Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#421

Post by Spivak »

School-Cotton wrote: post #337
paulcole wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. As an American, this is a risk I’m willing to take.

Okay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)

You don’t have to actually rewrite it, amendments to the constitution don’t have the be consistent with those that come before it. Prohibition and repealing prohibition for example. If you somehow had enough political will you literally dissolve the US then you have enough to amend the constitution many times over.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#422

Post by la6472 »

beloch wrote: post #83

Canada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Gun ownership is also high in Canada. In terms of guns per capita, the U.S. is #1 by a long shot, but Canada is #7 [1]. In Canada, guns owned per capita is one third of what it is in the U.S.. Canada also has mass shootings. The annual deaths from mass shootings per capita in Canada is 0.032, which is about one third that of the…

Right now it is hard to look at our kids faces and not feel the impact of this tragedy. I don’t know about everyone but for most people their kids lives are way more important than their right to bear military grade guns. If there is no perfect solution we have to live with a less than perfect solution. If the solution is to legally make it harder for people to access such guns then so be it.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#424

Post by yesenadam »

quantumwannabe wrote: post #377
elementalest wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. When compared to places like Australia, where guns are highly regulated and barely anyone owns a gun, such that there have been no mass shootings for 35 years, the solution really is obvious.

That is blatantly not true. There have been several mass shootings in Australia such as the 2002 Monash University shooting and the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis since Port Arthur, which inspired the modern Australian gun control system. Port Arthur was also 25 years ago, not 35. Australia also only had a handful of mass shootings before Port Arthur; mass shootings have never been a major issue in Australia. https://en.…

> 2014 Sydney hostage crisis

A mass shooting in which, by the sound of it, a gunman killed one hostage? Then when "police...stormed the café ...[a hostage] was killed by a police bullet ricochet. ..[The gunman] was also killed. Three other hostages and a police officer were injured by police gunfire"

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

In the 2002 Monash shooting, 2 people died. Seems like there hasn't been a mass shooting of >5 people in Australia since Port Arthur (1996), except in 2018 when a grandfather in WA killed his whole family including himself (7 people).

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#425

Post by pmlamotte »

School-Cotton wrote: post #337
paulcole wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. As an American, this is a risk I’m willing to take.

Okay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)

It's not necessarily rewriting the constitution, and could take decades, but ensuring liberal judges get a majority on the supreme court is all it really takes in order to reverse the 5-4 D.C. v. Heller (2008) decision that first affirmed the 2nd amendment grants individuals the right to handguns for private use outside a militia. It's congressional legislation from there. Roe v. Wade already showed it's possible to overturn an opinion that grants individual rights.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#426

Post by systemvoltage »

paulcole wrote: post #184
elforce002 wrote: post #135

As a foreigner I find this subject very complex since the right to bear arms in on the US constitution. To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. Banning guns altogether (rather improbable) will only leave law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. More protection in schools could be a starting point to address these awful events. I'm still in favor of law ab…

> To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. As an American, this is a risk I’m willing to take.

> The Bill of Rights feels intense today, but try reading it in the mindset of someone in 1791. A few years removed from Louis XVI selling Divine Right of Kings. Then suddenly “Hell no, also we’re gonna say and print whatever we want, you can’t search us, and everyone gets guns.”

Source: https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216

Right to bear arms is one of the most profound ideas of the American constitution.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#427

Post by EugeneOZ »

chmod600 wrote: post #385
EugeneOZ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a foreigner, I have an impression that americans can buy a gun at 18, but cun buy a cigarette at 21. Maybe I’m wrong, but still... Call me an “old-timer” but I do think you could use better psychological tests before letting them buy a gun.

A 16 year old was effectively an adult not so long ago. Today, an 18 year old is a child. We should just move the age of majority to 24 or so. Guns and voting would start there. Vices and contracts would be some sliding scale.

24th birthday doesn't make a person wise automatically. Psychological tests are needed for gun buyers.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#428

Post by charles_kaw »

chmod600 wrote: post #358
beloch wrote: post #83

Canada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Gun ownership is also high in Canada. In terms of guns per capita, the U.S. is #1 by a long shot, but Canada is #7 [1]. In Canada, guns owned per capita is one third of what it is in the U.S.. Canada also has mass shootings. The annual deaths from mass shootings per capita in Canada is 0.032, which is about one third that of the…

"Where many U.S. states permit concealed carry of handguns, handguns are virtually illegal to carry in Canada. Transporting them from your home to the range is legal, but they must be unloaded, locked, and permits are required for the transport." I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. The other policies you mention may be more relevant, but it goes…

>I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them.

On virtue of how many shootings have begun "without warning", the cultural context in canada versus the us is quite different. The expectation of actions when you see a firearm is very different in these two countries!

- in the US, someone with an openly carried firearm may be transporting it or any number of innocent use cases

- in Canada, someone with an openly carried firearm is already committing a crime. And, that crime is generally of no personal benefit to them^, which is a huge warning sign. They are likely not considering the law in their actions.

If I saw a person with a gun in the US, I would quickly walk away. If I saw a person with a gun in Canada, I would run.

>gun owners would be much more receptive to regulation if they felt people were genuinely trying to separate narrow and effective laws from broad infringements that annoy many and accomplish little

Gun owners consistently misrepresent and come up with inconsistent interpretations of any gun control. The bar is never high enough, the logic never sound enough. The "broad infringements" proposed are never, and will never be, good enough. I find your statement to be a bit disingenuous in that regard.

^ while protest is a valid case imo, protesting by (for example) carrying a gun onto a school campus, grocery store, or movie theater is quite different than in a park with other protestors. Context matters, even here!

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#429

Post by jeffbee »

chmod600 wrote: post #358
beloch wrote: post #83

Canada is the U.S.'s neighbour and is probably closer, culturally, than any other nation. Gun ownership is also high in Canada. In terms of guns per capita, the U.S. is #1 by a long shot, but Canada is #7 [1]. In Canada, guns owned per capita is one third of what it is in the U.S.. Canada also has mass shootings. The annual deaths from mass shootings per capita in Canada is 0.032, which is about one third that of the…

"Where many U.S. states permit concealed carry of handguns, handguns are virtually illegal to carry in Canada. Transporting them from your home to the range is legal, but they must be unloaded, locked, and permits are required for the transport." I see no mechanism by which those laws would reduce mass shootings. A mass shooter would simply ignore them. The other policies you mention may be more relevant, but it goes…

Rifles with detachable magazines, or internal magazines with more than 5 rounds, should be as hard to purchase as machine guns. That's narrow enough for me.

Re: Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (2015)

#430

Post by _carbyau_ »

coinbasetwwa wrote: post #379
Aeolun wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hear this argument, but it’s like people forget what the primary purpose of guns and cars is. If the primary purpose of cars was to drive over people then they would be banned. This is why you can own a car, but not a tank.

You can legally own a tank though..

And here in Australia you can legally own a gun. Not sure about a tank. Though if I had a whole bunch of $$$ I'd find out... :-)
Post reply on HN