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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by rufus_foreman »

tablespoon wrote: post #835
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #701

Step 1: repeal the Second Amendment. There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process.

> There's never going to be useful progress here until America unsticks from the idea that the right to arm yourself belongs in the same category as the right to free speech or due process. America also needs a comprehensive media safety law that bans dissemination of reports of things like school attacks outside of the affected communities. All the nationwide media coverage does is inspire copycat mayhem.

Wow, ready to throw out both the first and second amendments. Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that you would actually stand up for?

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

#852

Post by foxyv »

second--shift wrote: post #828

My hot take on the issue: Don't regulate the guns per-se; regulate the bullets. An adult (only adults should be shopping for ammunition?) must take end-to-end responsibility and ownership of each bullet the purchase, and subsequently fire. You own the bullet from the time you take it home to the store to the time it comes to rest after firing out of a gun. The guns, other than as a mechanism for firing bullets, are n…

The problem with this is how you identify the ammo used. If you print on the shell casing, it can be re-used after it is ejected from the rifle at the range leading to reasonable doubt about it's origin. There is also no way to tag the bullet itself. Tagging firearms and regulating them is much much easier. Can you imagine the police checking that each and every shell in a box of 300 is tagged?

With regards to the most recent shooter, as far as I can tell, their only parent was a grandparent who they shot and killed before attacking the school.

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

#853

Post by zbobet2012 »

bruce511 wrote: post #527
DeathArrow wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before fire arms being invented people took other's lives with knives, swords or clubs. Or poison. Or bare hands. What makes you think that not owning a gun will make people less murderous?

It's an issue of volume. It's hard for an 18 year old to kill 20 people with their bard hands, or even knives, without being subdued.

No, it's not. Arson is the historically most common method of mass murder and is actually deadlier.

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

#854

Post by cuteboy19 »

tablespoon wrote: post #823
dgfitz wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking to my wife about this the other night and we came to the same conclusions as the points you made. What we posit at this point is: what didn’t exist in 1969? Social media. The internet. Legislation won’t change anything. Proponents of stricter gun control are being idealistic. Having kids in school right now, we are both quite concerned about the current state of affairs when it comes to school shootings…

> I was talking to my wife about this the other night and we came to the same conclusions as the points you made. What we posit at this point is: what didn’t exist in 1969? Social media. The internet. Also cable TV news. The need to drive viewers to consume a surfeit of airtime probably lead to a lot of socially damaging choices. I'd say it's a qualitatively different thing than the nightly news. Another important qu…

Other countries have cable too you know. We don't see them shooting up schools

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

#855

Post by relaxing »

bobkazamakis wrote: post #739
cout wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you enforce that in the era of 3D printers and consumer grade CNCs?

the same way you enforce everything else? the idea isn't to make guns non-existent.

Prosecute after the fact? That doesn't change the status quo.

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

#856

Post by dgfitz »

confidantlake wrote: post #715
dgfitz wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking to my wife about this the other night and we came to the same conclusions as the points you made. What we posit at this point is: what didn’t exist in 1969? Social media. The internet. Legislation won’t change anything. Proponents of stricter gun control are being idealistic. Having kids in school right now, we are both quite concerned about the current state of affairs when it comes to school shootings…

Most other countries have social media. Few other countries have a mass shooting problems. Restricting access to guns absolutely will lower school shootings. A disturbed 18 year old isn't going to have black market gang connections to get a gun.

> A disturbed 18 year old isn't going to have black market gang connections to get a gun.

Apparently you've never been to Baltimore and/or forget what it was like to be 18. Show me a law prohibiting or vastly restricting something and I'll show you a very healthy black market for said thing.

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

#857

Post by injb »

testtaaac wrote: post #661
hoseja wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey how about tests to allow people to vote and have children. Sounds like a great idea.

What do you consider a test to vote? having never been incarcerated? lots of states already have that implemented.

It's actually being convicted of a felony, not being incarcerated, that prohibits you from voting (and from owing a gun).

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

#858

Post by injb »

fredgrott wrote: post #659
librish wrote: post #89

It's time we start legislating based on empirical evidence instead of lofty ideals. Yes, if everyone was responsible perhaps it would be OK for all of us to own firearms. But so many people are utterly irresponsible, and guns make that irresponsibility lethal. People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child. People shouldn't point a gun…

Some points of interest: -60 percent or more US states have no gun registration, I know as I live in Indiana which changed to a no gun registration state despite objections from their own citizens and cops. -Among religious right guns are seen as a male status symbols -Can we cure this economically by requiring liability insurance in addition to gun registration? It work by, if you have a past history of danger signs…

>>I know as I live in Indiana which changed to a no gun registration state

When was there ever gun registration in Indiana?

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

#859

Post by pc86 »

Hamuko wrote: post #450
sb057 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People should safely store their fire-arms, but they don't and guns get stolen and sold illegally, or used by their teenage child. This is extraordinarily rare. >People shouldn't point a gun at someone unless their life is in danger and they're prepared to take a life, but they do and people get shot by accident, or road rage turns deadly. Brandishing weapons is illegal in every state and not pointing the muzzle of…

> not pointing the muzzle of a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy is basic gun safety. Are you required to know basic gun safety in order to obtain one?

In many states, yes.

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

#860

Post by ryathal »

doctoroctogon wrote: post #783
Der_Einzige wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time of the founders, common citizens could legally own cannons. Framers intended for individuals to be able to own weapons as powerful as what was available to the military at the time. I'd say framers wanted us to be able to legally buy tanks (with the gun still operational!).

By that logic then - nukes should be available to the public as well?

Sure. Just make sure you can pay the tax stamp, the cost of the weapon, have property to put it on that is capable of storing an explosive according to local regulations, and can ship to that property which probably requires more permits.
Post reply on HN