(08-04-2019 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 05:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it looks as though the Democrats will be making this a main plank in their platforms, so starting its own thread seems apropos.

On CNN this morning, the anchors and guests are hard at work declaring these shootings to be Trump’s fault.

I think we have had relatively unfettered gun ownership in this country since 1776, yet these mass shootings are a relatively recent development. What was the difference between 2019 and 1919? I would like to hear some opinions.

The differences I can think of are the internet and 24 hour cable news.

The candidates are calling for more, stricter gun laws. IMO, the only law that would slow these shootings to a trickle would be total illegality of possession of guns. Even then, there would be some, because people who want to kill people really don’t don’t care about staying within the law. Most shooters use legal guns and passed background checks.

We still have shootings in countries with the stiffest ownership laws - Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, England. We have yet to have one in Switzerland. Maybe the presence of guns is not the factor that causes these.

OO... is this your original question to which you referred?

One obvious difference is the proliferation of rifles in 2019 that are easily available while being incredibly efficient at killing lots of people in an extremely short time span as compared to those rifles that were readily available to the public in 1919.

I agree with you that the internet has led a greater number of people being radicalized into extreme positions and that the 24-hour news cycle has fed into this.

Now to answer your question.

I don't know. But I do know some countries have lots of guns without lots of problems. Switzerland

But I think "more of the same" is not going to solve the problem. Most of these people passed a check when they legally bought their guns, and a stricter check will not change much, if anything.

I like the "red flag" Idea. I would enact a loophole to HIPAA that would allow medical doctors and mental health workers to put people on a no buy list if they are concerned. But nothing short of a complete eradication of private ownership will make a dent. People who want to do this kind of thing don't care about the laws, and they will find a way around them, just like the drug dealers in Baltimore. I think Columbine struck a chord in the minds of some off balance people, and now mass shootings are on the menu of available actions.

But if we outlaw gun ownership, they will become as rare as a bottle of whiskey in 1928, and just as hard to get and use.

I don't think you can say this. Look at the number of mass shootings in 2019 in the US versus every other country on the globe. We are an incredible outlier. Very few of these other countries have enacted a complete eradication of private ownership. Why is the frequency of mass shootings in these other countries so damn small compared to the US? What is it about us?

*edit* Tanq... do you have thoughts about why the US is such an outlier?