Yes

yep. time for a full ban on firearms. enough is enough.

Aye, because if there's one thing mass murdering criminals have in common it's a healthy respect for government legislation. A firearms ban will stop them in their tracks sure enough.

I was sorry to hear about the shootings, Cyrus. Even more sorry to hear about your connection.

@Octavious: it's more about the abundance and availability of the firearms, rather than the intention. Even if gun legislation stops just one mass shooting, that will be one enough.

Stop using tragedy to try to take away our rights.

Meanwhile in Syria, ISIS slaughtered another 120 people. Just today.

To many Europeans that will just translate as: "stop using our ridiculously high gun crime death rate to take away our extremely relaxed gun ownership rights".

"Aye, because if there's one thing mass murdering criminals have in common it's a healthy respect for government legislation."

You sound like a typical NRA parrot. Nevermind these crimes are committed with legally acquired guns. Obviously having unfettered access to dangerous weapons has nothing to do with actions committed with them. Just like the massive influx of guns in northwest Africa obviously has nothing to do with the rise of instability there. Of course. The logic is impeccable.

"Meanwhile in Syria, ISIS slaughtered another 120 people. Just today."

And no expressions of condolence will be coming forth from those pillars of humanity in Europe and North America. But they fall over themselves declaring their solidarity the Turkish terrorist government whenever something happens there.

When your "rights" consistently produce tragedy after tragedy after tragedy, it is entirely appropriate that we consider where your rights end and other people's rights to be safe begin.

Perhaps gun owners should be required to take out insurance (like car owners) that way the insurance can pay for all the damage done (accidentally or otherwise) by these dangerous tools!

But seriously, KC i hope everyone you know is ok. And you weren't expecting more sympathy from webdippers.

I do not doubt for a moment that the US would have far fewer shootings if it had gone down a more European route towards gun ownership. The reality is, however, that it has not. It is entirely possible to argue with considerable legitimacy that introducing and enforcing European style gun laws will, in perhaps a generation or two, create a USA that feels a lot more European. In the short term, however, it will create a somewhat unnerving situation where the criminal class remain heavily armed whilst the balancing influence of an armed and largely responsible civilian population is removed. Short term it doesn't look pretty.

Maybe the short term risk is worth it. Maybe it isn't. But the risk is very real and I get quite irritated by the notion that introducing a bunch of new laws is the obvious silver bullet solution.

Don't be irritated. We're all on the same side on this issue.

I have my own opinion on gun control, but as a fellow Michigander, I feel for you, Cyrus.

@Octavious: what about these mass shootings makes you feel safe? Were they committed by the criminal class (ie for drugs or theft, as tools in otherwise criminal activities)

Also, perhaps you can have the best of both workds, by following the constitution, you can keep civilian gun ownership in the form of a well regulated militia (like the black phanters?) allow community based gun owernship, not personal.

If your community doesn't think it is safe (criminal element, lack of 'mental' health, whatever your local community milita group thinks) then they could disallow you from keeping a fire arm.

"Perhaps gun owners should be required to take out insurance (like car owners) that way the insurance can pay for all the damage done (accidentally or otherwise) by these dangerous tools!"

It took years to require all drivers to have insurance on their cars in some states and even then they only need the proof when they renew so it can lapse in between. They are still fighting mandatory health insurance. So what makes you think it could happen for guns and especially for stolen ones.

The sadness in Michigan is that so far they think it was a random drive by shooting where they may never know the reason. It's the hardest to prevent since the trigger is unknown or ignored.

"Drive by shooting" in this case meaning 6 hour rampage. Not exactly your "average" drive by.

I always find it funny when people complain about people using tragedy to take away rights who don't have a fucking word to say about the Patriot Act.

Maybe they don't want say anything anymore BECAUSE of the Patriot Act. :(

@ Ora

The 5000 miles of distance between myself and the shootings is what makes me feel safest. I am nothing but an outside observer in this matter. Clearly relaxing gun laws in the UK and Europe would be insanity, but my argument is that you can't apply the same policy to nations with very different baselines.

As far as the US constitution goes, I see it as little more than an outdated set of rules written by enthusiastic amateurs. I couldn't care less about militias, bare arms, and the like. The political reality, however, is quite a number of the natives are rather fond of it, so it can't be dismissed out of hand.

@"As far as the US constitution goes, I see it as little more than an outdated set of rules"

Rules which happen to be popular in the US, thus making my proposal less unrealistic.

The second someone commits a crime with a gun they become a criminal. Criminals are wont to do as they'll do. All legal gun owners shouldn't be punished because people choose to become criminals.

I'd rather die free than live without my rights.

"Criminals are wont to do as they'll do."

Can you elaborate, please?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." (Benjamin Franklin)

Old Ben deserves accurate quotation:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It's also interesting to note the context of the quotation: Franklin was opposing a deal with some landowners where they would pay a one-time fee to the state to help with frontier defense during the French and Indian War in exchange for the state forfeiting the right to tax them. Franklin was writing in favor of the government's liberty to tax, and against giving up that liberty permanently in exchange for literal temporary safety. Of course, the meaning of that aphorism has evolved significantly since then.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-21/uber-driver-held-in-killing-spree-as-police-probe-tie-to-routes

Shooter worked for Uber and passed their background check.

Unless we were planning on using Uber's background checking system as some sort of pre-crime arrest device, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Every criminal, no matter how evil, has been innocent at some stage.

Putin: "Nevermind these crimes are committed with legally acquired guns."

Do you have a source stating the firearm used was legally obtained? I can't find any reference to how the criminal acquired his firearm. I would think, by now, that if it was known the gun had been obtained legally by the shooter the media would be all over reporting that fact.

"If your community doesn't think it is safe (criminal element, lack of 'mental' health, whatever your local community milita group thinks) then they could disallow you from keeping a fire arm"

There are already communities like that in the US - Chicago, Washington DC and New York City. They don't think it's safe for people to own firearms.

They have the highest incidence of gun-related crime in the nation. By far.

Interestingly, states like Texas and Florida that have the most relaxed ownership laws, including the right to carry concealed by the common citizen, have the lowest incidence of gun-related crime.

Don't know about the other places, but Chicago has ridiculous crime rates because the city is so damn segregated and the local government pushes poverty onto certain small communities that exacerbate the crime rate (i.e. poverty and crime are closely connected).

" I would think, by now, that if it was known the gun had been obtained legally by the shooter the media would be all over reporting that fact."

Why? Surely most guns are acquired legally in the US, because with very little restriction or gun control, it becomes hard to define 'illegally' obtained guns.

Do you have a license like a driving license, and a fee to pay to the state? (like my car tax?) And thus become an illegal gun holder for not paying your fees? I don't understand...

"They have the highest incidence of gun-related crime in the nation. By far." First is was talking about doing things on a far more local level that the state and having individuals be restricted, not the entire population.

Second, who is committing these crimes? And why?

A quick google will show that DC has the highest homocide rate in the states (suggesting that it is an issue related to cities, and affects rural areas less - and it is entirely probably that gun controls in DC are a result of increased gun crime, which makes people feel less safe, not the other way around.)

But when you compare the murder rate in DC to the gun murder rate, you can see that 24% of murders are not commited with guns. (and it is the highest rate remember) Next is Louisianna (the data i have is by state, so i can't compare NYC) and the non-gun murders are only 19%. Maryland then has 30% with gun ownership of half that of Louisiana.

So first i can conclude that high gun ownership doesn't reduce the rate of gun murders in Lousianna contrasted with Maryland. And second Urban areas are more likely to suffer from gun crime, so you can't compare mostly rural state with cities.

And finally, lower gun ownership means higher murders by other means. (as a % of total murders, but absolutely higher)

What does this mean? Well first, you are cherry picking the cities (which had more serious gun problems, and continue to have higher crime rates, and murder rates even if gun murders become a smaller part of the total murders) Second DC has by far the lowest rate of gun ownership in the states. And still has high rates of gun murders, this indicates that most gun owners don't murder people. That it is the very small numbers of criminals who are doing all the murder, and they are concentrated in urban areas.

And second, what Bo_sox said, you're ignoring the underlying causes of crime. Which correlate highly with poverty (and urban poverty is an issue)

^third, not second.

@ ora

"this indicates that most gun owners don't murder people"

Did you really need to look up some statistics to figure that out?

Well looking it up actually gives it more weight. I don't live in the US, and i've only seen one Texan family friend who has a vault of guns in his house... so my experience is rather limited.

Roughly one third of all adult Americans own a gun.

@chaqa - just to ruin your day, I agree with you. ;)

"Every criminal, no matter how evil, has been innocent at some stage."

Exactly. So what's this nonsense about how laws make no difference because such hardened criminals violate the law all the time?

"There are already communities like that in the US - Chicago, Washington DC and New York City. They don't think it's safe for people to own firearms.

They have the highest incidence of gun-related crime in the nation. By far."

Please tell me what the maximum penalty a city can inflict upon someone for violating a gun law via city ordinance. Please also tell me if these cities are surrounded by states with little to no gun regulation.

"Do you have a source stating the firearm used was legally obtained? "

The sizeable majority of gun violence in mass shootings is committed with legally obtained guns.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/most-guns-mass-shootings-obtained-legally

In this case, since the guy was a gun aficionado in the state of Michigan (not a state known for gun restrictions) and had a semi-automatic (which are legal) at the time of his right, I'll bet the farm that it was legally obtained.

"Stop using tragedy to try to take away our rights."

Your reckless dangerous hobby is not a right. Stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands who die just because you hyperventilate about your "rights" any time anybody wants to regulate dangerous weapons.

Why didn't Ted Nugent prevent this?!?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/