Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

New York Times may have made a editorial but it is a left-leaning paper and will be viewed with suspicion amongst those that need to be convinced. If Fox News came out for it then we might be seeing the beginning of a change but I would assume the NYT would have always been for stricter gun control.

I am wondering though when these actions stop becoming the actions of a madman and come into the definition of terrorism? As far as I currently know these people claim to have been 'inspired' by ISIS but aside from that there, yet, appears to be no evidence of contact with any other ISIS-inspired group or history of islamic radicalism. They may claim to be inspired by ISIS but they might as well have said they were inspired by the Catcher in the Rye for all it seems to have actually done?

Anyway maybe the alleged terror link will be a turning point because if these people were ever on a watch list or under suspicion then the fact they could legally buy guys might finally cede some concessions from Republicans. Even they will struggle to reconcile the notion of freedom with the right for terrorists to bear arms.

That said this is a country which in the aftermath of the murder of 20 children under the age of 10 still decided not to do anything.

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

There are rules in place and even a complete ban wouldn't have stopped them getting hold of guns. Which shops sell pipe bombs which they had?

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

Perhaps if civilians weren't allowed to buy AR style rifles, and stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo (by tracking sales of weapons and ammo), it may have mitigated the situation.

btw, 'rules in place' - the NRA got their puppets in Congress to vote down stopping people on the terrorist no-fly list being allowed to buy guns. They need stronger, more effective rules in place, with mandatory training and insurance - they have it for driving, why not for gun-owning.

btw2, you are utilising the NRA play-book when you mention 'a complete ban', when I said this wasn't going to happen...

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

They still could have bought them from somewhere. There already large numbers of those weapons out there. They had a large amount of handgun ammo, so banning rifles wouldn't solve everything.

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

So if you can't fix everything, you shouldn't fix anything?

Why can't gun owners be subject to the same rules as car owners?

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

How would it make a difference? Guns are banned in this country, but gun crime still exists even though we didn't have much of a gun culture before the ban.

Restricting ownership would need to be on a clear cut set of rules. Otherwise decisions would be continually challenged. That is why gun ownership in this country was based upon the principle of allowing it, unless there was a clear identified reason not to allow it.

A lot of attacks are "out of the blue", so there tends not to have been a clear reason for banning gun ownership. Also the attacker may not be the owner of the guns used, it might be the parent. In one case the attacker used the parents guns with which they had been trained to use, so training doesn't exactly help.

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

Not nothing. I'm sure that there were "thoughts and prayers"...

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

in one case...

Out of over a thousand in three years.

Bringing in drink driving laws reduced drink driving, bringing in seat belt laws reduced deaths and injuries caused without seat belts, smoking restriction have reduced the number of people affected by smoking related sicknesses, but somehow bringing in gun control laws won't reduce gun crime. Just because drink-driving laws, and the punishments attached, haven't completely eradicated drink driving, should we abolish those laws?

Re gun control laws, Australia's example proves they can make a positive difference..

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

The much maligned Piers Morgan has some good points:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/p...debate-6945202

Apparently, in the US, you cannot buy a Kinder Egg as it is too dangerous but you can, however, buy an assault rifle ..

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/stat...00912586424321

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

As for Donald Trumps input saying that if we all carried guns and somebody came into our building we could shoot them first... What if Mr Trump somebody actually in the building (not an outside perpetrator) for instance was to go off the rails and started killing people.... Trump you twit.

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

Nail and head, this is the point we've all made. Time after time we keep hearing about these shooters just being a normal neighbor that was quite pleasant and so forth.

As put, it can be absolutely anyone that for whatever reason decides to go postal.

We're all debating here but we're all right on the same thing. There really isn't an easy solution. There has to be a way to make some form of progress agreed but as already said, there is far too many firearms in circulation to make an instant impact and that's the result of some pretty questionable governing choices.

I'm glad I live in the UK, I'm glad I can go to sleep at night without having to wonder if someone in my street is going to just go crazy and pull out an Assualt rifle, enough ammo to cover a small skirmish and a handgun just in case and then start shooting up the street. It's not foolproof here at all (See: Derek Bird 2010) but it's a shed load safer.

Re: Multiple shootings in California
 

This piece tells you everything that's wrong with the American gun loving culture.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...ns--ZkuBrNlv9g