• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thousand oaks shooting

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Because usually people talk about gun deaths. Those include suicide. I am not rushing to that.
Mass shootings and suicide levels are different subjects, unless of course you have identified that lax gun laws contribute to both?

Regarding humanity, I am not so sure I share your conviction that humanity inherently carries with it the will to mass murder.
Not so sure........ so you're not so certain that I'm wrong, then?
Where there are human beings, there are bad human beings, possibly in similar percentages. If guns were so easily available where I live, then there would be mass shootings from time to time. We know this already because when guns were more available aind accessible that's exactly what was happening here.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
The object is not to stop people from getting guns. That ship has long since sailed. The object is keeping them out of the hands of the people who are most likely to abuse their right to them. And that will require regulation. Just as it requires the regulation of all dangerous technology use to try and keep the people who should not be doing so from doing so. We require training and testing to operate cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships, and even fork lifts. Yet for some bizarre reason we think that machines that were designed to do nothing but kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible should require no oversight or regulation at all. Does this make any sense to you???
This is an equivocation. We do not regulate ownership, possession of these dangerous machines. A 10 year old can own a car, a ten year ild can possess a car, a ten year old can even operate a car on private property.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Mass shootings and suicide levels are different subjects, unless of course you have identified that lax gun laws contribute to both?


Not so sure........ so you're not so certain that I'm wrong, then?
Where there are human beings, there are bad human beings, possibly in similar percentages. If guns were so easily available where I live, then there would be mass shootings from time to time. We know this already because when guns were more available aind accessible that's exactly what was happening here.
Do we see a similar ratio of mass killings with knives between the U.S. and the U.K.? What about cars? What about homemade bombs? Is there any reason you have to suspect that the U.K. would have similar mass murder rates beyond the mere speculation that "bad people are everywhere?"
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What about this case where it was perfectly legal for him to buy a gun? He had mental problems that were brushed aside. Had he not had those mental problems, or if they were dealt with properly this most likely would not have happened. This tragedy is really not based on the availability of a gun. It was a failure upstream.
All the more reason that we need uniform, reasonable, functional, regulation.

We can buy all the airplanes we can afford. But we are not allowed to fly them without proving to the rest of our fellow citizens that we are capable of doing so reasonably and safely. I see no reason that a blind man couldn't buy a gun. I also see no logical reason why our society should allow him to carry it around with him with the intention of using it. And the same goes for drunks, drug fiends, ragers, brawlers, stalkers, domestic abusers, convicts, and whomever else in our society is clearly deemed incapable of behaving reasonably and safely with a machine that was designed to kill humans.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
You have to take a test to get a licence. If you are clean, i.e. no infringements or medical reason then renewal is straightforward.
Yes you have to pass an eye test (basic) and a doctor can revoke your licence on medical grounds.
You need to resit test in some circumstances but the main reason you can't have a licence is because of police matters.
But here in the U.S. one renews their drivers licence without taking any test. Does that indicate they still know how to drive? Answer NO. Yet you are advocating that one must get a license to own a firearm, then obviously if you can renew a drivers license without re-qualifying as a motor vehicle operator, one would be able to renew a license to own a firearm without qualifying.

In your country do you have to take a test to buy a gun? Do the police have a record that you have a gun?

In some states yes the police have a record, in others no
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
You are so blind you cannot see.

So suggesting that violence has a psychological/sociological aspect makes me blind? Don't you think "we have too many stabbings because we have too many sharp, pointy objects." is perhaps a bit short sighted?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
I certainly recognize lots of things can ne done. I am asking how the U.S. society is creating so many mass murderers.
They're doing the exact opposite of what should be done by allowing corporal punishment of kids, not providing healthcare (especially mental health) for free to people fallen into desperate situations, by being involved in wars... at least the statistic said that something around 33-50% of casualties in mass shootings were by war veterans.

So a more peaceful foreign policy is probably the first step...
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
All the more reason that we need uniform, reasonable, functional, regulation.

We can buy all the airplanes we can afford. But we are not allowed to fly them without proving to the rest of our fellow citizens that we are capable of doing so reasonably and safely. I see no reason that a blind man couldn't buy a gun. I also see no logical reason why our society should allow him to carry it around with him with the intention of using it. And the same goes for drunks, drug fiends, ragers, brawlers, stalkers, domestic abusers, convicts, and whomever else in our society is clearly deemed incapable of behaving reasonably and safely with a killing machine.
Hey if you are arguing that the government should not regulate the ownership or possession of guns or the use on private property, then I do not think our positions are very much at odds. The only further way might disagree on gun control of public use of gun is whether it should occur at the federal or state level.

But given that we have settled our gun regulation differences, why do you think that the U.S. seems to be turning oit so many mass murderers?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
But not because of the gun regulation. Even with the two data sets separated we still see a rise after the gun regulation.
Like I said, we don't. If you discount the one peak from a single incident as it would be if the two datasets were equitable, it only shows a downward trend. And an absolute causative in reductions of mass killing. Which would be even more pronounced in the states as we have about one per day.

We badly need more gun regulation. We also badly need universal healthcare and addressing toxic culture (including toxic gun culture and toxic masculinity.)
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
But here in the U.S. one renews their drivers licence without taking any test. Does that indicate they still know how to drive? Answer NO. Yet you are advocating that one must get a license to own a firearm, then obviously if you can renew a drivers license without re-qualifying as a motor vehicle operator, one would be able to renew a license to own a firearm without qualifying.



In some states yes the police have a record, in others no

Perhaps renewal of licenses should require reevaluation for both cars and guns.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Do we see a similar ratio of mass killings with knives between the U.S. and the U.K.?
I don't know the stats...... by all means show some comparitive stats.

What about cars?
I expect that there are car murders in countries where there are cars.

What about homemade bombs?
We don't get quite such dreadful mass murders with bombs as the US has experienced, but we've had our tragedies here. Do you know of any stats?

Is there any reason you have to suspect that the U.K. would have similar mass murder rates beyond the mere speculation that "bad people are everywhere?"
Yes....... Our record of mass murders when guns were more freely available was very bad.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Well, another mass shooting. Thousand Oaks, California. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Is there some reason why we keep producing mass murderers?

Lack of mental health services and the refusal to institutionalize people.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Finland, as some people know, used to rank highly in mass shootings (school shootings). Police here took a more serious approach to potential mass shootings as well as society tackling mental health issues more openly and throwing money at it seems to have been cost benefit wise a clear winner.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Except that he bought his weapon legally in California. It is hardly about California regulating its borders as weapons enter from other less restricted areas.

There are existing laws regarding weapons crossing borders. Criminals do not follow the law.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Perhaps renewal of licenses should require reevaluation for both cars and guns.
That does happen here.
I hit 70yrs a few weeks back and my driving licence automatically expired. I had nearly every vehicle type entered on my licence, but my renewal application would only give me about 6 classifications out of about 17 unless I undertook all manner of tests and inspections. I just took the reduced classifications....... (mostly) only ride a bike these days anyway.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Like I said, we don't. If you discount the one peak from a single incident as it would be if the two datasets were equitable, it only shows a downward trend. And an absolute causative in reductions of mass killing. Which would be even more pronounced in the states as we have about one per day.

We badly need more gun regulation. We also badly need universal healthcare and addressing toxic culture (including toxic gun culture and toxic masculinity.)
Sure we do.
You said:

Actually apparently I was sort of on the right track. UK and some US statisticians treated multiple homicides as one incident until the late 90's, at which point they diverged into multiple incidents. So there won't be consistent graphs because of it. But since 1998 violent crime has gone down in the UK, with occasional spikes that are generally short lived.

This means that one data set includes up to the late 90s. During that time homicides continued to rise according to one method of counting (i still am unsure of where you have found this method that attributed this method of counting). The other set shows that homicides increased for several years and then decreased.

We can either say that the homicides increased bit nothing in either dataset leads us to the conclusion that homicide rates decreased during the time after the gun regulation.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I don't know the stats...... by all means show some comparitive stats.
So then you are speculating.
I expect that there are car murders in countries where there are cars.
Not sure that answers my question
We don't get quite such dreadful mass murders with bombs as the US has experienced, but we've had our tragedies here. Do you know of any stats?
No.
Yes....... Our record of mass murders when guns were more freely available was very bad.
How bad? How has it changed?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
All the more reason that we need uniform, reasonable, functional, regulation.

We can buy all the airplanes we can afford. But we are not allowed to fly them without proving to the rest of our fellow citizens that we are capable of doing so reasonably and safely. I see no reason that a blind man couldn't buy a gun. I also see no logical reason why our society should allow him to carry it around with him with the intention of using it. And the same goes for drunks, drug fiends, ragers, brawlers, stalkers, domestic abusers, convicts, and whomever else in our society is clearly deemed incapable of behaving reasonably and safely with a machine that was designed to kill humans.

He was a Marine. How much better gun training can you get than that? Barring the fact that his mental condition was dismissed, there's no reason he wouldn't have been able to responsibly own and handle a gun.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Lack of mental health services and the refusal to institutionalize people.
Is that really all though?

But you so make a good case for why universal mental healthcare would be mutually beneficial to us all.

I am not sure about institutionalization. Is this really the best? We have tried that in past times with dreadful results.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Finland, as some people know, used to rank highly in mass shootings (school shootings). Police here took a more serious approach to potential mass shootings as well as society tackling mental health issues more openly and throwing money at it seems to have been cost benefit wise a clear winner.

Is it possible, has there been any study to see which reduced the shootings in Finland, tighter regulation on guns, or addressing mental health that may previously have gone untreated? That's the thing... does one mask the other? Correlation does not imply causation.
 
Top