An uneasy for, it would appear the vast majority of gun crimes/homicides in the US are with illegally acquired guns, so I don't know how it's supposed to help those crimes to make it harder to legally buy them, any more than it hurts the crimes prevented by protection. Even if guns were completely illegal if you can't keep drugs off the street you won't be able to keep guns off. It would also create another industry for criminals to traffic in.

I agree with making it harder for mentally ill people to get guns. As for mass shootings they are horrible but represent a tiny fraction of the gun related homicides in the US I believe and it's hard to build the law off of something like .1% of the murders of its kind. Not to mention that mass shooters can buy guns illegally, they can get a gun from someone who already owned one from years ago. As for kids if they can't buy a gun illegally or steal it from their parents, they are other ways than guns to kill people, and considering these sickos want to kill their classmates so bad to die for it and it is their mission in life, if they don't get a gun they're going to think about creative ways to get what they want, there are other ways to mass kill (eg. bombs, arsony, poison). Or if they can't do a mass shooting now, they wait until they can. It turns into a college shooting instead of a high school one. In general I find the thing not talked about enough with mass shootings is gender and that it's a male every time. What it does tell us about the way we are raising each gender that only one of them goes on crazy killing sprees? Maybe it's related to how males are not expected to be as emotionally connected to each other? Or that we tell women to grow up and fall in love, and tell males to grow up and have sex with lots of women thus treating people like objects? (I'm pretty sure sex is usually a big part of causing this mass shooters to lose it - probably almost all angry virgins)

Handguns in the house, single shot rifles for hunting, no personal military equipment, one gun at a time per customer, thorough background checks, These restrictions would help a lot. I think a big problem is that too many guns are being manufactured. If a gun is made then it needs to be sold, legally or illegally. The cops get all the leftover military equipment and the streets get whatever is leftover after that.

However, scapegoating the mentally ill as a diversion has become far too common and is kind of disgusting. Consevatives bury their head in the sand while liberals make their idealistic speeches and nothing ever gets done.

If we are taking mass shootings, those guys mostly seem to be mentally ill. Jared Lioughner in Tuscon, Virginia Tech, James Holmes at The Dark Knight Rises, the Oregon shooter, Adam Lanza in Connecticut were all severely mentally ill.

I think the way we treat mentally ill people is very poor. Unless you have money, your options seem to be jail, suicide, or homelessness.

But if the general access to guns was limited, the mentally ill would have a harder times getting guns.

How do you plan to reduce access? Door-to-door confiscation of 350,000,000+ guns to prevent a handful of mentally ill people from doing a mass shooting? No-knock raids on homes? Wouldn't something like that potentially push a mentally ill and conspiratorial person over an edge they may not have went to?

Keep in mind many gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides and suicides, homicides, and accidents are usually lumped in together in misleading statistics. My guess is people around the world commit suicide even without access to guns.

That would just mean stabbing and beatings would increase. If someone want to kill people they will always find a way. Obviously availability is a major issue, but it goes hand in hand with the human instinct to look the other way, as well as really poor testing for signals. But there is no easy solution to fix it. We have a better chance of someone's "peace on earth" wish to actually comes true.

It is more difficult for one person to stab and beat 10-20 people to death at the same time.

Quite true, but the Boston marathon shows how easy it is to do way more damage even without a gun. So much needs to be fixed, but I doubt we'll see any real change in our lifetime. If history has taught us anything, there is still more worse things to come before it gets any better

I think this misses the point - I don't think anyone would disagree with you that someone who wants to kill no matter what is going to find a way.

However, the point of legislative / societal changes is to curb the violence by people who would only kill if the easier path was available.

Since a gun can be reduced down to a single trigger that needs clicked - I would argue it requires less emotional commitment than a stabbing/beating. Yes, there's always going to people that would do both, but I guarantee you there's a section of people who could be pushed to the point of pulling a trigger, but would never stab anyone.

thegun is a fucking idiot.

This is, again, stupid thinking. How many people know how to build a fucking bomb? Sure, you can look everything up online, but in that case you are more likely to blow yourself up with the bomb.

Also, remind me, how many people were actually killed at the Boston Marathon..? Yeah...

Somehow just about every other civilized democratic country on earth has managed to do it.

The Onion sums it up best: "'No way to prevent this' says only nation where this regularly happens."

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way- ... this-36131

Are you seriously trying to argue that there is a gauge of what constitutes a terrible attack. That's hands down the dumbest thing you've ever written, and it's thoughts like that that make law changing such an uphill battle. I know I don't live in a country where hundreds are slaughtered on a daily basis. It doesn't mean an attack is any less impactful. As far as media coverage and exposure (a just as dangerous weapon) the Boston bombing was easily top 3 if not the most covered attack in the US since 911. It's all you saw for 2 weeks. The shooting for TDKR on the other hand, almost everyone has forgotten about and even the. Was only a national story for a day. General people don't even remember it.

This is easily a stupid argument with no merrit. I don't even know why you went after me when I agreed with almost all of your thoughts (asinine statement not withstanding) your my bro though Dr. I think I came in the middle of s crazy debate and it was just open season (pun intended)

I'm all for all new laws. I'm doubtful of any crazy impact, however, as there are so many other factors. As said Its something I doubt we'll see in our lifetime.


Though to your actual question, we actually did a demonstration for CBS, and it took about an hour shopping and 22 minutes to make an actual bomb. It eventually got pulled for obvious reasons.

Is it really that hard to build a bomb?

Look at all the deaths and casualties that occured here where people are less educated than in the U.S.:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/causes-of-death/ied/

Timothy McVeigh also killed a lot of people in a bombing. See also the Marine Barracks in Lebanon and the Discothrque in Berlin, the IRA bombings, the East African Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers bombings, Bali Bombings, etc.

I am against all guns plan and simple.

That is the least of your problems.

lol

Has anyone read this?

http://bearingarms.com/gun-confiscation-fantasies-fast-tracking-democrat-party-destruction/

I realize this is guy is an extremist nut, but the NRA tweeted a link to this excrement.

This is a major obstacle to even minimal gun restrictions, the constant threat of violence to any restrictions to the current status quo. Who really wants to publicly advocate for change when a very vociferous segment of the other side is armed and irrational? Some unknown professor writes something on Facebook and gun fetishists want another Civil War or another American Revolutionary War.

I realize that stating there are 30,000 gun deaths a year is misleading, because 20,000 are suicides and many mistakenly dismiss the latter number as meaningless or a disingenous attempt to inflate the problem. However, over 100,000 Americans are shot a year and many of those are life altering events leaving the victims without the use of limbs or mobility.

The NRA is a gun lobbying mouthpiece and front for arms manufacturers. Until it is marginalized and its threats are ignored, I don't know how much progress can be made in terms of gun access reforms. The most promising current tactic is California Attorney General Gavin Newsome's ballot initiative attempt at bullet registration.

The mental health panacea that the right and Bernie Sanders offer up as a sop to the problem does not address the easy access and immeadicy of a gun in the commission of a suicide or a quickly escalated argument.

What do you mean by "minimal gun restrictions"? Please elaborate on that and how they would prevent the alleged gun violence problem.

A main talking point on the right is to enforce the existing gun laws. However, what goes unstated is the right will not fund the necessities needed to ensure those laws work as intended. Dylan Roof would not have been allowed to purchase his gun had his pending drug charge been uncovered during the background check. My understanding is that the law enforcement upgrades allocated for streamlining the computer records have been delayed due to the Republicans not funding the adequate amount.

I come from a medical background. I have seen what guns do to children. Do you think pediatricians should be banned from discussing gun safety with parents as a precautionary measure? This is another issue that I think most would see as minimal if even that much of an inconvenience. It is just basic public safety, but is not allowed due to the NRA and the gun lobby as a slippery slope grab for your gun.

Death by gun counting homicide and suicide as two separate categories are both in the top ten for accidental gun deaths for all age groups from age 1-15.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2013-a.gif



http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/doctors-cant-ask-about-guns/375566/

So what you want is more funding for databases and enabling doctors to talk to parents about gun safety? What stops the latter from occurring now?

I also thought, and I should say you did not address this, that sentencing reform to prevent incarceration for minor drug offenses was the next big wave in bipartisan reforms that may be possible with the current Congress. I only note this because you mentioned Dylan Root's drug issues not being properly tracked.

I answered your question, now you want to move the goalposts. No thanks.

Why not just make guns crazy expensive? That should reduce the amount of guns in circulation, and with that less gun-related events.

Why not just make voting really expensive? Why not just make due process really expensive (actually, it is)? Why not charge people for any speech they give?