight fights that I say should be avoided in the first place. Fix your social issues and less people will have reasons to try breaking into your home.
Same with the terrorist. Don't just bomb them, disable their ideological rethoric, disable their methods of recruiting.
We have islamic terrorists here in germany. They either try to build bombs (requires actual know-how) or they attack with axes and knives. Something must be working in our favor here. Same can't be said for the citizens of Paris or nightclub visitors in Orlando. They got shot.
The american paranoia is a reaction to an action that can be made far more unlikely to happen. Once you are ready to tackle the issues.
You can bring a fire extinguisher every time you go to the gas station in case a fire breaks out or you can just stop smoking around the gas station.

As a society, we disagree, and sometimes condone mass shootings.

War is considered a legitimate reason for mass shooting of anyone designated the enemy.
Self defense is also a legitimate reason for mass shooting a group that's attacking you.

As for murder NEVER being the solution, it depends on your specific definition of murder. Homicide IS sometimes the best solution. "Murder", rarely, but there are rare times when it may be the best possible solution to a problem, terrible as it may be.

The only true absolute is "there are no absolutes"....which paradoxically makes that statement untrue by virtue of it's own veracity and vice versa. ;-)

..Because it's NOT.

There is NEVER a legitimate reason for a mass shooting of ANYONE.

Seriously, I'm not entirely sure if you're defending the guy who shot at 11 cops, killing at least 4. But it sure as hell sounds like it.

However, lets take the word "Cops" outta there. The guy who shot 11, killing at least 4. Doesn't matter what the hell is wrong with you. Murder is NEVER the damn solution.

Okay, but video games are still responsible for mass shootings and sexism.

none of what you said makes any point showing why gun control shouldn't be discussed or implemented. and i specifically didn't say "a collection of gun laws/regulations". i said "a collection of laws/regulations/policies". there is a plethora of policies or lack thereof that are talked about often to deflect from the gun debate after [yet another] mass shooting but it's always lip service. the main deflection de jour is "mental health" but very little if anything is done about that. and the problem stems from way beyond guns and mental health. minimum wage laws, health care, education, income disparity/poverty, mental health care, gun laws, etc. all play big roles in an event like this. guns are obviously the first issue that needs to be looked at but because of the second amendment, there is never a real conversation about it. it's just shut down. all without even validating the justification for the second amendment to begin with. it's just presumed to be an axiom.

but even accepting that it is, move on to the next issue and it's the same thing: obstruction of any conversation or modernization. "oh we can't do that 'cause it costs money". well, all the data shows not doing it (investing in education, health care, poverty, etc) is many times more expensive than investing in it. across the board.

so now your whole country just sits there feeling bad for itself, wallowing in how fucked your social structures are, and passing the buck from one issue to the next until the news cycle forgets about one specific event effected by all these things and moves on to the next event effected by all these things but is aesthetically different and the whole process starts over again. meanwhile complaining about ineffective your political system is yet consistently voting in low numbers for the entrenched or the psychotic. certainly never for the thoughtful or nuanced. [i'm being hyperbolic here, but your politicians and voting record as a poplulation are fucking terrifying if not useless]



point being: watching this happen time and time and time again: the tragedy, the grief, the looking for answers, refusing to see the answers that are plain as day from the outside, pointing to the closest issue you aren't directly effected by, and finally forgetting the whole thing and/or accepting it as normal is really, truly sad and tragic.

There have been at least 3 mass shootings in Australia since 1997 (defined as a shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed - the same as the popular https://www.massshootingtracker.org/ )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

One could include a 4th incident in NSW this last week where our poorly trained police shot 5 people. One guy with a knife and 4 bystanders. Check that line of fire yeah?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/four-injured-as-police-shoot-man-hornsby-shopping-centre/7496102

I agree that the restriction on the CDC shouldn't be happening.

As far as the limitation of what type of weapons we can have, I'm fine with the system in place. Civilians can own machine guns if they get the proper papers and tax stamp. If we want to classify semi auto rifles in the same class, sure. We can even go back to the Assault Rifle ban if we need to. I just don't see it stopping mass shootings, but that's my opinion.

As far as AR-15's specifically go, they aren't what I would consider to be the best weapon to kill people. At short range and with the shorter barrels most of the civilian ones have, the bullet isn't close to being as effective as a handgun. A Glock 22 has a 15+1 round capacity in a .40 caliber. Carrying 2 of them, firing one empty and then the other (not at the same time), assuming you are remotely able to aim, would net you far more DRT people than a 30 round .223 rifle. Tuck one under your arm, swap clips, release the slide catch, repeat for the second, and you are ready to go. Heck, even a pump or semi auto shotgun with the limiter tube removed and using buckshot is likely to get you more dead people.

The fact the gun lobby won't let the CDC do it's job and collect data on gun violence just shows how insane political right is.

Then the right is blaming ISIS... the idiot pledged allegiance to ISIS and Hezbollah, even though they are enemies of each other. He clearly just had an issue with gays, and was using faith as an excuse. Most of the mass shootings in the US aren't done by Muslims in an act of terrorism, they are done by crazy people who have unfiltered access to guns.

I'd be fine if we don't close the gun show loophole or don't ban people from buying assault weapons, for now, so long as we first at least let the CDC get back to doing its job and collect data on gun violence. Then explore it in a few years of data collection to see what measures would be helpful. The fact the right refuses to let that happen must tell you that they know what the data will show, that some loopholes need closed.

And yes, if you are on the federal no flight list (and I haven't seen that this shooter was on such a list, just investigated twice), then you should certainly be delayed in getting a gun. That should be a huge red flag. You should then be told why you were denied and then have a right to argue for the right to own a gun and/or get off the no flight list. It should be a clear process to make such an application, and shouldn't require a lawyer. But odds are that most people on the no fly list aren't there for search history, or library records, but most are on the no fly list undoubtedly for far better reasons.

I'll fight to retain the right for most Americans to own a gun. Both a hand gun for personal home defense, and hunting rifles and the like. However if you are in a situation that requires an AR-15 to defend yourself, you are way over your head.... and don't give me some bull shit about protecting yourself from the government, remember how well having even more powerful weapons and training did for the people in Waco. Where do people who argue that those should be sold without restriction want to draw the line (and to be clear, I'm not arguing against the right to own one necessarily, but I am against buying it without restrictions, for a smaller wait time than it would take to buy a handgun)? Do we let people buy a bazooka? A surface to air missile launcher? A nuclear bomb? Where do you draw the line on putting restrictions, or at least a wait time on weapons of mass harm?

Of course no one is talking about a full gun ban. However, once you compromise the 2nd Amendment, you place the decision in the hands of our legislature. You know, the super functional branch of our government that never makes mistakes. You also allow them to decide 'what' you need.

I've not been to NZ, but I seriously doubt that the cultural dichotomy that is present in the USA is remotely represented in NZ.

I support abortion rights, I support gay marriage, I would love to be able to trip out to the local head shop and buy some weed, and I don't think heavily restricting guns would solve the issues we are looking at. The last two mass shootings were terrorist related. Prior to that, they have primarily been mental health related. We have one of the worst mental health policies and systems in the world. Medicate first, don't hospitalize, don't provide therapy, and other such bright ideas. Ever since we passed the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, homelessness and acts of violence by the mentally ill have been on the rise. Inpatient centers have become rare and, like I said, most people get a pill and a swift kick in the ass out the door. I would be willing to bet if we fixed our health care issues in regards to the mentally ill and maybe put a 15 day waiting period on the purchase of ANY gun, we would stop 99% of these mass shootings.

It seems really strange from an outside perspective. It isn't all that long ago - at least in my memory - when certain types of American were almost celebrating that they were willing to torture and maim people if they 'got their answers'. Even if some of those people were innocent, it was an acceptable price to pay.

When Ed Snowden came out and told us that our governments were spying on us, trawling through our data and tracking our entire history online and in reality through surveillance cameras. The majority of America was against Snowden (in all the polls I've seen) - in any other day he would have been given the Nobel peace prize and celebrated as an all-time hero that stood up to impossible odds just to give the human race full disclosure on their 'freedom'. That's the stuff of legend, the stuff that people should be talking about in 1000 years time like we talk about Genghis Khan or something. Instead he was treated like a traitor and forced to live in exile in Russia because it was the only country that wouldn't hand him over to the torturing, controlling, law-breaking bastards he'd just made to look very stupid..... Gee, I wonder why he didn't want to face "criminal proceedings"? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - except if you cross the wrong people?

Not too long ago freedom WAS an acceptable sacrifice for security.

When a lunatic got hold of an automatic rifle, killed 50 people and injured another 50, the prevailing argument seems to be "Hey, hey, let's not over react here, we can't sacrifice our freedom because of one terrorist act."

The only difference in this situation is that it isn't about "other people's" freedom and "my security" any more. It is about "my" freedom and "other people's" security.

You probably weren't one of those people, but I think it's fair to preface my comment with that contradiction.

I accept you have a decent point in this case; people shouldn't lose their freedom because the FBI made a mistake. But that's not the question being asked, let's talk about the general case rather than this specific one. The question is does legislation exist that will make mass shootings less common in the US? And I think the answer is yes, but I also think that culture is the biggest factor, not just access to guns.

As an example of what I mean - what if there were legislation that limited his ability to get hold of the weapon, registered that he had expressed an interest with the FBI who could then investigate based on his history? And maybe some other legislation could make it harder in general for him to just go and borrow one of his friends', or steal one from a local lax firing range, or whatever other illegal means exist to get hold of one.... perhaps because there were less in circulation, or those that were in circulation were more stringently secured?

At the end of the day it might not stop him getting hold of one, but it might make it harder and he might have second thoughts or make a mistake and be caught if it were harder. Hell, at least then the families of the dead would be able to say that a CRIME was committed when this fucking lunatic who had been under investigation was allowed to get access to a weapon that could so easily kill or maim a hundred people.

North of the border, anyone wishing to buy a gun or ammunition must have a valid licence under the Firearms Act, and to obtain a firearms licence, all applicants must undergo a screening process, which includes a safety course, criminal history and background checks, provision of personal references, and a mandatory waiting period. The law further prohibits military-grade assault weapons such as AK-47s and sawn-off rifles or shotguns. Handguns are generally classified as restricted weapons, while rifles and shotguns are usually non-restricted.

There are only a few purposes for which individuals can obtain a restricted firearms licence in Canada, "the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection."

Based on your article and what else I've read, that means that pump, bolt action, and single shot rifles/shotguns are ok. Everything else is pretty much a no go. Sounds like some pretty heavy restrictions, although I did note there is a huge demand for ar-15 style rifles to be allowed in Canada.

But yes, the bulk of our shooting issue is the culture of our country. We are very diverse in culture, as well as familial structure. I would say that our culture and population is unlike any other in the world (except Australia, oddly. from what I've seen, I think they are sort of the USA lite version). Realistically, barring massive limitations to gun ownership, we are not going to stop mass shootings in the USA. I honestly don't think we will stop it then either, what with the sieve of a border we have, guns will just become the new coke/meth. Not to mention AR-15 style rifles aren't exactly hard to build. Other than the barrel and the bolt, most of the other pieces can be hand milled out of semi finished pieces that are completely legal for anyone to have.

Maybe we could do like Switzerland, their gun control seems to work.

You do realize, don't you, that most modern western nations do not even come close to banning firearms altogether and still they don't come close to the US history of gun violence and mass shootings. I'm sure part of it is just cultural but mostly it's just due to a collection of rules and regulations that restrict what kind of weapons can be owned, how they can be used, and stringent checks on the people who want to acquire them. Check out this article for some info about gun ownership in Canada.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/06/13/news/how-us-gun-laws-stack-canadas-wake-florida-shooting