US politicians seem UNWILLING to prevent gun violence

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
US politicians seem UNWILLING to prevent gun violence

BANGKOK: -- The latest mass shooting in America reopens the debate on gun control; Thailand needs to heed this warning too as the number of local cases of crime involving guns increases.

More than 220 incidents of mass shootings or killings have taken place in the United States since 2006. That averages out to approximately one every two weeks.

The figure is alarming even for a country as obsessed with guns as America. The latest shooting rampage has renewed, yet again, the debate about gun control and stricter background checks on those who want to purchase guns.

A mass killing, according to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, is an incident in which four or more people are killed, not including the killer.

Interestingly, about half of the mass killings (111) were triggered by family disputes. A large number of other mass killings took place during robberies (30) or were shooting rampages in public places (36), according to a recent USA Today study. Most of the victims were killed by gunfire and a smaller number by stabbing, smoke inhalation or burns, or by blunt force. The mass killers ranged from angry and dispirited adolescents to alienated political extremists.

After each mass killing in the US, especially when it involves guns, lawmakers call for much tighter gun controls. US President Barack Obama has called for stricter controls, but Congress has rejected any move in this direction. Critics now question American lawmakers' determination or ability to stand up to the political muscle of the National Rifle Association.

Following the latest tragedy in Washington DC last week, an American blogger wrote, "Mass shootings have become a part of our lives. The United States has a problem. The problem is that certain people decide to take a weapon and start randomly killing others."

The latest shooting, in which 12 people were killed at a Washington naval installation, was committed by a military contractor and former US Navy reservist named Aaron Alexis. The man had received treatment for mental health issues including paranoia, hearing voices and sleeplessness, according to US news media.

President Obama says the US needs a better way to check whether gun buyers have mental-health problems. "The fact that we do not have a firm enough background-check system is something that makes us more vulnerable to these kinds of mass shootings," he said.

The president has a point. People with mental-health problems should not be allowed to own or carry guns.

This principle should also be applied to buyers and owners of firearms in Thailand. The law here bars anyone who is "deranged or incompetent" from buying or owning a firearm. There is no such restriction on people with mental-health problems, apart from being "deranged or incompetent", and no limits on anyone carrying guns.

Luckily for Thailand, cases of mass shooting are rare. And, unlike in the US, guns are less affordable. However, there has been an increase in the number of cases here in which people use guns to kill others or themselves. In some cases it was evident that the perpetrators had mental problems.

In the US, the major problem with gun control, or lack thereof, is that the background-check system fails to detect people with mental issues. For Thailand, the problem is that the law does not prevent people with mental problems from gaining access to guns.


-- The Nation 2013-09-26

[F430murci]

God bless America!

[Ulysses G.]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

[ChoakMyDee]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

[FM505]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

What does it take to prevent gun violence...?

[ericthai]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

That Piece of shit paper as you call it, is the constitution of the USA which is the foundation of the laws of the United States, so that is what gives citizens the right to own a gun. Same as the constitution provides the Freedom of speech and religion. Even if all guns were confiscated it would not stop shootings. Drugs are illegal and people still get them. If someone really wants a gun they will get it. The UK has cracked down on guns but now who has guns, the police and the criminals. How many bombings have you had in the UK? I believe bombs are illegal. What is the answer, I dont know, I dont think anyone knows. The guy in China killed 4 and injured 11 just a few months ago. Somebody wants to kill people they will do it, does not matter if it's with a gun, a bomb or a knife.

[F430murci]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

That Piece of shit paper as you call it, is the constitution of the USA which is the foundation of the laws of the United States, so that is what gives citizens the right to own a gun. Same as the constitution provides the Freedom of speech and religion. Even if all guns were confiscated it would not stop shootings. Drugs are illegal and people still get them. If someone really wants a gun they will get it. The UK has cracked down on guns but now who has guns, the police and the criminals. How many bombings have you had in the UK? I believe bombs are illegal. What is the answer, I dont know, I dont think anyone knows. The guy in China killed 4 and injured 11 just a few months ago. Somebody wants to kill people they will do it, does not matter if it's with a gun, a bomb or a knife.

If the guy in China had an AK all 15, plus a few more would have been dead. The Consitutional does not provide everyone an absolute right to own whatever gun they want.

[upena]

This is not a gun problem. It is a mental health problem.

[NCC1701A]

The US Constitution and armed Americans to defend the Constitution are responsible for your freedom, no matter where you live.

Mods please lock this thread as it is highly offensive. This is no different than using the N word, so please lock this thread now.

[F430murci]

The US Constitution and armed Americans to defend the Constitution are responsible for your freedom, no matter where you live.

Mods please lock this thread as it is highly offensive. This is no different than using the N word, so please lock this thread now.

Huh? You typify the problem. Irrational thinking whenever the word gun control is mentioned. This is why I am totally cool with strict mental health guidelines. All current gun owners need to be evaluated for mental health issues. Haha, half of the NRA members would lose their guns then so no surprise that NRA would never go for that one. Just more hollow rhetoric by NRA about mental health being the problem. They only want future purchasers to be tested, but it is the current owners that are the problem.

[little mary sunshine]

Most of the ass holes who vote against gun control use the Constitution to cover up their

pay offs by PAC's and under the counter bribes. If it wasn't for money, and crooked

members of congress, we would have "better gun control laws". It's just common sense.

[F430murci]

Most of the ass holes who vote against gun control use the Constitution to cover up their

pay offs by PAC's and under the counter bribes. If it wasn't for money, and crooked

members of congress, we would have "better gun control laws". It's just common sense.

Common sense that NRA should pay for testing gun owners for signs of mental issues since they are adamantly calling for it. Makes better sense than paying for or sticking whacko Montana free men survivalist types in our school armed to the teeth. Put money where mouth is LaPew.

[NeverSure]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

That Piece of shit paper as you call it, is the constitution of the USA which is the foundation of the laws of the United States, so that is what gives citizens the right to own a gun. Same as the constitution provides the Freedom of speech and religion. Even if all guns were confiscated it would not stop shootings. Drugs are illegal and people still get them. If someone really wants a gun they will get it. The UK has cracked down on guns but now who has guns, the police and the criminals. How many bombings have you had in the UK? I believe bombs are illegal. What is the answer, I dont know, I dont think anyone knows. The guy in China killed 4 and injured 11 just a few months ago. Somebody wants to kill people they will do it, does not matter if it's with a gun, a bomb or a knife.

If the guy in China had an AK all 15, plus a few more would have been dead. The Consitutional does not provide everyone an absolute right to own whatever gun they want.

You're right, and the US Supreme Court has agreed. I'm an American. If I wanted to own an AK-47 (a wimpy, underpowered piece of 3rd world chit you couldn't run fast enough to give me) it would cost me about US$20,000, a very serious background check, and about $500 to license

it. LINK

Some states don't allow them at all, so you'd need to be a resident of a state which did.

Next is the cost of firing it, just for fun. At 100 rounds per minute effective rate of fire, and a 600 round per minute cyclic rate, you could burn through 1,000 round case of ammo in about ten minutes. Ten minutes of "fun" for $400. Yep, 40 cents per round for decent ammo. LINK (Not that Wolf crap.)

Did you ever decide to not buy a vehicle because it was a gas hog? This is an ammo hog.

However, at the recent shooting at the Washington Naval Building, the mentally ill shooter had only a lowly pump action shotgun. If desperate enough, he could have set off a home made bomb.

Edited September 26, 2013 by NeverSure

[NanLaew]

Gun law enforcement in the US is like prostitution law enforcement in Thailand. There's just way too many special interest groups making way too much money to ensure that the statutes aren't really enforced. It's the CULTURE. The only difference in Thailand is there are no Liberals to blame it on, just the police.

[Chicog]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

Is that a euphemism for "They are owned by the NRA"?

[Chicog]

The US Constitution and armed Americans to defend the Constitution are responsible for your freedom, no matter where you live.

Mods please lock this thread as it is highly offensive. This is no different than using the N word, so please lock this thread now.

Whoa there. Doesn't your constitution protect free speech?

[Card]

This is not a gun problem. It is a mental health problem.

It's a mental health problem plus a gun problem - they are synergistic.

[NeverSure]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

Is that a euphemism for "They are owned by the NRA"?

What is the NRA? It is an organization of willing dues-paying citizen VOTERS who know there is strength in numbers. Of course the NRA is powerful, but only because it speaks for a collective group of people who can vote a politician out of office.

Each one of those members is simply exercising his rights to speak, to protest, and to vote.

The NRA is ordinary people.

[BuriramRes]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

Why should we worry? If they are stupid enough to do nothing about it, as long as we do not live in the USA let the crazy people kill each other!

[ericthai]

Gun law enforcement in the US is like prostitution law enforcement in Thailand. There's just way too many special interest groups making way too much money to ensure that the statutes aren't really enforced. It's the CULTURE. The only difference in Thailand is there are no Liberals to blame it on, just the police.

You have no idea what you are talking about? have you ever bought a gun in the US? Are you from the US?

I'm from the USA and I have owned many guns in the US and I had to get a license to do so.

When I purchased any hand gun I had to wait 3 days before I could pick it up. I would have to pay for it and then they do a background check then I need to come back 3 days later to get it, as that is the law in that state. A guy that lived down the street from me was a convicted felon, he did something stupid when we was young. However because of that he is no longer allowed to own or possess a gun. Don't know why but the police were at his house the one day and he was arrested for having a gun in the house. It turned out to be his brothers gun who was temporally living with him but the law says he is not allowed to be in possession of a gun and the gun being in his house it's considered to be in his possession. so off to jail he went. So the laws are followed!

My friend that lives in Washington DC told me it took him 6 months to get a license to be able to purchase a gun. That Washington DC has more laws on gun ownership than most states and it takes allot of hoop jumping to get a gun license. So your comment that it is like prostitution enforcement in Thailand is not even a close. The laws are followed and enforced!!

As for the mass shootings you will find they are done by people that had metal problems. So the real issue is people with mental problems being able to get a gun. But like I said before I don't care what laws you have, even if you ban guns all together if a person wants a gun they will find a way. Drugs are illegal people get them. Bombs are illegal and people have gotten them and used them to kill people. How to fix this I don't know, but taking away all guns is not going to stop them, might make it harder for them to get a gun which they will just be smuggled in from Mexico. This happens already where gangs smuggle in fully automatic weapons which are illegal in the US.

[NeverSure]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

Why should we worry? If they are stupid enough to do nothing about it, as long as we do not live in the USA let the crazy people kill each other!

So, just for giggles, where do you live? If not Thailand, do you visit Thailand? Thailand has far more gun murders per capita than the US does, and it's a given that the roads are almost suicide.

People aren't afraid of Thailand but they have this imaginary fear of the US? The US has the world's 3rd largest population. Of course more crap is going to happen. But your odds of being killed in one of these highly publicized mass shootings are less than you being struck by lightning.

While every human life is precious whether in Thailand or the US, 12 people out of 330 million is statistically insignificant. You have a far greater chance of being killed in a car accident.

If you're in Thailand, I'd recommend getting the hell out and fleeing to the US where it's much safer.

[rosst]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

If they are unwilling to do what it takes to prevent gun violence then they are unwilling...period. The fact that they are still unwilling, even after the massacre at an elementary school is mind boggling. Quoting some old piece of paper doesn't quite explain why they are willing to sacrifice even their children.

That Piece of shit paper as you call it, is the constitution of the USA which is the foundation of the laws of the United States, so that is what gives citizens the right to own a gun. Same as the constitution provides the Freedom of speech and religion. Even if all guns were confiscated it would not stop shootings. Drugs are illegal and people still get them. If someone really wants a gun they will get it. The UK has cracked down on guns but now who has guns, the police and the criminals. How many bombings have you had in the UK? I believe bombs are illegal. What is the answer, I dont know, I dont think anyone knows. The guy in China killed 4 and injured 11 just a few months ago. Somebody wants to kill people they will do it, does not matter if it's with a gun, a bomb or a knife.

Firstly and fore mostly nobody should be denigrating the American constitution but equally if there is a modification required there is a process.

If the American people cannot reconcile themselves to a long process of removing the majority of guns from their society to minimise these tragedies, then be it upon their heads. Australia has set an example of what can be achieved and how it can be done.

Is there a cost? Yes, a large cost as in money to buy back the guns and put in place the systems for checking licensing and securing guns.

There is a cost to the citizens in the loss of family heirlooms and the destruction of historical and sentimental objects, the financial burden of certified secure storage if you do own a gun and all the burden of complying with the regulations that monitor who has guns and why they own guns.

Our sporting shooters have difficulty because of the layers of bureaucracy and regulation of gun clubs and the clubs have the burden of providing secure storage at their facilities. There is also a small loss of freedom associated with these policies which came about by a deranged gunman killing many of my fellow Australians. The fact that this has not happened AGAIN make me grateful and proud of the politicians who had the balls to carry out this process despite the hysterical screaming a small segment of our population.

Is it worth it? What value do you put on human life?? Even if it has only saved one life, I believe it is worth it.

The longer America leaves it, the longer it will take. I do believe that for that country to even attempt it, is a bridge too far, the horse has well and truly bolted.

[pizzachang]

I am amazed at the misunderstandings about law. The 'law' prevents nothing. Nearly all laws are 'after the fact' punishments for the lawless. Other kinds of laws, which are more preventative in style, are aimed at controlling behavior before the fact of many behaviors[some of them crimes]. Some, would call the former "Draconian" if they actually punish or otherwise end the antics of the particular lawbreaker. Unfortunately, the real Draconians are the latter kind - which target the behavior of the lawful - the lawbreakers do no care if they break a law. All of my friends do not need a law or a lock to keep them from going into their neighbors house and stealing his TV! You are probably much the same. Mass killings are the work of mentally disturbed people. Years ago, in the USA, laws protecting the public from mentally ill people were dropped from the books. Many of those laws were poorly administrated and had little oversight - and they cost money. Now, the belief is that 'integrating' the mentally ill into society is the best course - again with little oversight. It is too bad that guns are blamed as the 'culprits'. I guess the collateral damage in the recent wars should then also be blamed on guns.

[Scott]

Many of the mentally ill were moved out of institutions and onto the streets. I don't know that they were 'integrated' into society. But that's really a different topic. I doubt that many of them own guns, but I would guess a fair number of them may be victims of gun violence.

[ToddWeston]

Interesting read/stats from this months American Medical Journal.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext

[Credo]

Just to summarize the conclusion from the above link:

Conclusion

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext

[NeverSure]

Most of the ass holes who vote against gun control use the Constitution to cover up their

pay offs by PAC's and under the counter bribes. If it wasn't for money, and crooked

members of congress, we would have "better gun control laws". It's just common sense.

That is totally inaccurate. It's not money that stopped the US Congress from passing stricter gun laws recently. It was the people. A majority of people were against that law, and congressmen knew that if they voted for it, they wouldn't be reelected.

It's non-partisan. Neither the Republican controlled House nor the Democrat controlled Senate would pass that gun control law. Obama came out strong in favor of it but neither chamber would pass it. They wanted to be reelected.

Look at what just happened in Colorado. Two popular politicians were recalled over just one issue - gun control. Colorado is a liberal state but what some people forget is that even a lot of liberals own guns. It's a non-partisan, American cultural matter and 100 million people own about 300 million guns.

That's a lot of voters.

[Chicog]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

Is that a euphemism for "They are owned by the NRA"?

What is the NRA? It is an organization of willing dues-paying citizen VOTERS who know there is strength in numbers. Of course the NRA is powerful, but only because it speaks for a collective group of people who can vote a politician out of office.

Each one of those members is simply exercising his rights to speak, to protest, and to vote.

The NRA is ordinary people.

Yeah right.

It's a political organisation that uses its funding and political power to influence elections and votes, and its muscle far outweighs the proportion of voters it represents.

I admire how it's managed to wangle its way into every facet of federal and state government, but please - you can put lipstick on a pig.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Chicog

[caughtintheact]

pizzachang makes some excellent points. Laws deter honest, responsible citizens from commuting crimes, but do not deter criminals or the mentally ill. In almost every case of the mentally ill committing mass shootings, the culprits showed signs of mental illness, but nothing could be done about it, because pf the laws protecting their privacy. Politicians made those laws, but it is the voters who elected them that are to blame. The fact is that well over 300 million Americans do not go around committing crimes, do not commit mass shootings, and are not mentally ill. There are also undoubtedly many mentally ill people in the USA that do not commit mass shootings. Yet some would penalize the right of the majority to protect themselves by laws punishing the majority for the sins of the minority (criminals and mentally ill in this context). The 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

Like it or not, if people want gun controls, then the Constitution must be amended, otherwise the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The phrase, "shall not be infringed" is unconditional. If it were the will of the people to amend the constitution, it could be done at any time, but the fact is that the majority of the American people are against gun control, and those that want legislation to impose "some" controls are either ignorant of the wording of the Constitution or just prefer to ignore it. Another argument is that auto incidents kill more people than guns, so why aren't people moaning about the need to ban cars....or roads?

Edited September 26, 2013 by caughtintheact

[NeverSure]

They are not unwilling to prevent gun violence. They are unwilling to violate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all the millions of guns that are already on the street. Nothing else would prevent gun violence and it is not going to happen in USA.

Is that a euphemism for "They are owned by the NRA"?

What is the NRA? It is an organization of willing dues-paying citizen VOTERS who know there is strength in numbers. Of course the NRA is powerful, but only because it speaks for a collective group of people who can vote a politician out of office.

Each one of those members is simply exercising his rights to speak, to protest, and to vote.

The NRA is ordinary people.

Yeah right.

It's a political organisation that uses its funding and political power to influence elections and votes, and its muscle far outweighs the proportion of voters it represents.

I admire how it's managed to wangle its way into every facet of federal and state government, but please - you can put lipstick on a pig

So wrong. Without its millions of members paying dues, it would be nothing. Without its millions of members voting, it would have no power.

It is an organization of the people, by the people, and for those people who decide to join and pay dues to help protect their liberty.

There are several big groups that are anti gun. But they get nowhere because the politicians take polls to determine how voters will vote.

The most important thing to a politician is to get reelected. What you seem unable to see is that a big majority of Americans are pro-gun.