The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1. Homicide means the killing of humans without premeditation. Mass shootings are usually planned out.

2. Assault Rifles have been banned for manufacture in the USA for decades and banned from purchase and ownership in certain cities for a while. The term "Assault Weapon" is a vague Loaded Language term that means any weapon or make-shift weapon used to commit assault though certain politicians have a different definition.

Your argument is invalid. Your credibility has been lost. Stop digging yourself a deeper hole.

--Ocram

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Hehe...I think the word originally intended is "homicide."

"Homocide" suggests something unpremeditated and much more politically incorrect against our LGBT friends.

Regardless, terms like "homicide" or "manslaughter" have specifically defined meanings and purposes for law enforcement in the U.S., and these are more directly relevant here than any personal definitions.

[Duke87 1,070]

1. Homicide means the killing of humans without premeditation. Mass shootings are usually planned out.

 

No, it just means killing someone. What exactly constitutes one crime versus another is complicated, varies depending on jurisdiction, and is open to some subjective interpretation.

 

But whether or not the crime was premeditated is a common way of distinguishing first-degree murder from second-degree murder. If you kill someone by accident it's generally manslaughter rather than murder. But all of this can be described as "homicide".

 

Anyways, we're arguing semantics here.

 

Assault Rifles have been banned for manufacture in the USA for decades and banned from purchase and ownership in certain cities for a while. The term "Assault Weapon" is a vague Loaded Language term that means any weapon or make-shift weapon used to commit assault though certain politicians have a different definition.

 

What's been banned for manufacture for decades are fully automatic weapons - that is to say, you hold down the trigger and it keeps firing. "Assault rifles" or "Assault weapons" which are not fully automatic are still legal. I fired one at a shooting range earlier this year. It was fun.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Fully automatic weapons are not banned from being manufactured. The ones being made these days are only for military or law enforcement use. Otherwise, if the 'banned for manufacture for decades' statement was true where would our military be getting their weapons? From some magical stockpile that's full of 45+ year old technology? I don't think so.

 

Now civilian ownership is another matter. We (civilians) can only own fully automatic weapons manufactured before The Gun Control Act of 1968. And that is just in the states that allow so. Go back to the link I attached to post #1429 and read through it.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Any killing of a person is homicide, including suicide. However suicides are normally placed in a separate category.

It's like how all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If we are up to chopping semantics, I think this thread has probably run its course.

[Sleeping Politician 32]

Some bozos on the internet suggested teachers having weapons soon after the morbidly sad Sandy Hook shooting. Will the teachers be proficient with these weapons or will they know how to teach French? Who pays for the training? I personally believe that background checks and better mental health facilities are just some of the answers to this issue. I personally suggest that felons and mentally ill people shouldn't have the right to purchase a weapon or ammunition.

 

It truly is appalling how a felon can walk into a pawn shop in over 30 states and can purchase semi-automatic rifles without a background check.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Fire arms are easily obtained illegally by theft or on the black market.  Background checks etc. only work with legal sources, but I do tend to agree that having made a deal for a weapon, and application must be made for possession and a waiting period to allow such checks must occur. 

 

Now, who is going to pay for this?  How swamped will the bureaucracy be on this?  What will be the delay?  Will the taxpayers who get hit for this be happy campers?  Ha!

[hym 358]

The Supreme Court has unanimously agreed that convicted felons retain the right to sell their guns.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/supreme-court-convicted-felons-sell-guns-31121570

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Supreme Court has unanimously agreed that convicted felons retain the right to sell their guns.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/supreme-court-convicted-felons-sell-guns-31121570

Indeed.  They are like any other chattel.  The only restriction is that he may not have access to them after the sale.  Makes perfect sense.

[Duke87 1,070]

Yeah, unanimous for good reason. Confiscation of property without compensation is a gross violation of rights. Due process and all that.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh if the police wants to they can always do a civil forfeiture.

[hym 358]

Meh if the police wants to they can always do a civil forfeiture.

 

The purpose of civil forfeiture is to deny the defendant of ownership of the property in question.  The purpose of preventing a felon from having a gun is to deny the felon possession of a gun.  They are separate parts of US property rights law.  The Supreme Court effectively declared that the government can take your right to possession away from you, but it can't deny you the right to ownership.

 

That's not to say that a civil forfeiture can't happen, but it is going to be more difficult.  Depriving you of ownership simply to get the weapon(s) out of your possession is no longer a sufficient justification.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

Meh if the police wants to they can always do a civil forfeiture.

 

The purpose of civil forfeiture is to deny the defendant of ownership of the property in question.  The purpose of preventing a felon from having a gun is to deny the felon possession of a gun.  They are separate parts of US property rights law.  The Supreme Court effectively declared that the government can take your right to possession away from you, but it can't deny you the right to ownership.

 

That's not to say that a civil forfeiture can't happen, but it is going to be more difficult.  Depriving you of ownership simply to get the weapon(s) out of your possession is no longer a sufficient justification.

 

Aren't civil forfeiture laws designed in such a way that the police don't need any justification? After all, civil forfeiture laws reverse the burden of proof, it is the owner that must prove that his property is 'innocent' rather than the police having to prove that the property is guilty. 

 

Sure, you can get your stuff back after a long legal battle, but there is a good chance that your gun is at that point already destroyed. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

All this picayune nonsense means there are more regulations (laws).  There needs to be a rule that you can't put anything on the books without taking something off.  There are too many rules.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, Charleston is what happens when everyone can get a gun. Some racist piece of trash uses it to kill a bunch of people praying in a church. 

[hym 358]

He was given a gun as a birthday gift. Suggesting that a gun control law aimed at preventing someone from buying a gun is going to stop someone from going on a shooting rampage with a weapon received as a gift is a bit of a stretch.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Well, Charleston is what happens when everyone can get a gun. Some racist piece of trash uses it to kill a bunch of people praying in a church. 

No, it's what happens when only one person (the bad guy) has a gun and the good people are unarmed. Guns are so demonized that good people are afraid to own weapons and carry them around. There is no guarantee that a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun but it does even the odds. Just knowing that a potential victim is armed can be a deterrent in and of itself.

You rarely hear about people who thwart crimes with guns because the media likes to focus on tragedies rather than success stories. If no one dies, then it isn't news-worthy.

Hatred is the most dangerous weapon of all. A person with hatred in their heart and the intent to kill isn't going to be stopped simply because they can't get a gun on demand.

What these mass killers want most of all is infamy and until the mainstream media stops giving them that nothing is going to change.

  Edited June 18, 2015 by MilitantRadical  

[LexusInfernus 908]

He was given a gun as a birthday gift. Suggesting that a gun control law aimed at preventing someone from buying a gun is going to stop someone from going on a shooting rampage with a weapon received as a gift is a bit of a stretch.

True. Gun control won't help in cases such as this. Abolishing the 2nd amendment does. I know, its not going to happen, but it does mean America must face the consequences. This is one of them. 

No, it's what happens when only one person (the bad guy) has a gun and the good people are unarmed. Guns are so demonized that good people are afraid to own weapons and carry them around. There is no guarantee that a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun but it does even the odds. Just knowing that a potential victim is armed can be a deterrent in and of itself.

You rarely hear about people who thwart crimes with guns because the media likes to focus on tragedies rather than success stories. If no one dies, then it isn't news-worthy.

Hatred is the most dangerous weapon of all. A person with hatred in their heart and the intent to kill isn't going to be stopped simply because they can't get a gun on demand.

What these mass killers want most of all is infamy and until the mainstream media stops giving them that nothing is going to change.

Good guys don't need guns if the bad guys don't have them. Bad guys can't get guns if they are banned. "But bad guys break the law anyways". Yes they do, but if guns are a rare commodity, its just not that easy, even for a bad guy, to get their hands on a gun. 

And you don't hear much about people using guns to save other people because it basically never happens. Why is it so rare? Because responsible gun use is detrimental to the use of guns as a self defense weapon. Its to well secured to be quickly grabbed and used against someone who already has a gun pointed at your face. 

Finally while hatred will cause people to attack other people, they are just not going to be as deadly as they would be with a gun. Its just much harder to beat or stab 9 people to death than it is to shoot 9 people to death. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Good guys don't need guns if the bad guys don't have them. Bad guys can't get guns if they are banned. "But bad guys break the law anyways". Yes they do, but if guns are a rare commodity, its just not that easy, even for a bad guy, to get their hands on a gun.

Yes, bad guys can get guns even if they are banned for citizens, and yes good guys may need guns even if bad guys don't have them.

A bad person can cause great harm even if they don't have a gun. If a gang of ten unarmed guys breaks into your house to rape your wife and kids you might wish you had a gun. There are countless scenarios in which a good person may need a gun to defend themselves against a bad person who doesn't have one. There is always a need for self defense because there will always be bad people, guns or no guns. Better to have one and not need it than need it and not have one.

 

And you don't hear much about people using guns to save other people because it basically never happens. Why is it so rare? Because responsible gun use is detrimental to the use of guns as a self defense weapon. Its to well secured to be quickly grabbed and used against someone who already has a gun pointed at your face.

Basically never? Incorrect. It does happen more than you think. Statistics vary but the estimated amount of crimes thwarted by guns annually in the United States ranges from 500 000 to 2 million. It is rare, but mass shootings are much rarer.

Also, your assumption about responsible gun use negating the benefit of gun ownership is based on a very specific scenario.

Here is an interesting part from the Defensive Gun Use article on Wikipedia:

"Researcher John Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "since in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police."

Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal^[19] and the Los Angeles Times.^[20]

In 2002, he repeated the survey, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent brandishment-only.^[21] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.^[22] Lott explained the lower brandishment-only rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.^[23] Most surveys used a recall period of "Ever" while some (Hart, Mauser, and Tarrance) used the previous five years. The Field Institute survey used periods of previous year, previous two years and ever.^[3] The NSPOF survey used a one year recall period.^[8] Lott also used a one year recall period and asked respondents about personal experiences only, due to questionable respondent recall of events past one year and respondent knowledge of DGU experiences of other household members.^[23]"

 

Finally while hatred will cause people to attack other people, they are just not going to be as deadly as they would be with a gun. Its just much harder to beat or stab 9 people to death than it is to shoot 9 people to death. 

Poison/Chemical. Fire. Explosive. Vehicle. All of these have the potential to cause mass death relatively quickly and in a mass scale. They take slightly more effort, but not that much more.

  Edited June 18, 2015 by MilitantRadical  
Corrections

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

For some reason not yet explained, gun violence in this country has mostly been against various police forces.  Yesterday, I watched a regimental funeral for an Edmonton police officer who was gunned down while serving a warrant.  Apparently the perp fired through the closed door.  Const. Woodard left a wife and two small boys aged four and six.

Then, last year we had a nut take out three Mounties in Moncton, NB, in a preplanned attack.  The Mounties were outgunned and ill equipped.  There is still much batting of gums over why this is so, and updating the arms of police on patrol.

Both these events featured long guns rather than pistols, which are completely legal here in most areas.  Any farmer can have any number of rifles and shotguns on the pretext of controlling vermin on his property, and anyone with a hunting licence can have a long gun or two.  It is necessary to have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate approved by the authorities, but that is not difficult.

However, you can hardly compare this country (Canada) to the armed camp south of the border.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Suspect arrested.

Please forgive double post.  This came in quite a bit later.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yes, bad guys can get guns even if they are banned for citizens, and yes good guys may need guns even if bad guys don't have them.

A bad person can cause great harm even if they don't have a gun. If a gang of ten unarmed guys breaks into your house to rape your wife and kids you might wish you had a gun. There are countless scenarios in which a good person may need a gun to defend themselves against a bad person who doesn't have one. There is always a need for self defense because there will always be bad people, guns or no guns. Better to have one and not need it than need it and not have one.

Those scenarios are Hollywood scenarios. They are too rare in real life to justify the harm that comes from such widespread gun possession. 

But sure, gun bans won't completely ban out gun related crime. They will merely significantly reduce them. Again, other methods of hurting people are less deadly. In the end, guns are a commodity that respond to the forces of the market. The more guns there are around, the cheaper they are, even for criminals. The more guns that are banned and taken off the street, the more expensive guns become. And soon they become more trouble than they are worth. 

Basically never? Incorrect. It does happen more than you think. Statistics vary but the estimated amount of crimes thwarted by guns annually in the United States ranges from 500 000 to 2 million. It is rare, but mass shootings are much rarer.

Also, your assumption about responsible gun use negating the benefit of gun ownership is based on a very specific scenario.

Your assumptions that guns help you fight off multiple attackers is based on even more specific and unrealistic scenarios. Scenarios generally made up by Hollywood. 

Regardless of that, hoping that self protection is an effective bulwark against crime is just wishful thinking and not backed up by the numbers. Even with gun ownership as it is in the US, the US isn't actually doing all that well in the international crime statistics. All the countries that do well are also countries that have very restrictive gun ownership rules or who have banned the possession of guns by civilians entirely. In short, if guns made people safer, the US would perform much better in the crime statistics. 

Poison/Chemical. Fire. Explosive. Vehicle. All of these have the potential to cause mass death relatively quickly and in a mass scale. They take slightly more effort, but not that much more.

Yeah, then we are talking about terrorism. That takes longer to prepare, which means it gives people more opportunities to think about what they are doing and decide against it and it gives law enforcement more time to track these people down before they do anything. With guns, the decision can be made in the heat of the moment, all you have to do is grab the gun, go to wherever you want to kill people and start shooting. Obviously, you can do the same with things like knives or bats, but those are just less deadly. You stand a better chance of surviving a stab wound than a gun wound. And you also stand a much better chance to just get away. 

 

  Edited June 18, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Save the arguments, gents.  When I was a bank messenger, the training was quite explicit:  If you point your gun at someone, pull the trigger.  No fuss, no arguments.  A gun is for killing, period.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Those scenarios are Hollywood scenarios. They are too rare in real life to justify the harm that comes from such widespread gun possession.

Your assumptions that guns help you fight off multiple attackers is based on even more specific and unrealistic scenarios. Scenarios generally made up by Hollywood.

Yes, that was just one extreme example, but there are hundreds if not thousands of real life situations in which people, regular citizens, can and have used a weapon to defend themselves against an attacker who was physically stronger than them. 14-year old boy shoots armed intruder. Armed woman prevents rape of 12-year old. 53-year old woman shoots armed home intruder. Mom shoots home intruder to protect 9-year old twins. Mall shooter stopped by man with concealed weapons. Armed off-duty cop prevents mass shooting. These are just a few examples from a quick google search.

 

But sure, gun bans won't completely ban out gun related crime. They will merely significantly reduce them. Again, other methods of hurting people are less deadly. In the end, guns are a commodity that respond to the forces of the market. The more guns there are around, the cheaper they are, even for criminals. The more guns that are banned and taken off the street, the more expensive guns become. And soon they become more trouble than they are worth.

Banning guns will not reduce gun related crimes in the United States. The cities and States with the strictest gun laws have the most gun deaths and the highest crime rates. States with the highest gun ownership rates have the least gun murders. How do you explain that?

Here is a great part of a great comment I read on Reddit this morning:

"Disarming the (American) citizens is impossible. There are like a couple of hundred MILLION guns in private ownership right? For people who want a total ban on even handguns, HOW is that achieved without a massive conflict between the federal government and perhaps tens of millions of Americans who will refuse to comply? I really could see many Waco-style standoffs with federal authorities, and many more smaller standoffs between private gun owners and feds when the gun owners simply say no to handing over their weapons. So my question in that regard is, how do you ban guns without creating a situation where the federal government has to go to, essentially, civil war with a large group of Americans? Won't that cause more bloodshed and potentially permanently fracture the relationship between many states, tens of millions of citizens, and the federal government?"

 

Regardless of that, hoping that self protection is an effective bulwark against crime is just wishful thinking and not backed up by the numbers. Even with gun ownership as it is in the US, the US isn't actually doing all that well in the international crime statistics. All the countries that do well are also countries that have very restrictive gun ownership rules or who have banned the possession of guns by civilians entirely. In short, if guns made people safer, the US would perform much better in the crime statistics.

See my point about how the States and cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates and the highest gun murder rates in the country. The gun crime problem in the United States is predominantly a gang violence problem which is an extension of the drug war. A ban on guns in the United States would be as disastrous as The Drug War and Prohibition before it.

 

Yeah, then we are talking about terrorism. That takes longer to prepare, which means it gives people more opportunities to think about what they are doing and decide against it and it gives law enforcement more time to track these people down before they do anything. With guns, the decision can be made in the heat of the moment, all you have to do is grab the gun, go to wherever you want to kill people and start shooting. Obviously, you can do the same with things like knives or bats, but those are just less deadly. You stand a better chance of surviving a stab wound than a gun wound. And you also stand a much better chance to just get away. 

The kind of weapon used doesn't change the nature of the act. Terrorists and non-terrorists alike can use these weapons. Murder doesn't magically turn into terrorism depending on the weapon used. Look at the pilot of Germanwing Flight 9525 and how he crashed that plane on purpose.

The people who commit these crimes aren't in their right mind in the first place. Thinking rationally isn't something they do very well. Most of them are whacked out on pharmaceuticals which totally override reason.

Most mass gun murders are actually quite meticulously planned. They aren't spur of the moment decisions. The killers have plenty of time to think about what they're going to do and how they're going to do it.

  Edited June 19, 2015 by MilitantRadical  
More info

[CapTon 592]

People are the ones who kill people. If that terrorist didn't have a gun as a result of "gun control", he would've brought something else as a weapon and would have tried to kill as many people as possible anyway. It's so pointless to ban the possession of guns because wrong-minded people will still find ways to harm others. It won't do anything except once again go completely against the Constitution and limit people's rights.

  Edited June 19, 2015 by CapTon  

[Duke87 1,070]

He was given a gun as a birthday gift. Suggesting that a gun control law aimed at preventing someone from buying a gun is going to stop someone from going on a shooting rampage with a weapon received as a gift is a bit of a stretch.

A quick google shows that South Carolina does not require any sort of permiting or licensing to purchase or own a gun, and does not require that guns be registered. So basically it's open season, anyone can get their hands on a weapon legally.

I really doubt South Carolina is going to want to budge on this - but this sort of scenario would be prevented if guns had to be registered just like cars do, and gun users had to be licensed just like drivers do. Then, in order to give a gun as a gift, you would have to officially transfer ownership on the registration, and in order to do that the recipient of the gun would have to have a license to use it. And, to prevent people from just giving guns as gifts off the books while remaining the registered owner, make it so that the registered owner can be held criminally liable if he knowingly allows someone without a license to carry it.

Note that all this can be done without banning any type of gun, so nobody who is a responsible gun owner with a clean record will have to give any of their guns up. But without taking these sort of steps, it is impossible to have any sort of control over who has access to what.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 I must say, editing quotes has gotten a little more difficult with the new forum

Yes, that was just one extreme example, but there are hundreds if not thousands of real life situations in which people, regular citizens, can and have used a weapon to defend themselves against an attacker who was physically stronger than them. 14-year old boy shoots armed intruder. Armed woman prevents rape of 12-year old. 53-year old woman shoots armed home intruder. Mom shoots home intruder to protect 9-year old twins. Mall shooter stopped by man with concealed weapons. Armed off-duty cop prevents mass shooting. These are just a few examples from a quick google search.

And see how in a number of those situations guns are required to remedy a situation caused by guns? Its using guns to solve problems caused by guns. Without easy access to guns a number of those situations wouldn't have happened in the first place. 

 

Banning guns will not reduce gun related crimes in the United States. The cities and States with the strictest gun laws have the most gun deaths and the highest crime rates. States with the highest gun ownership rates have the least gun murders. How do you explain that?

Here is a great part of a great comment I read on Reddit this morning:

"Disarming the (American) citizens is impossible. There are like a couple of hundred MILLION guns in private ownership right? For people who want a total ban on even handguns, HOW is that achieved without a massive conflict between the federal government and perhaps tens of millions of Americans who will refuse to comply? I really could see many Waco-style standoffs with federal authorities, and many more smaller standoffs between private gun owners and feds when the gun owners simply say no to handing over their weapons. So my question in that regard is, how do you ban guns without creating a situation where the federal government has to go to, essentially, civil war with a large group of Americans? Won't that cause more bloodshed and potentially permanently fracture the relationship between many states, tens of millions of citizens, and the federal government?"

No, what you see is that there is a correlation between gun control laws and gun murders, but correlation does not equal causation. I suggest you take a look at this table. You will find that states with the highest gun ownership are generally states where no one lives. They are generally the least densely populated states. The amount of gun murders is so low there because the murder rate in general is so low. And that makes sense because densely populated areas generally have higher crime rates than sparsely populated regions. Furthermore, even in those states, gun murders still account for about half of the murders that happen there. And if we look at more densely populated states and compare California which has a low gun ownership percentage (21%) and compare it to Texas which has a higher gun ownership percentage (33%) we still see that murder rate and and gun murder rate are roughly similar. The same can be seen in other more densely populated states. Gun ownership varies, but the murder and gun murder rates stay roughly similar. 

Personally I would add that stricter gun laws on a state by state basis have no effect. There are no real internal border in the US, so its not difficult to circumvent gun laws in one state by getting your guns in the next state. Its even easier if you are not a law abiding citizen as you can easily move not entirely legal guns around. 

So this idea that more gun ownership leads to less crime is just misusing statistics and confusing correlation with causation. 

As for banning guns, well yeah it would be a complicated issue. I'm not saying that it would be easy or could be done in a short time. It would probably take a few years. Do note though that a majority of Americans don't actually have guns. Even in the state with the highest ownership rate its just short of 60% and in most state its more around 30-40%. All those sales spikes actually represent a smaller group of people stocking up on more guns. With enough public support it would be possible to ban or at least severely restrict gun ownership in all states. Of course, that is assuming you get the legal issues out of the way first. 

 

The kind of weapon used doesn't change the nature of the act. Terrorists and non-terrorists alike can use these weapons. Murder doesn't magically turn into terrorism depending on the weapon used. Look at the pilot of Germanwing Flight 9525 and how he crashed that plane on purpose.

The people who commit these crimes aren't in their right mind in the first place. Thinking rationally isn't something they do very well. Most of them are whacked out on pharmaceuticals which totally override reason.

Most mass gun murders are actually quite meticulously planned. They aren't spur of the moment decisions. The killers have plenty of time to think about what they're going to do and how they're going to do it.

Yeah, also look at how difficult that is to do. I mean, killing people with a plane requires you to either hijack a plane or be a licensed pilot who flies planes for a living. That would be an awful lot of trouble to go through just so you can try to ignite a race war. You could try to use another vehicle, but somehow I think that trying to crash your car into a church or a mall is far more difficult and far less effective than grabbing a gun and shooting people. 

As for the mindset of terrorists like Dylann Roof, well unless you class racism as a mental disorder (and for that matter, religious fundamentalism and ideological extremism) I would say he is very much in his right mind. Regardless of his mental state, he had easy access to a gun and therefor he was more dangerous than he would have been if he didn't have easy access to a gun. In any case, I would caution against using the narrative that this guy was mentally disturbed, here is a good article that explains why.

And yes, spree killers do plan their rampages out. But then again, most gun deaths aren't caused by spree killers. 

  Edited June 20, 2015 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

People are the ones who kill people. If that terrorist didn't have a gun as a result of "gun control", he would've brought something else as a weapon and would have tried to kill as many people as possible anyway. It's so pointless to ban the possession of guns because wrong-minded people will still find ways to harm others. It won't do anything except once again go completely against the Constitution and limit people's rights.

Now that is not correct.  A gun makes it easy to kill people without facing them.  Anything else brings you up close and personal, and even hate-filled youth would have a hard time killing anyone up close and personal with blood flying all over.  Ever hear of arterial spray?  The perp would have a hard time keeping his lunch down after the first one.  He'd be covered in blood.  Not so pretty.  Stinks, too!

It takes a lot more rage/hate to face up to killing multiple people with a knife or any other personal device, and most knife wielding perps cut themselves into the bargain.  It is also slow, and needs a lot more care to do fatal damage.

[CapTon 592]

People are the ones who kill people. If that terrorist didn't have a gun as a result of "gun control", he would've brought something else as a weapon and would have tried to kill as many people as possible anyway. It's so pointless to ban the possession of guns because wrong-minded people will still find ways to harm others. It won't do anything except once again go completely against the Constitution and limit people's rights.

Now that is not correct.  A gun makes it easy to kill people without facing them.  Anything else brings you up close and personal, and even hate-filled youth would have a hard time killing anyone up close and personal with blood flying all over.  Ever hear of arterial spray?  The perp would have a hard time keeping his lunch down after the first one.  He'd be covered in blood.  Not so pretty.  Stinks, too!

It takes a lot more rage/hate to face up to killing multiple people with a knife or any other personal device, and most knife wielding perps cut themselves into the bargain.  It is also slow, and needs a lot more care to do fatal damage.

Yes, but he's still trying to kill people. You can't change their mindsets by taking away their guns. It would be a waste of time and limit the rights of those who actually use guns properly. It isn't a fair way of handling the situation, and isn't the United States all about fairness and freedom? Sure, there are boundaries that need to be set, but setting this one would be pointless and unconstitutional.