Orlando

[uwe]

"The culture is different here."

You say that, Dave, and you're the American who should know. But is there really a case to be made that (some) US Americans dig mass shootings more than others? Why is that? The US has a violent history, but so do most other nations, many of them a lot more violent than the US even in its darkest hours (Germany among them).

I sometimes wonder whether the US "lacks the experience" of a comparatively recent war on home territory, the Civil War is too long ago by now. The ravages of WW I and II were in countries far away. Europe saw within a comparatively short period again and again what arms can do.

[Aussie Mark]

From what I've read, no mass shootings in Australia before Port Arthur involved semi-automatics with large capacity magazines.

It's true that Australia doesn't have the lengthy list of mass shootings that the US has had over the years, but there were more than one that involved magazines with more than 10 round capacities, eg.

Hoddle St, 1987.  M14 (7 dead)
Strathfield, 1991. SKK (8 dead)

You can see by those numbers alone that the 36 killed at Port Arthur was a uniquely high number in Australian history, so personally I believe our government did the right thing by closing down the risk of a repeat atrocity in emphatic fashion.

[veebass]

In Australia you can't buy semi autos (longarms or handguns) without extensive red tape and due process to obtain the necessary permits, and any rifle is restricted to a magazine capacity of 5 rounds.  We haven't had a "gun massacre" since those regulations were brought in after Port Arthur 20 years ago.   Lots of Australians own guns - farmers, hunters, gun club members, security guards etc, but clearly it's the availability of high capacity magazines and weapons with semi auto capability that are the main contributing factor to civilian massacres (in any country). 

Yes, I know, the gun lobby will tell us that a skilled shooter with a bolt action or lever action rifle could kill the same number of people while changing mags every 5 rounds, but you don't generally see mass killers using those weapons, which is telling.

My understanding is that it is more complex than that, Mark, in relation to rifle magazine capacity regulations in Australia. You may be thinking semi auto and pump action shot guns with respect to Category C licences.
For manually repeating rifles (Categories A and B) there is no restriction in the National Firearms Agreement, but some states stipulate maximum capacity. For example an Enfield 303 commonly has a double stack detachable box magazine of 10 rounds and it is compliant in every state. Remington 308s off the shelf have integral box magazines of four rounds and can legally be modified to take detachable box magazines of the capacity determined by your state- in Queensland that is up and including fifteen rounds- perfectly legal. There are also complications based on the cosmetic appearance of the weapon, believe it ornot. Some weapons which on the functionality of the action should be Category A or B, are arbitrarily classified to higher categories on the basis of their cosmetic scariness (ie of military appearance).
On the main issue, personally I think a massacre is a massacre. I don't there's much change post 1996.
Like in other jurusdictions, the masscares of indigenous peoples are often left out of discussion here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

I am not against licensing of people who want a gun/s, nor sufficient background checking, sensible regulations about about gun and ammunition security and storage or restriction of access to semi auto and auto weapons.
There is bipartisan support for the arrangements in place in Australia, but I hear a lot of misinformation around the issues (not just the regulation details) and see  lack of consultation and representation of the views of what are now than 2 million legal firearm owners in Australia (almost 10% of the total population). That figure was recently obtained through Freedom Of Information requests and is unlikely to be heard or reported in the mainstream media, as it runs counter to the perception that Governments want to foster.

[Dave W]

"The culture is different here."

You say that, Dave, and you're the American who should know. But is there really a case to be made that (some) US Americans dig mass shootings more than others? Why is that? The US has a violent history, but so do most other nations, many of them a lot more violent than the US even in its darkest hours (Germany among them).

I sometimes wonder whether the US "lacks the experience" of a comparatively recent war on home territory, the Civil War is too long ago by now. The ravages of WW I and II were in countries far away. Europe saw within a comparatively short period again and again what arms can do.

If I knew the answer to that, I'd be a guru. People would be beating a path to my mountaintop to get advice from me. But as my great-grandma used to say. "If you're so damned smart, then why ain't you rich?"

Anyway, the backstory is still developing. As Jake wondered earlier, this may turn out to be a perfect storm.

[amptech]

Did I mention I  F*&^%)G hate guns................

Sorry, it's the only constructive input I have at this point.

My thougts too, but I kept quiet

[Alanko]

The Orlando attack is a tricky one for me. I'm weary of the current trend of news reporting, for starters. It feels, to me, that there has been a breakneck race for people to be the first to use the attack to further their cause, be it preemptively bashing Trump, supporting Trump, turning their Facebook profile picture into a wee rainbow, the works. The news here has been showing blurry Snapchat footage of scenes inside the club with gunfire going off in the background. I don't feel that is necessary to further the news story. I remember news being quite stoic when I was a kid. As long as there has been a portable means of capturing film people have captured clips of people being shot, racing cars flying into packed crowds, aircraft falling to earth and bombs exploding in packed streets. The news doesn't have to show any of that. It ultimately gets to a point where you end up passively resigned and weary of the whole thing. I turn on the news at 10:00 now and see a sea of conflict, strife and injustice. If I turn my back on that I somehow become bourgeois and insensitive, but what can I actually really do about any of this stuff? I don't think the news is engineered to empower the viewer, or even inform them as much as wear them down and make them feel powerless.

Americans must be pretty tired of having us Europeans repeatedly chastise them over an issue in their country that they are no doubt acutely aware of. Guns are an interesting phenomenon because whilst they are a tool they really only fulfill a very select few purposes, and ultimately the outcome of their one task lies with the handler. Common sense stuff, and only incomprehensible to us in the UK at least because there isn't a gun culture here. Culturally I think European countries lie slightly closer to Kantian ethics perhaps, as a lot of what we consider normal (such as cutting around the place unarmed) is basically for the benefit of the broader society and places less responsibility on the individual. I'm not saying anything is better or worse than anything else, only that the repeated criticism of mass-shootings in the US is often coming from people with a limited frame of reference. We have some fairly murky practices both currently and historically in Europe. Heck, last week we in the UK were celebrating the 90th birthday of an unelected figurehead who has a surprising level of influence on policies for a random old woman, and who is German but we all pretend is British. The PR team that work round the clock to maintain and promote a very tight image of the UK Royals, and who are always pulling people 'into line' seems bizarre, draconian and unhealthy. The UK also has a massive drink problem that nobody wants to talk about. No society is perfect, after all.

I care about the attack in Orlando, but only so much. I don't know any of the victims as far as I can tell, and I'm not sure their families really care a squat that some rando in Scotland has turned their Facebook profile picture into a wee rainbow for the next week or so. I do feel that many try and outperform each other in the public display of mourning, especially on the aforementioned Facebook and the like. When it gets to the stage that you feel you have to do something lest you end up the sore thumb then that isn't right.

[Granny Gremlin]

The UK also has a massive drink problem that nobody wants to talk about.

I've heard plenty of chatter about that, actually, but in the grand scheme of things the problem is old and the chatter new and not accomplished much yet.... but that's not exactly on topic. 

[Alanko]

Surely you could say the same thing about guns in the US? In the grand scheme of things the problem is old and the chatter new and not accomplished much yet.

[OldManC]

I'm just glad France has super strict gun laws so mass shootings like Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan could never happen there. Wait a minute...

[Alanko]

They do say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. 

[4stringer77]

Gun laws didn't prevent Labour MP Jo Cox from getting shot either. Another event being exploited by the establishment.

[Alanko]

Jo Cox's killer supposedly built his own gun. I'm not sure how you would ever be able to police something like that.

[Granny Gremlin]

To be fair, France does not have mass shootings every month committed by their own citizens.  Those 2 incidents were jihadist terror acts encouraged and committed by mostly foreigners (some were naturalised citizens IIRC, but most weren't) and directly tied to actual terrorist groups.  America has a distinct problem with lone nutters (i.e. not org crime related - that exists everywhere) - many (most) of them (this last guy is a bit of an exception in this regard) multi-generational-citizens, white, and  Christian (Columbine, Oklahoma City, Charleston, Colorado Movie Theatre; never mind the thousands of domestic violence incidents yearly).  The fact of the matter is, and this has been proven with clinical studies repeatedly, having a gun makes it more likely that someone will die  (includes accidents) - contrary to knee jerk logic, in the same situation another object just won't do and the result is different.  Just it being there makes the difference.  The reason being that it's so easy and not as personal as other weapons, such as knives or random blunt objects.  You don't have to push the blade in and feel the resistance of the flesh as well as the defensive struggle of the victim - just point and shoot from across the room.  Like taking a selfie, or a video game.  Same thing with drones (see what many former operators say about the experience).

Yes, an organized and/or highly motivated terrorist group will always find a way (improvised explosive devices like the marathon bombing), but you do have to compare apples to apples.  Nobody thinks making something illegal, or putting some basic restrictions on it, eliminates it (see: drugs) but it does help reduce access for most people, especially the nutters.  Criminals, gangs and terrorists will get them either way, but if at least if you can't walk into a store and buy an assault rifle in 7 minutes (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/06/15/this-reporter-bought-an-ar-15-assault-rifle-in-7-minutes.html  - yes the article is overblown but the basic point, minus the rest of the commentary, is valid), it would help reduce incidents brought on by extreme (temporary) emotional states (and we do know the Orlando shooter was prone to those, same with the Charleston guy) as well as body count.

Jo Cox's killer supposedly built his own gun. I'm not sure how you would ever be able to police something like that.

Again, we must be careful to think this through fairly; nobody claims gun control (to whatever degree) will eliminate the problem; a reduction would be a satisfactory start.  But , fair point I suppose, gun control is just one thing; what must really change is the culture of violence (and this is not just an American problem, just that it tends to manifest with guns more often there, and in other ways elsewhere).

[Aussie Mark]

I'm just glad France has super strict gun laws so mass shootings like Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan could never happen there. Wait a minute...

Strict gun laws won't prevent bad guys bringing in guns illegally across land borders, which makes Europe a difficult location to police against that kind of thing

To be fair, France does not have mass shootings every month committed by their own citizens.  Those 2 incidents were jihadist terror acts encouraged and committed by mostly foreigners (some were naturalised citizens IIRC, but most weren't) and directly tied to actual terrorist groups.

And potential terrorists in Europe can ignore the gun laws and bring in guns illegally across the various land borders that exist in Europe.

[Dave W]

My thougts too, but I kept quiet

No one here needs to keep quiet about his opinions so long as we aren't attacking each other personally.

But any discussion of gun laws is fruitless. No one's opinion is going to be changed.

I care about the attack in Orlando, but only so much. I don't know any of the victims as far as I can tell, and I'm not sure their families really care a squat that some rando in Scotland has turned their Facebook profile picture into a wee rainbow for the next week or so. I do feel that many try and outperform each other in the public display of mourning, especially on the aforementioned Facebook and the like. When it gets to the stage that you feel you have to do something lest you end up the sore thumb then that isn't right.

That's par for the course in today's world. So many people feel the need to belong to something even though they have no connection.