Quick Google searching shows me that around 13,000 people on average die via homicide with a gun each year.

In 2016 nearly 40,000 people died in traffic related deaths.

This was a quick search and 2016 was the year that came up in the link I chose.

Oh boy, here's the first of the "guns are good and cars are evil" crowd.

Yeah, we have a mental health problem. Let's address that while we fix the gun problem, ok? I don't remember the last time someone crashed their Camry through the halls of a high school to mow the place down, but I seem to recall someone today using an AR-15 to do so.

You seem to be letting anger get in the way.

We are on the same side. Both of us want a solution. How we get to that solution is where we differ. 

What makes a gun death different than when a drunk driver crashes and hits another car resulting in a fatality? 

How is a gun death different than when a driver falls asleep, crosses the median causing an accident with multiple fatalities?

---

Well at least it isnt a muslim so Trump probably wont involve himself more than thoughts and prayers.

---

Adam,

Who are you referring to that doesn't care?

---

Quick Google searching shows me that around 13,000 people on average die via homicide with a gun each year.

In 2016 nearly 40,000 people died in traffic related deaths.

This was a quick search and 2016 was the year that came up in the link I chose.

40,000 actually seems quite low considering how much people drive.

Also, let’s compare that 13,000 to other countries.

13,000 seems quite low considering how many guns and people who own guns are in the United States. 

I ask the same questions to you as I did tjbender.

---

Oh boy, here's the first of the "guns are good and cars are evil" crowd.

Yeah, we have a mental health problem. Let's address that while we fix the gun problem, ok? I don't remember the last time someone crashed their Camry through the halls of a high school to mow the place down, but I seem to recall someone today using an AR-15 to do so.

You seem to be letting anger get in the way.

We are on the same side. Both of us want a solution. How we get to that solution is where we differ. 

What makes a gun death different than when a drunk driver crashes and hits another car resulting in a fatality? 

How is a gun death different than when a driver falls asleep, crosses the median causing an accident with multiple fatalities?

The gun owner pointed their weapon at someone and pulled the trigger with intent. The drunk or drowsy driver were negligent, but did not get behind the wheel intending to harm another human being.

Intent, Scarecrow. Guns were made with the intention of killing. They serve no other purpose. Vehicles were made with the intent of transporting people. Outside of circus acts, there is no practical use for guns as a vehicle.

And between you and me, the cannon in a circus act is just a large springboard with pyro on the edges of it. It's not even a real gun.

---

Yes but pretty much all gun deaths are pointless. Cars actually have a function to society. Either way self drive cars will probably substantially reduce your worries.

---

We do have a mental health issue. Good thing Reagan had the foresight to kick all the loonies out of the hospitals, right? For a guy who did such a great job as President, that's his biggest misstep.

I'm not sure how that matters to this case. Those in hospitals in the 1980s don't make up the majority of killers today. 

Reasonable exceptions, like someone picking up a deceased police officer's gun to shoot the person that shot the officer, are understood, as is the notion that a registration would extend to immediate family. Of course, a 12-year-old using her dad's gun would get both of them sent to jail for a long time. My thoughts are not meant to be an exercise in finding excuses. They're meant to be a solution with teeth that, if enforced, leaves ownership of guns alone because, frankly, Americans do have the right to guns, and I support the Second Amendment believe it or not. The problem is that the laws we have aren't enforced, and they apparently aren't enough of a deterrent to keep "responsible" gun owners and dealers from irresponsibly letting firearms get into the hands of those who shouldn't have them. You want to bear arms? Cool. Be ready to surrender other rights to gain that one.

Of course it's reasonable to pick up another person's gun if it's to defend themselves from a killer. My point is that how do you legislate exact moments in time when it's appropriate to use someone else's weapon in constantly changing scenarios. You can't legislate for every single situation. I agree that they aren't enforced appropriately, but that falls on the court system. I believe the court system holds most of the responsibility here (aside from the killers). They allow too many second chances for people that give no indication that they've earned it.

How would more laws have stopped the shooter in Parkland? Remains to be seen, but I promise you that if the person he got/stole/bought that AR-15 from were sent to prison for 25 to life for negligent homicide and accessory to first degree murder, it would make others think twice about how they secure the guns registered in their name or who they give/sell the guns registered in their name to.

So, you'd imprison someone for legally selling a gun to someone that does something illegal with it? You can't hold that standard for anything else. Why would a gun be any different? Is the owner of a car responsible for involuntary manslaughter is the driver who borrowed it killed someone? That standard could be applied to almost anything. 

Guns are like drugs in that regard. Punishing the end user accomplishes little to stop the problem. It's when you move up the chain and start getting the people who are supplying the end user that you start to make an impact, only it's magnified here because it's not just drug dealers you're putting the fear of God into. If Bill down the street goes to jail for six months because his kid took the family pistol out from the master bedroom and robbed a Stab-N-Go, I bet you anything that everyone else on that block is thinking long and hard about the way they secure their own firearm.

Bill didn't commit a crime. Bill didn't want rob or shoot anyone. He isn't responsible for the actions of another.

I think where you're short-sighted is that the punishment shouldn't be exclusive to gun-related crimes. These people don't just start robbing / killing people. They start with home burglaries, vehicle burglaries, etc. Then they'll be caught just carrying a stolen gun. Then it escalates into something where someone is hurt or killed. The problem is that courts go easy on them until they hurt someone. Two or three  months in jail is nothing to someone willing to kill another person. There is no deterrence for criminals.

---

I see Rick Scott is branding around the word 'evil' again. Doesn't want any proper debate just some more prayer.

The standard of politician is poor here, but wow you guys really have to put up with morons.

---

We do have a mental health issue. Good thing Reagan had the foresight to kick all the loonies out of the hospitals, right? For a guy who did such a great job as President, that's his biggest misstep.

I'm not sure how that matters to this case. Those in hospitals in the 1980s don't make up the majority of killers today. 

Reasonable exceptions, like someone picking up a deceased police officer's gun to shoot the person that shot the officer, are understood, as is the notion that a registration would extend to immediate family. Of course, a 12-year-old using her dad's gun would get both of them sent to jail for a long time. My thoughts are not meant to be an exercise in finding excuses. They're meant to be a solution with teeth that, if enforced, leaves ownership of guns alone because, frankly, Americans do have the right to guns, and I support the Second Amendment believe it or not. The problem is that the laws we have aren't enforced, and they apparently aren't enough of a deterrent to keep "responsible" gun owners and dealers from irresponsibly letting firearms get into the hands of those who shouldn't have them. You want to bear arms? Cool. Be ready to surrender other rights to gain that one.

Of course it's reasonable to pick up another person's gun if it's to defend themselves from a killer. My point is that how do you legislate exact moments in time when it's appropriate to use someone else's weapon in constantly changing scenarios. You can't legislate for every single situation. I agree that they aren't enforced appropriately, but that falls on the court system. I believe the court system holds most of the responsibility here (aside from the killers). They allow too many second chances for people that give no indication that they've earned it.

How would more laws have stopped the shooter in Parkland? Remains to be seen, but I promise you that if the person he got/stole/bought that AR-15 from were sent to prison for 25 to life for negligent homicide and accessory to first degree murder, it would make others think twice about how they secure the guns registered in their name or who they give/sell the guns registered in their name to.

So, you'd imprison someone for legally selling a gun to someone that does something illegal with it? You can't hold that standard for anything else. Why would a gun be any different? Is the owner of a car responsible for involuntary manslaughter is the driver who borrowed it killed someone? That standard could be applied to almost anything. 

Guns are like drugs in that regard. Punishing the end user accomplishes little to stop the problem. It's when you move up the chain and start getting the people who are supplying the end user that you start to make an impact, only it's magnified here because it's not just drug dealers you're putting the fear of God into. If Bill down the street goes to jail for six months because his kid took the family pistol out from the master bedroom and robbed a Stab-N-Go, I bet you anything that everyone else on that block is thinking long and hard about the way they secure their own firearm.

Bill didn't commit a crime. Bill didn't want rob or shoot anyone. He isn't responsible for the actions of another.

I think where you're short-sighted is that the punishment shouldn't be exclusive to gun-related crimes. These people don't just start robbing / killing people. They start with home burglaries, vehicle burglaries, etc. Then they'll be caught just carrying a stolen gun. Then it escalates into something where someone is hurt or killed. The problem is that courts go easy on them until they hurt someone. Two or three  months in jail is nothing to someone willing to kill another person. There is no deterrence for criminals.

1. Just pointing out how so many of the Republicans that today hide behind the "mental health" excuse for not addressing a complex problem that surrounds guns are the same that supported Reagan's move to largely defund mental healthcare in the 80's.

2. The jury holds the ultimate power, and "self defense" is a common defense. Not to mention that the DA is under no obligation to prosecute, ever, as we see so often in cases like those you cite of offenders being let off with a slapped wrist. If a jury believes that someone charged with a crime didn't commit it or was faced with circumstances that excuse their crime, that's what "not guilty" is for.

3. If the gun was sold legally and the buyer later used it illegally, the seller has nothing to worry about. If the seller ignored or broke the law and the buyer used that gun illegally, yes, the seller should be held accountable. Hell, if a seller is caught skirting the law they should be held accountable regardless of whether or not guns they sold were used illegally.

4. Bill failed to secure a deadly weapon, and a member of his immediate family was able to get their hands on it and use it against another human being. He absolutely bears a large degree of responsibility for the crime. Ever seen anyone try to rob a Stab-N-Go with a baseball bat? Here's a hint: the clerk is legally in possession of a firearm.

No, the punishment should not be exclusive to gun crimes. I could go into a whole diatribe about how the for-profit prison system in the United States has resulted in more and more nonviolent drug offenders being sent to prison, which diminishes the amount of room available for the people who actually belong there. Many of those nonviolent drug offenders are in there because they have severe mental health issues, which comes back around to the inevitable point. Yes, we have a mental health problem, and fixing that will solve lots of other problems.

Here's a quick aside for you, and this will probably out my real name because I know there's at least one other person from my company who reads this board but whatever. I went to a training session in the upper midwest last year, and part of that training was touring a local homeless shelter. One of the things I learned while there is that they were eliminating their housing for the mentally ill. It wasn't something they wanted to do, but the decision was made that because mental illness is a "temporary" thing, those people could be better served elsewhere.

Yeah, we have a mental health problem. I will not argue that. But we have a gun problem too. Let's fix them both at the same time with aggressive lawmaking and harsh enforcement, and with a restoration of a true national mental health program so that the James Holmeses of the world can get the help they need before they lob tear gas around a movie theater.

---

Sorry I can't post lengthy replies at the present time but I will try and get back on later when my phone isn't running at a snails pace while accessing the board.

What about the 88,000 alcohol related deaths a year?

---

Sorry I can't post lengthy replies at the present time but I will try and get back on later when my phone isn't running at a snails pace while accessing the board.

What about the 88,000 alcohol related deaths a year?

I'm not even going to respond because you know what the answer is, and because it's inconvenient to your argument your intent is to continue ignoring it.

---

Sorry I can't post lengthy replies at the present time but I will try and get back on later when my phone isn't running at a snails pace while accessing the board.

What about the 88,000 alcohol related deaths a year?

You had an equally important amendment to that.

---

Awful news.

I'm bored as hell of the circular debate on guns so I'm sure you guys are too.

Just a question. Would it help at all if all gun owners were required to go for a psych exam twice a year? I know it's already part of the process in places and it wouldn't stop people getting unlawful guns but it might help some.

Then again where do you draw the line for the mental capacity required to own a gun in the first place?

---

Really so sad. And really think there should be tougher laws to get the guns out of reach out of ex-cons and dangerous people Thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims. Lives changed forever there.

---

Ready for May Day and May Flowers!

You seem to be letting anger get in the way.

We are on the same side. Both of us want a solution. How we get to that solution is where we differ. 

What makes a gun death different than when a drunk driver crashes and hits another car resulting in a fatality? 

How is a gun death different than when a driver falls asleep, crosses the median causing an accident with multiple fatalities?

The gun owner pointed their weapon at someone and pulled the trigger with intent. The drunk or drowsy driver were negligent, but did not get behind the wheel intending to harm another human being.

Intent, Scarecrow. Guns were made with the intention of killing. They serve no other purpose. Vehicles were made with the intent of transporting people. Outside of circus acts, there is no practical use for guns as a vehicle.

And between you and me, the cannon in a circus act is just a large springboard with pyro on the edges of it. It's not even a real gun.

I get the premise of you argument TJ.

I am not a "gun nut" but at the same time I think the gun deaths get sensationalized by the media and politicians. 

Maybe we could focus some of the funding that goes towards the unwinnable war against drugs (specifically marijuana) towards mental health assets.

Guns aren't solely used to kill people. The good majority of people that own a gun never hurt a soul with it. They get joy out of having it, shooting it legally, and buying or trading them with other law abiding citizens.

We have larger problems in this country than gun control TJ.  I don't disagree that things can be made better in regards to gun control but the only thing that would stop this entirely is to take away ALL guns. That is not ever going to happen. We need to stop being stubborn and move beyond that. 

Let us work towards a solution that helps correct the cause of these incidents. The gun in not the cause.  Someone that murders people in this manner are insanely mentally ill. I haven't read up on this incident enough but I would guess this person showed signs to SOMEONE that he was mentally unstable in some way.  Maybe not.

It's not a real cannon? Next you're going to tell me the Easter bunny doesn't exist.

---

Sorry I can't post lengthy replies at the present time but I will try and get back on later when my phone isn't running at a snails pace while accessing the board.

What about the 88,000 alcohol related deaths a year?

I'm not even going to respond because you know what the answer is, and because it's inconvenient to your argument your intent is to continue ignoring it.

No I don't. 

I'm not ignoring anything.

Alcohol serves no real purpose.  Why do we need alcohol? At least a gun can be used as self defense against a bad guy.  

Tobacco too.

---

Awful news.

I'm bored as hell of the circular debate on guns so I'm sure you guys are too.

Just a question. Would it help at all if all gun owners were required to go for a psych exam twice a year? I know it's already part of the process in places and it wouldn't stop people getting unlawful guns but it might help some.

Then again where do you draw the line for the mental capacity required to own a gun in the first place?

Did the shooter today have a legally obtained firearm? Real question that I don't know the answer to.

---

Sorry I can't post lengthy replies at the present time but I will try and get back on later when my phone isn't running at a snails pace while accessing the board.

What about the 88,000 alcohol related deaths a year?

I'm not even going to respond because you know what the answer is, and because it's inconvenient to your argument your intent is to continue ignoring it.

No. I will NOT surrender my rights because criminals do bad things. Ever.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Close to home, the school my seven year old son goes to is 18 miles from where this shooting occurred.

---

I'm not even going to respond because you know what the answer is, and because it's inconvenient to your argument your intent is to continue ignoring it.

No. I will NOT surrender my rights because criminals do bad things. Ever.

And it's precisely that all or none attitude that's going to keep getting Americans slaughtered, but you go on feeling like your "right" to take out a banana republic is somehow making the world a better place.

---

The bigger problem here is that this person was known to be prone to violence. Student after student is proclaiming that everyone knew this kid was troubled and potentially dangerous. In a sane society we should have the basic infrastructure to make sure that when someone demonstrates themselves as a threat to themselves or others they are A.) segregated so that they can't commit harm and B.) rehabilitated if possible. The idea that we should focus the entirety of the debate on the weapon used and not the person who committed the crime would be like going to a father whose daughter was raped and killed and saying, "hey, at least he didn't use a gun"

Whenever we talk about MENTAL HEALTH we always think of it in the terms of The voice in the radio said this or the little alien on my shoulder made me do it. That says nothing of the nihilistic blood lust that has begun to permeate our culture. The devaluation of human life and the primacy of feelings specifically rage naturally gives way to more and more anti-social behavior and in extreme cases violent psychopathy.

Last of all, why is no one talking about actually protecting the schools. The debate generally devolves into Should we or should we not Take guns away from the good guys. Should we or should we not ad this hurdle that only law abiding citizens will comply with. Should we or should we not have more and more spaces where bad people KNOW there is no armed opposition. At what point do we make the common sense suggestion that we SHOULD have the infrastructure to make sure that a student who has already been expelled with a history of terroristic (little t) threats can't just walk onto a school campus? When are we going to seriously consider "Should we or should we not have basic security in vulnerable locations to make sure that in extreme circumstances we don't just have a shooting gallery?"

---

The bigger problem here is that this person was known to be prone to violence.  Student after student is proclaiming that everyone knew this kid was troubled and potentially dangerous.  In a sane society we should have the basic infrastructure to make sure that when someone demonstrates themselves as a threat to themselves or others they are A.) segregated so that they can't commit harm and B.) rehabilitated if possible.  The idea that we should focus the entirety of the debate on the weapon used and not the person who committed the crime would be like going to a father whose daughter was raped and killed and saying, "hey, at least he didn't use a gun"

Whenever we talk about MENTAL HEALTH we always think of it in the terms of The voice in the radio said this or the little alien on my shoulder made me do it.  That says nothing of the nihilistic blood lust that has begun to permeate our culture.  The devaluation of human life and the primacy of feelings specifically rage naturally gives way to more and more anti-social behavior and in extreme cases violent psychopathy.  

Last of all, why is no one talking about actually protecting the schools.  The debate generally devolves into Should we or should we not Take guns away from the good guys.  Should we or should we not ad this hurdle that only law abiding citizens will comply with.  Should we or should we not have more and more spaces where bad people KNOW there is no armed opposition.  At what point do we make the common sense suggestion that we SHOULD have the infrastructure to make sure that a student who has already been expelled with a history of terroristic (little t) threats can't just walk onto a school campus?  When are we going to seriously consider "Should we or should we not have basic security in vulnerable locations to make sure that in extreme circumstances we don't just have a shooting gallery?"

Or, here's an idea, how about we make it harder for people prone to violence to get guns that they use to shoot up schools. Now, how would we ever do that?

Oh, right, COME DOWN ON THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE THEM ACCESS TO THEM.

You can't dodge this issue forever. At some point, access to firearms is the source of the problem. If this kid didn't have access to a gun, would he have gone in with a knife? Possibly, but then we're talking about one or two potential deaths before he's contained, not 15 people shot with an assault rifle. Having riot police in every public place is not only impractical, but it sends the worst possible message to Americans that we are being occupied, and we should be ok with that because it's for our own good.

There are lots of problems intertwined here, and none of them are a matter of simple common sense. If you forcibly ban all guns, you pretty much end gun violence, sure, but how many people get turned into swiss cheese by the FBI in the process of enforcing that ban? You can continue to send thoughts and prayers, but how's that been working out lately? Seems like all of our bought-and-paid-for Congressional representatives/NRA mouthpieces are praying for more prayers.

Or more dollars.

Hey, maybe this all comes back to campaign finance reform, too. If there were limits on the amount that companies could donate and an end to PACs and SuperPACs, the NRA, amongst other companies, would quickly lose much of its grip, and maybe there would suddenly be room for a dialogue that focuses somewhere between "ban all guns" and "come get it from my cold dead hands".

Going after the people who negligently give, sell or provide access to firearms, and coming down on them hard with jail and prison sentences that hit them in a meaningful way, seems to me to be a very effective and efficient way of addressing the problem that Republicans in the House love to point back to--the guy who should never have had access to a gun. If that's true, if the access to the weapon was the root of the problem, and if that access was the result of negligence or willful ignorance of the laws, then go get the person that gave it to them. Whether that's a shady gun show dealer who ignored the rules or a parent that didn't lock up their gun properly, go get that person and put them in jail for it. That's how you send a message, and that's one big way to stop letting people who shouldn't have guns get them.

---