
How They Got Their Guns - jseliger
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&moduleDetail=undefined&pgtype=Multimedia
======
noisewaterphd
Why do we keep focusing on the guns? The weapon of choice is the least
important part of the entire problem.

Until the media will stop with the hype, and focus on the "why", rather than
the "how", the cycle will continue.

We need to attack these types of problems with logic rather than emotion.

~~~
SaasDeveloper1
Agreed, but logic doesn't sell newspapers or help politicians win votes.

------
sfifs
It appears that there are insufficient hurdles in the US between having an
idea to cause mass harm its execution.

In countries with arms restrictions, the necessity to go the black
market/organized crime to acquire arms appears to set a higher bar for people
who want to be mass shooters and reduce the number of people who have the
ability to plan and carry out such actions.

In the US unfortunately, it appears that just about anyone, even with some
past history of mental stability/radicalism is able to walk into shops and
legally buy arms.

------
pigpaws
one of the issues the article brings up, but does nothing (that i saw) to
debate it is in regards to 'mental health'. At what point is someone deemed
'unfit' to own a weapon? schizophrenia? depression? anyone on 'medication'?
and WHO gets to make that determination? a politician more concerned about
their next election than about the population as a whole.

There are people in prison and on trial who are 'forced' to take medication to
make them well enough to stand trial. Also, the number of 'depressed' police
officers and those currently in military service who are fighting depression
is staggering.

The problem is, once you draw 'a' line, it will always slide. Hence, you see
people up in arms (get it?) over their rights. Far too many people are worried
about the immediate dangers than about the bigger picture as a whole. They're
too worried about their own lives to see what is affecting the whole
community, state, region, or country.

also - unsurprisingly, the article mentions nothing of the events that happen
daily that guns are used to protect people - which put together, would equal
the prevention of mass shooting, weekly, if not daily. Being the NYT, it
doesn't fit their narrative.

First they came for the AR's. and I said nothing because I didn't own an
AR.... where does that 'line' start, worse, where does it end?

~~~
tremon
_At what point is someone deemed 'unfit' to own a weapon?_

When (s)he uses it in an ill-conceived manner.

While that may sound glib, it's an unfortunate truth: you cannot anticipate
all the ways in which an individual can fly off the handle. The best you can
do is to provide for earlier, softer escape routes (e.g. counseling, family
cohesion, social security).

Since gun control seems to go nowhere, maybe it is time to reconsider allowing
the NSA domestic access?

~~~
pigpaws
>>Since gun control seems to go nowhere, maybe it is time to reconsider
allowing the NSA domestic access?

HA! they're gonna do it whether we 'allow' them access or not... As if 'We'
had any say in it...

~~~
tremon
But if they're already doing domestic surveillance and still can't prevent
this, then they're incompetent. As it is now, the NSA isn't even being
discussed because they're legally not allowed to snoop on domestic terrorists.
Allowing the practice opens them up to criticism when events like these
continue happening.

Right now, they have the best of both worlds: all access and no
responsibilities.

~~~
pigpaws
/seems a bit off topic, but here goes:

Part of that is that 'domestic terrorist' has not been defined. As we can see
with the IRS, whether you agree or disagree, the fact is that they
specifically targeted companies with names thought to be associated with a
specific political bent. They had 'responsibilities' and 'oversight', but the
people in charge of that either didn't care or purposefully broke the 'rules'.
Does 'the State' then designate those 503c orgs as 'terrorists'?

If you start defining terrorism the same way the State department does: "the
use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

then that opens the flood gates of every agency who has armed agents to be
defined as a 'terrorist' organization. Why does the EPA/IRS/Dept. of Ed have
armed agents? Hell, try not paying your property tax and see what the local
Sheriff's dept. does... This country is based on taxation by threat of
violence...

------
nadezhda18
pretty much every mass murder in states is worse than the previous.

how many are people needed to be killed at once to stop this madness with gun
ownership?

(edited formatting)

~~~
pigpaws
well, considering MORE (legal) gun ownership promotes LESS crime, these
incidents only increase knee-jerk reactions in people who already have certain
agendas set in their minds. Look at the big picture.

Airplanes crash killing hundreds at a time, its STILL the safest mode of
transport... Also, why aren't the 'gun grabbers' complaining about Chicago
where this happens EVERY WEEKEND? Are 'gun grabbers' racist?

Violent crime is on the decrease. an 'inconvenient truth' that 'grabbers'
don't like to talk about. [https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2013/...](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-
page/violentcrimemain_final)

~~~
maxerickson
What would constitute sufficient complaining about Chicago?

Have you looked for that? Are you sure it doesn't exist?

~~~
pigpaws
oh it does to some degree, but I've only seen it once here on HN. What I meant
by that is that the MSM doesn't cover it _nearly_ as much as one of these
sensationalized events. You don't see the headlines much (if at all) on MSN,
CNN or Huffington, but they _scream_ about guns when something like Orlando
happens.

The differences being that the guns are _usually_ legally purchased by the
assailant (aside from Adam Lanza) and that the victims are (in the majority)
Caucasian.

------
kagamine
That article was, unfortunately, longer than I expected.

