If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1049
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3077 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1049 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-15 06:03:49 PM
Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.
 
2012-12-15 06:04:50 PM
Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.
 
2012-12-15 06:06:16 PM
So there are more stupid people in the entire U.S. than there are stupid people in the state of Texas?
 
2012-12-15 06:13:11 PM
What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that extends mental healthcare to everyone? We could call it Medicare Part E or something. Surely people would be okay with that if it'll prevent at least one mass shooting, right?
 
2012-12-15 06:13:34 PM
Tipping point.
 
2012-12-15 06:15:21 PM
That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed...not the pathetic whining of a few paranoid, pussy "conservative" tebaggers.
 
2012-12-15 06:15:49 PM

themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that



It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."
 
2012-12-15 06:19:53 PM

kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."


The more erudite among them will say "No, because communism"
 
2012-12-15 06:22:26 PM

kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."


It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.
 
2012-12-15 06:25:25 PM

BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


Leave it to you to bring the ignorance and unsupported talking points.
 
2012-12-15 06:25:39 PM
I wish I had the cash to invest in Smith & Wesson, because the moment Obama opens his mouth on the topic, gun sales are gonna SKYROCKET.
 
2012-12-15 06:27:53 PM

BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.
 
2012-12-15 06:28:05 PM

Saborlas: I wish I had the cash to invest in Smith & Wesson, because the moment Obama opens his mouth on the topic, gun sales are gonna SKYROCKET.


Yup, they'd better stock up on guns and ammo, the libs are gettin' uppity.
 
2012-12-15 06:28:41 PM
Because at least half this country wants gun control. The other half is whingeing in the politics tab right now.
 
2012-12-15 06:29:05 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.


It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.
 
2012-12-15 06:29:31 PM
Because 20 six and seven year olds being shot up to 11 times is more terrible than a bunch of white Texans protesting a black president?
 
2012-12-15 06:30:52 PM

coco ebert: Because at least half this country wants gun control. The other half is whingeing in the politics tab right now.


Part of this is a messaging problem. We need to specify what regulations we're talking about. I have a whole host of ideas, but it's Saturday night and as much as I'd love to stay in and argue about guns on the Internet I actually have a date with my wife...
 
2012-12-15 06:33:46 PM

kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."


I'd have argued that was hyperbole, if I hadn't watched Turtle McTurtle veto his own bill last week, just to keep democrats from passing anything - even his own proposals.
 
2012-12-15 06:34:17 PM

BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


Except my proposal had nothing to do with gun control.
 
2012-12-15 06:36:50 PM
Personally, I think the idea of individuals being able to own weapons of mass slaughter is ridiculous. However, the US is so soaked in these type of weapons that I have sort of just resigned to the US being a house of horror several times a year with incidents like this and in some neighborhoods pretty much every day.

While in a Utopia guns would not be required, we don't live there. Therefore, I am not going to put up a fight against basic gun ownership. Home protection and hunting seem like reasonable arguments for some arms. Keeping any government wary of walking jackbooted into society and just grabbing whomever whenever without having to worry about some resistance is probably a good thing for society. I think Canada is yet again a good example for the US to learn from (but probably won't because USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!), but I don't think it is sane as a society to say that any type of arms are fair game. Are we set to allow the 2nd Amendment arms definition to go all the way to personal nuclear arms races? No, I don't think so, so there is obviously an arms line somewhere. It seems to me that line should be weapons of mass destruction, and that would seem to include any weapon where you can kill tens of people within seconds to short minutes. For self defense, if you are trained (which should be required for owning arms), you shouldn't need to rain down bullets on an attacker. If you are hunting, you are not a very good sportsman if you need to fire off multiple shots a minute to take down a deer.

There is a reasonable, sane line out there. Unfortunately, many in America get set in an ideology that goes to an extreme, and reasonable legislation is not what becomes reality.
 
2012-12-15 06:38:43 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


What is this, I don't even.
 
2012-12-15 06:39:55 PM

MisterTweak: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

I'd have argued that was hyperbole, if I hadn't watched Turtle McTurtle veto his own bill last week, just to keep democrats from passing anything - even his own proposals.


Some political parties just want to watch the world burn.
 
2012-12-15 06:49:02 PM

coco ebert: Because at least half this country wants gun control. The other half is whingeing in the politics tab right now.


And the other half will get a gun regardless.

/manbearpig argument
 
2012-12-15 06:51:14 PM

BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


I can't tell if this is a serious response of a parody.
 
2012-12-15 06:54:19 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


Well, they might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes.
 
2012-12-15 06:55:11 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


So we should just do nothing? That's your solution?
 
2012-12-15 06:55:44 PM
If you ban weapons, killers will just kill with their bare hands. Or develop telekinesis.

Or both!!!
 
2012-12-15 06:57:51 PM
He used pistols, not an AK-47. Your choices are ban all guns or do nothing. All guns will not be banned. Next.
 
2012-12-15 06:58:36 PM

Shostie: If you ban weapons, killers will just kill with their bare hands. Or develop telekinesis.

Or both!!!


Never undermisestimate the power of the paper clip. Those things are dangerous.
 
2012-12-15 07:05:16 PM
Can't we just have a full-blown Constitutional Convention, so everyone can get in on the fun? 

/I'll let people argue about gun control, while I sneak in proportional representation and a better tax code.
 
2012-12-15 07:06:56 PM

birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.


OK, let's ban all guns for a while and gather evidence.
 
2012-12-15 07:06:58 PM

Snarfangel: and a better tax code.


You want to put the tax code in the constitution?

That doesn't seem like a good idea.
 
2012-12-15 07:10:50 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


If someone has crossed that line in his mind, that's fine. It happens all the time, I'm sure. But crossing that line in reality is another matter. It seems to be easier to cross that line in reality in a nation awash in guns, and maybe that's something we can address. I don't know. I think there is a debate we can have.
 
2012-12-15 07:15:21 PM
There are currently over 200 million firearms in private hands in the US. That particular genie is way, way out of the bottle. So, our options are:

1: Ban (or restrict) future sales. Does nothing about the existing guns. Over the LONG term, it will decrease the firearm ownership density, which will probably do some good, but not for a while.
2: Attempt something confiscatory. Yeah, that's not going to happen in the US. I know some people will claim that this is a flippant dismissal of the most logical choice, but it's the option that is probably most rife with political, social, economic pitfalls. Unless the majority of the people in the US decide that they personally (not "someone else", but THEM) shouldn't be allowed to own guns, it won't happen.
3: Substantial criminal background checks for purchases. Does nothing about the nutcase who hasn't ever been arrested.
4: Substantial background checks, both criminal AND of the healthcare system, for purchases. Unless we're willing to repeal HIPAA, not happening. Will actively prevent some people from seeking mental health services for fear that their ownership rights will be revoked. May get at some whackjobs before they snap. Suggests that there will need to be a governmental board deciding who is sane enough to own guns.
5: Some version of 1-4, but regarding ammunition rather than actual firearms. Do-able (and less likely to violate the 2nd Amendment), but with many of the same issues. Will increase number of people creating their own ammunition unless laws also restrict that equipment, powder, primers, etc.

Of course, we could be rational and set up a healthcare system that actually CARES for people their entire lives, so that minor issues might be identified and addressed before people become homicidal. Weirdly, this is seen by many people in the US as a horrible idea, though it would be the kindest and least "intrusive" of any of the options. Universal healthcare combined with a pretty strict, nationally-based training and licensing law would allow people to own guns, mandate a hell of a lot more training in safe handling, use, and storage, care for people at the breaking point, care for people well before they reached the breaking point, identify people who really have no business owning guns, and would, when fully implemented, make for a heck of a safer, saner, nicer country.

So I imagine there's no way in hell we'll do it.
 
2012-12-15 07:16:39 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: He used pistols, not an AK-47. Your choices are ban all guns or do nothing. All guns will not be banned. Next.


Things are still obviously a bit fuzzy, but this is the latest from CNN on the weapons: He didn't say what that weapon was, but a law enforcement source has previously said that the gunman was found dead with next to three guns: a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer.

(http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/15/children-and-adults-gunned-down - in-connecticut-school-massacre/?hpt=hp_t1)
 
2012-12-15 07:16:48 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.



How about no? Does no work for you?
 
2012-12-15 07:18:49 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


So what is it that is different about America and other 1st-world nations that makes this sort of thing so much more frequent in America?

At some point, it would be nice if one of the "it's not the guns" types would tell us what the problem really is.

Difficulty: not enough guns is not the problem
 
2012-12-15 07:19:57 PM

The_Sponge: MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How about no? Does no work for you?


Why no? Seriously. Why do you need a firearm to fire more than to rounds without reloading?
 
2012-12-15 07:20:37 PM

MayoSlather: The_Sponge: MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How about no? Does no work for you?

Why no? Seriously. Why do you need a firearm to fire more than to two rounds without reloading?


oops.
 
2012-12-15 07:21:16 PM

Shostie: Snarfangel: and a better tax code.

You want to put the tax code in the constitution?

That doesn't seem like a good idea.


I was thinking more along the lines of the tax framework, rather than the thousands of pages Congress will eventually stick to it. Basically, make Georgist and Pigovian taxes the preferred source of revenue, rather than taxes on income, capital, or trade.
 
2012-12-15 07:22:47 PM
Let them have their guns. With a rule to be added that if you step outside your home with a semiauto firearm you spend
5 years in jail and loose all your weapons. (the hunters should have no problem with this). This allows them to fondle their
murder machines in the privacy of their homes.
 
2012-12-15 07:24:46 PM

sparkeyjames: Let them have their guns. With a rule to be added that if you step outside your home with a semiauto firearm you spend
5 years in jail and loose all your weapons. (the hunters should have no problem with this). This allows them to fondle their
murder machines in the privacy of their homes.



Hurrr durrrrr. Or were you going for "derp"?
 
2012-12-15 07:30:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.


The tipping point is located where the Mason-Dixon Line intersects the Mississippi River.
 
2012-12-15 07:32:04 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


That's pretty hard to do, from a manufacturing standpoint. Most weapons that are limited in their capacity are that way due to either not having a magazine or having a magazine built in (like a shotgun). Problem is, a semi-automatic weapon (of any type) is not limited by the actual weapon, but by the magazine. I can load a 15 round mag or a 50 round mag, the rifle doesn't care.

Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal. Long guns are easier to spot, so it's harder to pull off mass shootings if that's all you've got (you can sneak in one or two, but you'll be seen a mile off otherwise.). Add a ban on all large magazines, and you've got a rather effective method for reducing shooting sprees. A shooter would have 5-10 rounds, max, before having to stop and reload. That reload gives people time to flee, police or armed guards to return fire, people to tackle him, anything.

Though that will not stop the problem, as evidenced by this very shooting, and all "gunman in the clock tower" situations. It is, however, a start.

/pro-gun
//keeps a model 88 for home defense
 
2012-12-15 07:33:52 PM

Lionel Mandrake: That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed...not the pathetic whining of a few paranoid, pussy "conservative" tebaggers.


This.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-12-15 07:52:57 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

I can't tell if this is a serious response of a parody.


Sadly, from him it's a serious response. He's Exhibit B on why the nation needs to start addressing mental illness seriously.
 
2012-12-15 07:56:36 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that

It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.


Just came to post this.

Link: China stabbing spree hurts 22 schoolchildren
 
2012-12-15 08:12:51 PM

Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.


Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.
 
2012-12-15 08:13:54 PM

Lsherm: I'm not trying to justify avoiding a tightening of our own gun laws


Needed to fix that.
 
2012-12-15 08:20:27 PM

Lionel Mandrake: syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

So what is it that is different about America and other 1st-world nations that makes this sort of thing so much more frequent in America?

Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway? And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

At some point, it would be nice if one of the "it's not the guns" types would tell us what the problem really is.

Insane people do insane things. Is that so hard to understand?

 
2012-12-15 08:23:34 PM

Lsherm: Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.

Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.


shhhh, don't use facts, it just gets them mad.
 
2012-12-15 08:26:46 PM

Lionel Mandrake: That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed.


How would you propose preventing a mentally ill person from obtaining a gun?
 
2012-12-15 08:29:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?


yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?


no
 
2012-12-15 08:34:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: shhhh, don't use facts, it just gets them mad


lol
 
2012-12-15 08:36:27 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no


You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.
 
2012-12-15 08:40:28 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no

You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.


No. Your link was fine, though there are many more out there to prove my point.

From your link: Five homicides committed with a gun were reported in Norway in 2005, the latest year for which the site has data confirming firearm-related murders in the country. In comparison, the U.S., which has a population more than 50 times greater, had 10,158 gun-related murders the same year, or 2,000 times that of Norway.

Math is hard!
 
2012-12-15 08:42:23 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no

You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.

No. Your link was fine, though there are many more out there to prove my point.

From your link: Five homicides committed with a gun were reported in Norway in 2005, the latest year for which the site has data confirming firearm-related murders in the country. In comparison, the U.S., which has a population more than 50 times greater, had 10,158 gun-related murders the same year, or 2,000 times that of Norway.

Math is hard!


I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".
Reading is hard...for you.
 
2012-12-15 08:45:22 PM
It comes down to this: We'll do the same thing we've done after the last 20 mass killings, which is nothing. Next week or next month there'll be another mass killing and we'll do the same. Mass killings are just a way of life in America now. Accept it and move on.
 
2012-12-15 08:48:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".


Those are the only kind that kill people?
 
2012-12-15 08:48:40 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7488081/81306379#c81306379" target="_blank">dahmers love zombie</a>:</b>2: Attempt something confiscatory. Yeah, that's not going to happen in the US. I know some people will claim that this is a flippant dismissal of the most logical choice, but it's the option that is probably most rife with political, social, economic pitfalls. Unless the majority of the people in the US decide that they personally (not "someone else", but THEM) shouldn't be allowed to own guns, it won't happen</i>

When Australia brought in their ban on assault weapons, they instituted a buy-back scheme rather than outright confiscation. There hasn't been a mass shooting there in the 14 years since they instituted this.

What you could do is outlaw informal person to person sales and have some sort of title transfer in the same way you have title transfer with cars. Do regular audits of last registered owners to make sure they haven't got rid of their guns on the sly. Firearm microstamping is a promising technology to help in criminal investigation, but that won't stop a guy who's decided to commit suicide and take down a bunch of innocents with him, so having people vouch for a gun buyer might be reasonable - in the same way you need someone to give an affidavit on your identity to apply for a passport if you have no other proof of citizenship.
 
2012-12-15 08:48:46 PM
If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.
 
2012-12-15 08:49:57 PM

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?


And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"
 
2012-12-15 08:50:39 PM
To be fair, most that signed the Texas petition were from the rest of the US that just wanted us out of the Union
 
2012-12-15 08:51:02 PM

violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC.


Sounds like socialism, comrade.
 
2012-12-15 08:56:46 PM

Lionel Mandrake: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC.

Sounds like socialism, comrade.


The tea people will get over it. It's not like they're actually for a smaller gov't.
 
2012-12-15 09:02:50 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


We have people that mod Wii's X-boxes, Tivo's, video game controllers, Car engines etc. I'm sure they'd find a workaround for that too.
 
2012-12-15 09:04:13 PM

Saborlas: I wish I had the cash to invest in Smith & Wesson, because the moment Obama opens his mouth on the topic, gun sales are gonna SKYROCKET.


And that's just sad.
 
2012-12-15 09:05:30 PM

birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.


it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.
 
2012-12-15 09:06:29 PM

CruiserTwelve: It comes down to this: We'll do the same thing we've done after the last 20 mass killings, which is nothing. Next week or next month there'll be another mass killing and we'll do the same. Mass killings are just a way of life in America now. Accept it and move on.


Unfortunately, pretty much this. Nothing will change. After a while you just learn to accept these things as a part of life (well, at least in this country). It's going to take a huge cultural shift away from the gun worshiping we have right now and I just don't see that happening.
 
2012-12-15 09:07:31 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?

And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"


This thread was about people's response to the recent attack.
Get a clue.
You lost.
1/10 for trying to save face.
 
2012-12-15 09:08:37 PM

themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that extends mental healthcare to everyone? We could call it Medicare Part E or something. Surely people would be okay with that if it'll prevent at least one mass shooting, right?


They were wealthy. Adam had access to mental health care. That wasn't the problem. Whether or not he actually went is a different question.
 
2012-12-15 09:09:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: You lost.


OK. As you wish.

1/10 for trying to save face.

Well, bless your heart!
 
2012-12-15 09:09:33 PM
Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine
 
2012-12-15 09:10:43 PM

MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How realistic do you think that is? On a scale of one to ten, 10 being the most likely to happen, where do you rate your idea?
 
2012-12-15 09:11:48 PM
It appears they've met their goal

img.photobucket.com

Sign here
 
2012-12-15 09:12:50 PM

diaphoresis: birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.


So wait until the next Fark party then?
 
2012-12-15 09:13:40 PM
I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.
 
2012-12-15 09:14:24 PM

rohar: Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine


"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation's conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half." --NY Times
 
2012-12-15 09:14:48 PM

violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.


^^Éste^^
 
2012-12-15 09:15:14 PM
Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.
 
2012-12-15 09:15:27 PM

pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.


Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?
 
2012-12-15 09:15:50 PM

thatboyoverthere: diaphoresis: birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.

So wait until the next Fark party then?


Precisely... I may show up... :)
 
2012-12-15 09:16:46 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: That's because gun control is a serious issue that sensible people want to see addressed.

How would you propose preventing a mentally ill person from obtaining a gun?


By getting rid of guns entirely?

But that won't happen. You guys won. If the Tom Tomorrow comic hadn't been posted to death I would post it again. Guns aren't going anywhere and anyone can get one, cause even if you restrict sales to crazies then the crazies will just steal them from someone else (like the shooter here did). But that will never happen, because too many people in this country like guns. I just hope that the next time this happens, and it will happen again, that I don't know any of the victims.

And don't say guns are tools just like cars or knives. Guns are conceived, designed, built, and purchased with the specific intention to kill things. There is literally no other use for a gun other than to kill things. Target practice is simply preparation for the killing of things.
 
2012-12-15 09:16:50 PM

diaphoresis: birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.


Does he have to be in a clown suit?

Cuz, oh man! this one time...
 
2012-12-15 09:17:11 PM

BravadoGT: Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


I think you're right. Clearly, Americans can't be trusted with a free society and should be exterminated.
 
2012-12-15 09:17:33 PM

thisispete: rohar: Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine

"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation's conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half." --NY Times


Yes, but Australia has comprehensive mental health benefits. Look at that, an important external variable. What happened on that front at approximately the same time?
 
2012-12-15 09:19:32 PM
In the spirit of compromise, can't we do both?
 
2012-12-15 09:22:21 PM
My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.
 
2012-12-15 09:23:28 PM

badhatharry: Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.


So, you have the ability to look into parallel universes and see that in worlds exactly like ours but without these laws and procedures, exactly the same number of crimes occurred in exactly the same way?

That's one hell of a gift.
 
2012-12-15 09:24:24 PM

tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.


Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?
 
2012-12-15 09:26:51 PM
Yeah, time for the white trash to stop dictating the safety of everyone else by screaming like biatches about an amendment that their little brains do not undertstand.
 
2012-12-15 09:26:54 PM

Lsherm: Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.

Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.


I suspect Canada doesn't have as many sociopaths& batshiat insane people per capita as the United States does.

/ 'just sayin
 
2012-12-15 09:26:58 PM

violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.


yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?
 
2012-12-15 09:28:58 PM
I would think that we should attack the issue, not by completely banning firearms, but by codifying the description of militia.

Then monitor the militia armories to allow of firearm use only for organized militia based activities.
Include a provision that militia weapons can be used for activities by registered militia members only if in groups of 3 or more and create a sign in sign out procedure.
Any serious infractions could be met with punishment of loss of the militia armory or disbandment of the militia in question.

This would at least create an environment that the group would police itself and create a better chance of someone who may be mentally unstable being caught by their militia members before they become a danger to society.

It's not the best solution, but perhaps a worthy compromise?
 
2012-12-15 09:29:44 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?

And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"

This thread was about people's response to the recent attack.
Get a clue.
You lost.
1/10 for trying to save face.


You are a liar. A shameless, bought and paid for liar. You are a creature worthy of no compassion, you are ugly and hateful.

I promised myself after years of lurking on this forum that I would never ignore someone in order to preserve objectivity on both sides of discourse. I was wrong.
 
2012-12-15 09:29:54 PM

MayoSlather: The_Sponge: MayoSlather: Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots without reloading would be nice. Yeah it won't completely solve the problem, but it sure as hell won't hurt.


How about no? Does no work for you?

Why no? Seriously. Why do you need a firearm to fire more than to rounds without reloading?


Unfortunately, it's not about what you "need". It's the fact that the technology needed to achieve this(more than two rounds w/o reload) is common knowledge, and easily available. Besides, banning the sale of nearly every firearm on the market and every firearm in possession would be a wee bit difficult to enforce, no?

Your example is actually a good one, I think. It shows how extreme any sort of ban would need to be to remove the ability of firearms to inflict an obscene amount of damage. And even with a ban like that, you've already got hundreds of millions out there. Not to mention how many people would die if they tried to enforce that on a private citizen level. Going house to house and confiscating guns is a pretty risky prospect.
 
2012-12-15 09:30:09 PM

chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?


Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?
 
2012-12-15 09:30:17 PM
Severely restricting access to guns is the natural response following a child massacre.

See the UK, Australia, Japan.

None of those countries regret it.
 
2012-12-15 09:30:30 PM
From a CNN report: The gunman's mother owned guns for self-defense, the aunt said.

What the hell kind of paranoid delusions are you suffering that you need an AR-15, a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and, if reports are to be believed, two other guns to protect you? From what? Zombies? Zee Germans? Jack-booted stormtroopers? Satan's minions? The UN? Commies? Roving bands of negroes? I have a shotgun for home protection and an air rifle for weeding out the local squirrel population, but if I ever felt the need for an assault rifle and more handguns than I have hands, I guess I'd take it as I sign that I need to move somewhere safer. I don't get it. But then again, I don't fetishize guns. It's a tool, like my hammer, just a lot less dangerous, and one that gets used much, much, much less often.
 
2012-12-15 09:31:11 PM

rohar: tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.

Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?


If it prevented the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons rather than pussyfooting around with background checks it would have been more effective. Outlaw the shiat. And don't give me the shiat about outlaws still bring capable of getting them; if the major companies are banned from production handguns will become a rare commodity, meaning they'll be too expensive for your average shiathead gangbanger to get their hands on one.
 
2012-12-15 09:31:13 PM
Can't stop crazy no matter how many laws you pass. All that any gun bans will do is make life easier for criminals and make us more often victims of crime. Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away!
 
2012-12-15 09:31:23 PM

rohar: tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.

Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?


It wasn't the Brady Bill. It was the Reagan revolution and trickle-down supply-side economics.
 
2012-12-15 09:31:30 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: Lsherm: Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.

Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.

I suspect Canada doesn't have as many sociopaths& batshiat insane people per capita as the United States does.

/ 'just sayin


Canadian mags are pinned at 5 rounds as well. All magazines are maximum 5 round capacity. Any magazine larger than 5 rounds is a restricted item.
 
2012-12-15 09:31:36 PM

Lionel Mandrake: badhatharry: Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.

So, you have the ability to look into parallel universes and see that in worlds exactly like ours but without these laws and procedures, exactly the same number of crimes occurred in exactly the same way?

That's one hell of a gift.


We can look at the past and compare it to today. Guns are not a new invention. They have been around a while
 
2012-12-15 09:32:06 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: What the hell kind of paranoid delusions are you suffering that you need an AR-15, a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and, if reports are to be believed, two other guns to protect you? From what? Zombies? Zee Germans? Jack-booted stormtroopers? Satan's minions? The UN? Commies? Roving bands of negroes?


Her son?
 
2012-12-15 09:33:34 PM

tolallorti: rohar: tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.

Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?

If it prevented the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons rather than pussyfooting around with background checks it would have been more effective. Outlaw the shiat. And don't give me the shiat about outlaws still bring capable of getting them; if the major companies are banned from production handguns will become a rare commodity, meaning they'll be too expensive for your average shiathead gangbanger to get their hands on one.


So you can point to any time in American history where a change in gun control laws correlated with a change in gun violence? Either positive or negative?

I'm guessing not, because that point doesn't exist. "I believe" isn't a very effective debate tactic.
 
2012-12-15 09:33:52 PM

badhatharry: Lionel Mandrake: badhatharry: Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.

So, you have the ability to look into parallel universes and see that in worlds exactly like ours but without these laws and procedures, exactly the same number of crimes occurred in exactly the same way?

That's one hell of a gift.

We can look at the past and compare it to today. Guns are not a new invention. They have been around a while


The proliferation of high capacity semi-automatic is a fairly recent development. You can't gun down a crowd with a musket.
 
2012-12-15 09:34:21 PM

Hoser72: Can't stop crazy no matter how many laws you pass. All that any gun bans will do is make life easier for criminals and make us more often victims of crime. Remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away!


Let's say this guy was armed with a pointed stick. I'll bet the end of the story would be quite a bit different.
 
2012-12-15 09:34:43 PM

Pincy: Prank Call of Cthulhu: What the hell kind of paranoid delusions are you suffering that you need an AR-15, a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and, if reports are to be believed, two other guns to protect you? From what? Zombies? Zee Germans? Jack-booted stormtroopers? Satan's minions? The UN? Commies? Roving bands of negroes?

Her son?


Well that worked for shiat.
 
2012-12-15 09:35:38 PM
before we restrict guns. magazines, etc let's address and correct how the "war on drugs" has added to the gun problem. let us also address the appalling condition of the inner city schools and how that leads to a life of quiet desperation. which tends to led to gangs which . . . you see where i'm going.

saw a statistic today that there are 30,000 gun deaths a year roughly. so this school shooting is what percent of that? and yet it's all over the news and has been. were these children special in some way? more so than this six year old shot on her front porch in a drive by?

yes, we have a problem. no, more knee jerk feel good restrictive laws aren't the answer.
 
2012-12-15 09:35:41 PM
I wouldn't suggest grabbing your guns. Won't work.

Instead, tax the hell of out of them, like cigarettes.

Add a 32% surchage tax on all firearm purchases, new and used, for state mental health facilities. State's rights, building "the nuthouses" from the ground floor up and keeping it local.

Add 27% federal surchage tax on ammunition to go to an armed TSA-like service that guards schools and other select "gun free zones."

And add "State processing fees." Just like the airlines.

Own two guns? A rifle and a handgun? Cool, whatever. Own three firearms or more? $5000 more, flat, on your federal income tax. Per gun. Each year. Get back to only two registered firearms, hey, no penalty.

Here's a few bones for you: Any firearms manufactured from 1945 or before will be given a pass as historic relics. Turn in five weapons or more at your local police station for destruction for a one-time 50% tax deduction.
 
2012-12-15 09:35:50 PM

fusillade762: syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

So we should just do nothing? That's your solution?


Evidently. You should have seen how fast I got shot down (no pun intended) when I suggested that perhaps securing schools a little more than they are now might be a good thing. Keizer went off on everyone's refusal to accept any solutions too.

I don't know why people don't want to solve this problem, but as an anthropologist I'm finding it fascinating. You've got the ones saying "Ban guns!" and the ones saying No! People will just use [insert alternate weapon here]. You've got the ones saying "Treat mental illness!" and the ones saying No! That will just encourage people not to get treated. Then there's the multi-sided arguments over what the 2d Amendment means and why and to whom. The people saying everyone should be armed and noone should be.

It's just amazing how this issue turns EVERYONE'S brains to sand. Any chance of rational discussion seems to vanish--either there's a solution that solves everything once and forever, or there's no point because somehow people will find a way to kill kids so why try. It's astonishing.
 
2012-12-15 09:36:25 PM
For the people proposing more gun control, just precisely how far do you take that idea? Assault weapons ban? Magazine capacity ban? All guns banned?

My point is basically that, short of a full on ban of ALL firearms, you're putting a band-aid on a ....gunshot wound. So are you proposing we go that far, and have our government take guns from all the law abiding citizens in this country? I'm genuinely curious how many people are proposing this idea as realistic.

If you don't take the idea this far, how exactly do you propose laws that will be effective? Despite one or two reports to the contrary, almost every report I've read said the Bushmaster rifle was in his car. If true, he committed his crimes with a Glock and a Sig Sauer, which are fairly general semi-automatic handguns. Banning high capacity magazines just means more magazines need to be carried for same effect. Banning automatic weapons in this case, and in almost every gun crime case in the country, would not apply. Banning handguns?

And once again, if you do agree with getting rid of ALL guns, how do law abiding citizens protect themselves when a criminal inevitably attacks, and possibly with an illegally obtained firearm? Do we really expect all responsibility for protection to fall on our police and governments? By the time the first responders were pulling up to the school and putting on their bulletproof vests, it appears the gunman's crimes were complete and he was already dead. As the phrase goes, "when seconds count, help is only minutes away". How do you rectify the idea that making legitimate self-defense harder to accomplish can't possibly work in situations like this, when the police can't be everywhere and can't possibly respond in an effective time frame?
 
2012-12-15 09:37:16 PM

rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?


Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.
 
2012-12-15 09:37:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no

You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.


Insane right wingers with guns are a problem wherever they are.
 
2012-12-15 09:37:58 PM

birdmanesq: Part of this is a messaging problem. We need to specify what regulations we're talking about. I have a whole host of ideas, but it's Saturday night and as much as I'd love to stay in and argue about guns on the Internet I actually have a date with my wife...


And I can tell you right now that most, if not all of your ideas won't fly. No offense, but a Chicago lawyer isn't exactly someone I'd attribute much knowledge about guns to.
 
2012-12-15 09:38:57 PM

Gyrfalcon: It's just amazing how this issue turns EVERYONE'S brains to sand. Any chance of rational discussion seems to vanish--either there's a solution that solves everything once and forever, or there's no point because somehow people will find a way to kill kids so why try. It's astonishing.


My theory is that organizations like the NRA aren't willing to make even the slightest compromise because they are afraid that statistics will show that it works and then people will be willing to go even further in restricting gun ownership. In other words, they are afraid of a possible good outcome from sensible gun controls.
 
2012-12-15 09:39:36 PM

rohar: tolallorti: rohar: tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.

Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?

If it prevented the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons rather than pussyfooting around with background checks it would have been more effective. Outlaw the shiat. And don't give me the shiat about outlaws still bring capable of getting them; if the major companies are banned from production handguns will become a rare commodity, meaning they'll be too expensive for your average shiathead gangbanger to get their hands on one.

So you can point to any time in American history where a change in gun control laws correlated with a change in gun violence? Either positive or negative?

I'm guessing not, because that point doesn't exist. "I believe" isn't a very effective debate tactic.


Alright, compare our spree killing statistic to practically any other first world country. Like say what you want about britain's nanny state but they have the luxury of only having to fear knives, and a much lower murder rate that goes along with it.
 
2012-12-15 09:40:51 PM
Also:

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?

And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"

This thread was about people's response to the recent attack.
Get a clue.
You lost.
1/10 for trying to save face.


This was really REALLY dumb. Even for you.
 
2012-12-15 09:41:34 PM
Fewer guns or better access to health care. Republicans oppose both.

To them, dead children are just the cost of doing business.
 
2012-12-15 09:43:02 PM
Well, unless the regulations people want deal with the safe storage of firearms then the point is kinda moot. The killer stole the weapons from his mother who he killed. He didn't pick these up at a gun show or some other "loophole". Its likely he couldn't 1) afford them and 2) pass any kind of background check needed for purchase.

This was the gun owner's failure to secure her own firearms coming back to haunt her.
 
2012-12-15 09:43:09 PM

trackstr777: For the people proposing more gun control, just precisely how far do you take that idea? Assault weapons ban? Magazine capacity ban? All guns banned?


Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
Ban all assault weapons
Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements
Add mental health screening to application process
Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands
No open carry or CCW allowed
 
2012-12-15 09:43:17 PM

chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?


Do you have ANY ideas? Because guns aren't going away. So you might want to be open to something that could help, or you're just another part of the problem. The last three you picked to fit your argument might have been treated for mental illness if treatment was more readily available and destigmatized.
 
2012-12-15 09:43:35 PM

trackstr777: Banning high capacity magazines just means more magazines need to be carried for same effect.


Carrying magazines off the gun and having to reload frequently is an impediment to "efficiency" and an opportunity for someone to strike back or run away or hide.
 
2012-12-15 09:43:45 PM

trackstr777: For the people proposing more gun control, just precisely how far do you take that idea? Assault weapons ban? Magazine capacity ban? All guns banned?

My point is basically that, short of a full on ban of ALL firearms, you're putting a band-aid on a ....gunshot wound. So are you proposing we go that far, and have our government take guns from all the law abiding citizens in this country? I'm genuinely curious how many people are proposing this idea as realistic.

If you don't take the idea this far, how exactly do you propose laws that will be effective? Despite one or two reports to the contrary, almost every report I've read said the Bushmaster rifle was in his car. If true, he committed his crimes with a Glock and a Sig Sauer, which are fairly general semi-automatic handguns. Banning high capacity magazines just means more magazines need to be carried for same effect. Banning automatic weapons in this case, and in almost every gun crime case in the country, would not apply. Banning handguns?

And once again, if you do agree with getting rid of ALL guns, how do law abiding citizens protect themselves when a criminal inevitably attacks, and possibly with an illegally obtained firearm? Do we really expect all responsibility for protection to fall on our police and governments? By the time the first responders were pulling up to the school and putting on their bulletproof vests, it appears the gunman's crimes were complete and he was already dead. As the phrase goes, "when seconds count, help is only minutes away". How do you rectify the idea that making legitimate self-defense harder to accomplish can't possibly work in situations like this, when the police can't be everywhere and can't possibly respond in an effective time frame?


Banning all handguns and semiautomatic rifles would be a start. Shotguns and bolt action rifles only. Maybe also ban hollow point bullets. Hunters can still hunt and people can still protect their homes, but its harder to kill lots of people in a short amount of time.

And the coroner today said all bullet wounds were caused by a long rifle and not handguns. Not sure if it was the AR-15 or not. I saw the car report too but there's lots of false info out there.
 
2012-12-15 09:43:50 PM

badhatharry: Lionel Mandrake: badhatharry: Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.

So, you have the ability to look into parallel universes and see that in worlds exactly like ours but without these laws and procedures, exactly the same number of crimes occurred in exactly the same way?

That's one hell of a gift.

We can look at the past and compare it to today. Guns are not a new invention. They have been around a while


There are nations that enacted strict gun control following massacres like this, that have had none since then.

We can look at that, too.
 
2012-12-15 09:46:25 PM

trackstr777: For the people proposing more gun control, just precisely how far do you take that idea? Assault weapons ban? Magazine capacity ban? All guns banned?

My point is basically that, short of a full on ban of ALL firearms, you're putting a band-aid on a ....gunshot wound. So are you proposing we go that far, and have our government take guns from all the law abiding citizens in this country? I'm genuinely curious how many people are proposing this idea as realistic.

If you don't take the idea this far, how exactly do you propose laws that will be effective? Despite one or two reports to the contrary, almost every report I've read said the Bushmaster rifle was in his car. If true, he committed his crimes with a Glock and a Sig Sauer, which are fairly general semi-automatic handguns. Banning high capacity magazines just means more magazines need to be carried for same effect. Banning automatic weapons in this case, and in almost every gun crime case in the country, would not apply. Banning handguns?

And once again, if you do agree with getting rid of ALL guns, how do law abiding citizens protect themselves when a criminal inevitably attacks, and possibly with an illegally obtained firearm? Do we really expect all responsibility for protection to fall on our police and governments? By the time the first responders were pulling up to the school and putting on their bulletproof vests, it appears the gunman's crimes were complete and he was already dead. As the phrase goes, "when seconds count, help is only minutes away". How do you rectify the idea that making legitimate self-defense harder to accomplish can't possibly work in situations like this, when the police can't be everywhere and can't possibly respond in an effective time frame?


And how many years of firearms training do you have? Why are you qualified to pull out a gun in a school and shoot at an attacker? If you missed a killed a child or two, would you be vindicated? When your inexperienced and jumpy self gets surprised and killed all you have done is add another weapon to the incident. I have the training and the time invested with firearms to make that decision, and just like the theater shooting, a trained user of firearms wouldn't have even readied a weapon.
 
2012-12-15 09:46:37 PM

Curious: before we restrict guns. magazines, etc let's address and correct how the "war on drugs" has added to the gun problem. let us also address the appalling condition of the inner city schools and how that leads to a life of quiet desperation. which tends to led to gangs which . . . you see where i'm going.

saw a statistic today that there are 30,000 gun deaths a year roughly. so this school shooting is what percent of that? and yet it's all over the news and has been. were these children special in some way? more so than this six year old shot on her front porch in a drive by?

yes, we have a problem. no, more knee jerk feel good restrictive laws aren't the answer.


Thank you for bringing up the drug war and focusing on the bigger picture of gun violence in this country.

/smartest post on this thread
 
2012-12-15 09:46:45 PM
Clearly the only solution is to arm even more people with guns.

That would put an end to these mass shootings for sure!
 
2012-12-15 09:46:47 PM

pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.


I suggest requiring a shotgun in every principal's office.
 
2012-12-15 09:47:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.


Too bad you conveniently left out bombs when replying. These crazies are using guns because the gun culture here in America and the media makes shoot-em-ups the thing to do. Take away the guns and we still have a culture of crazy attention whores. You should be careful what you wish for, because if firebombing suddenly becomes what the cool psychos do because of lack of guns, the death toll will be much higher. You don't think the Aurora guy probably would have killed more people if he's used a couple chains and padlocks and the 10 gallons of gas he had in his apartment instead of a jam-o-matic scary looking drum magazine and a tacticool shotgun? Gunning an SUV into the crowded line outside? A barrel full of lawn fertilizer and diesel fuel driven into the lobby? I'll stick with handguns, they're notoriously unreliable at killing people.
 
2012-12-15 09:47:32 PM

pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.


That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".
 
2012-12-15 09:47:45 PM
I'm in my thirties. When I was a kid, we did drills once a year where we got under out desks because we were worried that the soviets were going to nuke or otherwise invade us. Things ultimately had to change for the better, because my generation thought that was an intolerable fear for a kid to carry from day to day.
Now you've got kids dying by the dozens for real in increasing frequency, metal detectors and police patrols and zero tolerance policies, all accepted as alternatives to logical compromises on a gun culture that claims to protect citizens from foreign threats like those defunct commies and the circle-jerk Red Dawn scenarios that are the second amendment's only nutty justification for existing.
 
2012-12-15 09:48:51 PM
This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.
 
2012-12-15 09:49:12 PM

12349876: trackstr777: Banning high capacity magazines just means more magazines need to be carried for same effect.

Carrying magazines off the gun and having to reload frequently is an impediment to "efficiency" and an opportunity for someone to strike back or run away or hide.


Quite a few stoppages occur on a magazine swap as well.
 
2012-12-15 09:49:59 PM

birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.


Here's the evidence:

The Founders clearly meant it to be an individual liberty. If it's not abundantly clear from the Constitution, it's abundantly clear from their writings.

However, we face a public health crisis. Guns kill almost as many people as drunk drivers, and it's a tragedy that need addressing. The Constitution contains a mechanism for changing it, but it is considered too difficult in the face of gun owners to get that done. I am wary of any process used to get around that difficult limitation, because once it's used for guns, it can be used on a host of other rights we hold dear.

The wriggle room is apparently in where we may draw the line. After all, even the Founders would balk at private ownership of nuclear weapons, so obviously most people would concur that the line is well short of that. But again, any limitation on the right is a process that can be used to limit other rights.

The complication is that there is actually little difference between what are commonly referred to as assault weapons and a host of less glamorous weapons. Limiting people to bolt-action rifles is not going to get support from enough people to implement, and once you accept semi-automatic rifles, just about any other ban is cosmetic at this point. (Creating your own magazines is actually not hard, and will become trivial as 3-D printers become more accessible.)

Handguns face the same issues. A semi-automatic and a revolver both fire a round each time the trigger is pulled without the need for the operator to intervene. The magazine issue is as above.

It's a conundrum, and it's not an easy one to solve.

/Truth in advertising: I own an assault rifle, but am not a member of the NRA because their politics are too extreme. I support several options for regulating arms, but have yet to see a ban proposed that doesn't use reasoning that puts at risk our other rights.
 
2012-12-15 09:50:00 PM

rohar: Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine


...because the real world so very often gives us controlled situations where you get one variable correlations, which is why you've spent the rest of the thread dismissing everyone's attempts to meet your impossible scenario.

You're an idiot.
 
2012-12-15 09:51:11 PM
It is time we had an honest and rational discussion of guns in the United States of America.

farm9.staticflickr.com

sign here
 
2012-12-15 09:51:31 PM

tolallorti: rohar: tolallorti: rohar: tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.

Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?

If it prevented the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons rather than pussyfooting around with background checks it would have been more effective. Outlaw the shiat. And don't give me the shiat about outlaws still bring capable of getting them; if the major companies are banned from production handguns will become a rare commodity, meaning they'll be too expensive for your average shiathead gangbanger to get their hands on one.

So you can point to any time in American history where a change in gun control laws correlated with a change in gun violence? Either positive or negative?

I'm guessing not, because that point doesn't exist. "I believe" isn't a very effective debate tactic.

Alright, compare our spree killing statistic to practically any other first world country. Like say what you want about britain's nanny state but they have the luxury of only having to fear knives, and a much lower murder rate that goes along with it.


Gosh, I don't know, How 'bout we start with the lack of a medical/psychological safety net. Let's throw in a pile of trickle down for kicks. While we're at it, how 'bout we, as legislators, spend more time on TV deciding the nation and feeding into every known paranoid fantasy in the country.

You see, gun law isn't the only thing different. It just turns out that when there's nothing left after all this mental and financial terrorism, there's little to turn to except a gun.

The question shouldn't be "how did they do it?". It should be "why did they do it?"
 
2012-12-15 09:51:43 PM
It's as simple as this:

A gun turns a dangerous person into a deadly one.

I like to shoot guns, I like to hunt, and have a healthy respect for guns and gun ownership. But we can do better... a lot better. There is more to fix that just the availability of guns to dangerous people, but that's a good place to start.
 
2012-12-15 09:55:12 PM

IMDWalrus: rohar: Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine

...because the real world so very often gives us controlled situations where you get one variable correlations, which is why you've spent the rest of the thread dismissing everyone's attempts to meet your impossible scenario.

You're an idiot.


In this case, it has. You seem to be ignorant of our recent history. It's ok, I won't hold it against you.
 
2012-12-15 09:55:15 PM
I wish we could pass a bill to make bad things stop happening.
I own many firearms, I'd throw them to the bottom of a lake today if it could stop things like this happening.

I think the only legislation we can pass to maybe impact this stuff is:

-better approaches to mental health. (completely unrelated to firearm law)

-a component to measure/check/address possible mental health issues injected into the firearm procurement process

-carry licenses for ALL firearms. bolt action rifles, semi-rifles all of it. Every firearm purchase or transfer needs to be held to the same standards that handguns use.

-severely up the penalties to gun owners if someone else is able to gain access to their weapons. if someone does get to your weapons and uses them to commit a crime you should be held nearly as responsible for the actions as the person that commits the crime.

Many gun-owning friends of mine (several are typical rednecks, fearful of the UN and Obama Hussain) always drone on about responsibility and rights and leagues and leagues of bullshiat. Well, back it up! We should be proud to go get a carry permit or a license proving our firearms legal ownership, we should encourage documentation of firearm ownership.

they go on about "well then they'll have secret lists so when the black helicopters come they'll know who to go after first!" ... these people should be pointed at and laughed at by society. This has no place in the national debate on how to responsibly and sensibly improve our policies. This ranks below Jenny Mccarthy's opinions on vaccines.

There is just a ton of things we can be doing to better shape the landscape in the future. I'm completely against a ban of anything (since when has banning something done jack all?). We can do tons to push for more responsible gun purchasing, screening of those who shouldn't own, encouraging responsible ownership and control of the ones out there and again, lots more we can be doing in the field of mental health starting with addressing the stigmas associated with depression, social anxiety, bullying etc...

Just as the best fix to terrorism is making would-be terrorist realize that there are other ways to move forward, the best way to keep people from shooting up innocents and committing suicide is to realize there is a better path to dealing with whatever is going on in their lives that might motivate such acts.

We will never stop em all,
but we currently seem to be doing very poorly at stopping any of them.
 
2012-12-15 09:55:21 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: Lsherm: Coolfusis: Canada has about the only real solution to this - removal of handguns. Anyone with a handgun that isn't in a uniform is a criminal.

Handguns aren't banned in Canada, except for ones with extremely short barrels, or that shoot .25 or .32 caliber ammunition. Other are restricted, which means you need to be licensed to get them. They still grant plenty of licenses for gunowners.

I'm not trying to justify tightening our own gun laws, I'm just saying Canada has managed to do it without banning handguns entirely, which I believe is what you thought they did.

I suspect Canada doesn't have as many sociopaths& batshiat insane people per capita as the United States does.

/ 'just sayin


They have 280 million less people than the US, spread out over a geographic area that isn't much smaller. Even if they have the same amount of batshiat insane people per capita, you wouldn't expect the same number of batishiat people acting out every year. Maybe once a decade.
 
2012-12-15 09:57:37 PM

Gyrfalcon: fusillade762: syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

So we should just do nothing? That's your solution?

Evidently. You should have seen how fast I got shot down (no pun intended) when I suggested that perhaps securing schools a little more than they are now might be a good thing. Keizer went off on everyone's refusal to accept any solutions too.

I don't know why people don't want to solve this problem, but as an anthropologist I'm finding it fascinating. You've got the ones saying "Ban guns!" and the ones saying No! People will just use [insert alternate weapon here]. You've got the ones saying "Treat mental illness!" and the ones saying No! That will just encourage people not to get treated. Then there's the multi-sided arguments over what the 2d Amendment means and why and to whom. The people saying everyone should be armed and noone should be.

It's just amazing how this issue turns EVERYONE'S brains to sand. Any chance of rational discussion seems to vanish--either there's a solution that solves everything once and forever, or there's no point because somehow people will find a way to kill kids so why try. It's astonishing.


This school already had a single entrance system with a camera. Maybe we should use old prisons for our children now, unless of course the shooter forces his way in just like Lanza did. I heard someone say once the shooter is in the parking lot with a loaded gun it is already to late. That is exactly what I believe.

Maybe we should let the tsa run school security, arm the teachers and every adult on campus with an assault rifle and a tactical shotgun (a pistol against someone with an ak 47 would defeat the whole point) and body armor, then our kids will finally be safe. That might work, of course once we've turned our schools into a cross between an airport and a prison we will finally have something concrete to look at everyday and remind us what a shiathole this country is becoming.
 
2012-12-15 09:57:51 PM

badhatharry: Guns are already prohibited at schools. Gun purchases require registration and background checks. The NSA is watching his internet activity. None of it is particulary effective against homicidal maniacs.


The problem isn't too much\little screening, it's type. There's a specific list of mental illnesses to screen for. Screen for that, and we'd stop this type of killing. Throw in some mandatory gun safety training, and you'd probably cut the rates of accidents in half.
 
2012-12-15 09:57:54 PM
How about thousands of free 24 hr mental health treatment facilities around the country, instead? Need to biatch about your boss after work? Stop in. Get homicidal tendencies at 2 am and the fark server is down? Drop by. Wanna check yourself in for a two week tune up? Great! Just check your guns at the desk. And pipe bombs. And hack saws.
 
2012-12-15 09:58:30 PM

Practical_Draconian: Here's a few bones for you: Any firearms manufactured from 1945 or before will be given a pass as historic relics


Awesome!!!

.45's, M1 Garands, and Thompsons!

Please make more legislation without knowing what you are talking about....just like all the other gun grabbers.
 
2012-12-15 10:00:10 PM
Old 'n busted: "LIBS! LIBS! LIBS!"

New hotness: "Gun grabbers."
 
2012-12-15 10:00:21 PM

rohar: tolallorti: rohar: tolallorti: My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians, but allow for a grandfather clause for previously registered semi-automatic firearms. If a gun is used in a crime it is taken off the streets and destroyed. Before long the only semi-automatic weapons will be in the hands of law abiding enthusiasts, and people would still be able to buy hunting rifles/guns you can't spray down a public place with.

Gun violence in America INCREASED per capita after the Brady bill. Surely, if we do more of that it'll decrease right?

If it prevented the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons rather than pussyfooting around with background checks it would have been more effective. Outlaw the shiat. And don't give me the shiat about outlaws still bring capable of getting them; if the major companies are banned from production handguns will become a rare commodity, meaning they'll be too expensive for your average shiathead gangbanger to get their hands on one.

So you can point to any time in American history where a change in gun control laws correlated with a change in gun violence? Either positive or negative?

I'm guessing not, because that point doesn't exist. "I believe" isn't a very effective debate tactic.


You keep using those words as if you know what they mean. There is plenty if really good work by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig that demonstrates all sorts of fun relationships between gun ownership, gun control, and gun violence. So if you want data, start there. Though you'll likely not like what you find.
 
2012-12-15 10:01:20 PM

justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.


We also have Switzerland
 
2012-12-15 10:01:52 PM

Saborlas: I wish I had the cash to invest in Smith & Wesson, because the moment Obama opens his mouth on the topic, gun sales are gonna SKYROCKET.


Stocks generally move because of long-term outlook. Just because gun sales skyrocket for the following two weeks after Obama makes a comment, that's no reason to up the value of the stock. What's the sustained outlook for S&W? If Obama manages to push through legislation that may curb the use (or worse, in your case, purchase) of guns, S&W's stock price will tank. That one week blip would be mostly useless, and your short-term trading would be taxed at income rates and not capital gains rates.
 
2012-12-15 10:03:37 PM
I'm a liberal.

I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I support single payer healthcare. I think the Iraq War was an epic mistake and total failure. I despise the Patriot Act. I am fervently pro-choice.

That being said. I'm also stridently pro-gun.

I won't join the NRA because it's a bunch of bozos who care more about scaring people to get money to pay their permanent staff than actually doing anything.

However, I support the right to bear arms, strongly.

Saying that kids died, so we need to ban guns is just "think of the children!" being used by liberals instead of conservatives.

For once, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I'm glad we've got a gridlock Congress where nothing happens, because I don't see any serious gun control going out of the Republican-lead House, and it's a place where I could honestly think a Senator would be justified in filibustering it.

Remember Columbine? That was dead in the middle of the old Assault Weapons Ban, and that didn't stop anything. Gun sales have skyrocketed since Obama was re-elected, because of fears of gun control. You can bet the more talk there is of it now, the more guns will sell, and right now they sell in many states with no registry of to whom or where, so you're never going to make them all disappear.

In World War II, the Dutch Resistance made submachine guns with the machine tools in a bicycle shop (and the plans are all over the internet). Yeah, you can make a crappy automatic SMG with just basic machine tools, some time, a modest level of skill, and raw metal to work with.

Prisoners make zip guns all the time. They are incarcerated, and manage to essentially build guns in a cave with a box of scraps.

All gun control will do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice their basic civil right to bear arms. 300 million law abiding citizens using their 2nd amendment rights responsibly, and 30 mentally ill people

Personally, to prevent this from happening again, I'd say use it as an excuse to bring out single-payer nationwide healthcare with comprehensive mental health coverage. If anybody in the US wants to talk to a mental health professional, they should be able to, free of charge, and receive any inpatient treatment that they need or medication that they need. THAT would cut down on these incidents.

Gun control is nothing but an easy feel-good solution that doesn't actually prevent anything.
 
2012-12-15 10:05:38 PM

MurphyMurphy: -severely up the penalties to gun owners if someone else is able to gain access to their weapons. if someone does get to your weapons and uses them to commit a crime you should be held nearly as responsible for the actions as the person that commits the crime.


I've always thought that this would be a good thing as well. I'm not sure the percentage of responsibility the owner should be held to, but in most cases there would be some.
 
2012-12-15 10:07:05 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: From a CNN report: The gunman's mother owned guns for self-defense, the aunt said.

What the hell kind of paranoid delusions are you suffering that you need an AR-15, a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and, if reports are to be believed, two other guns to protect you? From what? Zombies? Zee Germans? Jack-booted stormtroopers? Satan's minions? The UN? Commies? Roving bands of negroes? I have a shotgun for home protection and an air rifle for weeding out the local squirrel population, but if I ever felt the need for an assault rifle and more handguns than I have hands, I guess I'd take it as I sign that I need to move somewhere safer. I don't get it. But then again, I don't fetishize guns. It's a tool, like my hammer, just a lot less dangerous, and one that gets used much, much, much less often.


Generally, people own multiple weapons for multiple reasons. I don't own half a dozen guns because I think I need six different ways to defend myself.

1888 Mauser: historical significance. First weapon I owned. But at 124 years old, eventually couldn't be fired safely, and I decided to turn it in to the police to destroy.
1954 Moshin Nagant: North Korean rifle. Got it for interest and something to shoot other than the Mauser. The finish bubbles out of the stock as it over-heats. (After 10 rounds.)
1992 Taurus PT-92 handgun: nearby handgun range, whereas rifle range 40 minutes away.
1865 Black-Powder Replica Revolver. It was a POS and became unsafe. Ended up turning it in to the police to destroy.
2010 Shotgun: I discovered trap shooting. Was gifted a thousand rounds of target-load ammo. I actually only have 5 "real" rounds for it.
2012 StagArms AR-15: Always preferred a rifle and wanted something that was cheaper to fire than the Nagant, whose Ammo it turns out is usually surplus Russian and usually random. Last load I got was light armor-piercing, and you can't fire that in an indoor range.

So as you can see, I had reasons for each, none of which had to do with "I need another self-defense gun". An example of why I might consider another handgun is that, were I inclined to conceal-carry, the PT-92 is really too big. (I bought it before VA had a concealed weapons law.) So I could hypothetically decide to buy a small handgun.

All that is hobbyist. I don't carry weapons around, and I don't sit on my front porch with the AR-15 hoping to see me a varmit I kin shoot. I don't even hunt.
 
2012-12-15 10:07:07 PM

diaphoresis: birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

it's cameron.. never gonna happen. You're more likely to get hit by a meteorite while having sex in an elevator with 8 female porn stars while a midget in a clown suit takes pictures.


Hey, leave me out of your weird-ass fantasies.
 
2012-12-15 10:07:32 PM

gadian: How about thousands of free 24 hr mental health treatment facilities around the country, instead? Need to biatch about your boss after work? Stop in. Get homicidal tendencies at 2 am and the fark server is down? Drop by. Wanna check yourself in for a two week tune up? Great! Just check your guns at the desk. And pipe bombs. And hack saws.


Gun grabber.

/bomb grabber
//saw grabber
 
2012-12-15 10:07:42 PM
Big deal. The secession thing was absolutely retarded. I'd expect that a petition to legally ban the use of the term "sprinkles" instead of the proper "jimmies" to have more signatures than a secession petition. Because its less stupid.
 
2012-12-15 10:08:03 PM
There is no reasonable gun control legislation that can be passed that can change what happened or prevent it in the future. Obama would be foolish to engage in this debate at this time.

We are seeing a spike because the media has done its job.
 
2012-12-15 10:08:09 PM

Generic Republican: tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: I said specifically "Do more people die from these insane attacks".

Those are the only kind that kill people?

And, are we only counting the year of the Breivik attack?

With enough qualifiers, any stupid, useless statement can be "correct"

This thread was about people's response to the recent attack.
Get a clue.
You lost.
1/10 for trying to save face.

You are a liar. A shameless, bought and paid for liar. You are a creature worthy of no compassion, you are ugly and hateful.

I promised myself after years of lurking on this forum that I would never ignore someone in order to preserve objectivity on both sides of discourse. I was wrong.


Thank you for admitting that you were wrong about what you said about me. Your honesty is refreshing.
Freudian slip.
If want you meant to say is that you broke your promise, you would have said that, not said "I was wrong".
 
2012-12-15 10:09:06 PM

justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.


True enough. But an interesting (and sad) revelation is that, even accounting for population and gun ownership, we actually still have more deaths by a factor of two. There's something wrong with us, and it's not just that we have lots of guns.
 
2012-12-15 10:09:20 PM

rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".


Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this country needs to end.

I hate when people tell me why we can't do something. We CAN do something. There are enough smart people in this country to figure out how to effectively deal with this. But first we have to admit that there is a problem to be addressed and agree to do something about it.
 
2012-12-15 10:10:17 PM

vygramul: 2012 StagArms AR-15: Always preferred a rifle and wanted something that was cheaper to fire than the Nagant, whose Ammo it turns out is usually surplus Russian and usually random. Last load I got was light armor-piercing, and you can't fire that in an indoor range.


Right, dead children so you can have a cool toy.
 
2012-12-15 10:10:22 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Big deal. The secession thing was absolutely retarded. I'd expect that a petition to legally ban the use of the term "sprinkles" instead of the proper "jimmies" to have more signatures than a secession petition. Because its less stupid.


I'd like to know how many non-Texans signed it hoping they'd go away.
 
2012-12-15 10:10:28 PM
Guns aren't the cause of all of these incidences of murder happening.

Violence in general typically is caused by mentally disturbed people.

For some reason we no longer have a comprehensive system to treat the mentally ill. Apparently the US prefers to either have the mentally ill to voluntarily commit themselves to institutions when flagged a risk or ignore their issues and allow them to become homeless because in their mental states they're unemployable.

More gun control is not going to solve this. Treatment for ill people is what's really needed.
 
2012-12-15 10:10:50 PM

kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."


Isn't it interesting that the Republicans are party of the status quo?
 
2012-12-15 10:11:03 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Old 'n busted: "LIBS! LIBS! LIBS!"

New hotness: "Gun grabbers."


I was just trying to be polite.
 
2012-12-15 10:11:59 PM

justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.


Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?
 
2012-12-15 10:12:04 PM

ohokyeah: More gun control is not going to solve this. Treatment for ill people is what's really needed


Why can't we have both? We've seen that it works in other countries like Australia and the UK. Of course, they have both gun control and socialized medicine. Good luck getting either one past the GOP.
 
2012-12-15 10:12:12 PM

evil saltine: vygramul: 2012 StagArms AR-15: Always preferred a rifle and wanted something that was cheaper to fire than the Nagant, whose Ammo it turns out is usually surplus Russian and usually random. Last load I got was light armor-piercing, and you can't fire that in an indoor range.

Right, dead children so you can have a cool toy.


I was merely illustrating why one might have multiple guns. Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I think Obama is coming for them.

/Let me tell you about my pool...
 
2012-12-15 10:12:15 PM

Farker Soze: Too bad you conveniently left out bombs when replying. These crazies are using guns because the gun culture here in America and the media makes shoot-em-ups the thing to do. Take away the guns and we still have a culture of crazy attention whores. You should be careful what you wish for, because if firebombing suddenly becomes what the cool psychos do because of lack of guns, the death toll will be much higher. You don't think the Aurora guy probably would have killed more people if he's used a couple chains and padlocks and the 10 gallons of gas he had in his apartment instead of a jam-o-matic scary looking drum magazine and a tacticool shotgun? Gunning an SUV into the crowded line outside? A barrel full of lawn fertilizer and diesel fuel driven into the lobby? I'll stick with handguns, they're notoriously unreliable at killing people.


Take a look at places like England and Australia in the aftermath of increasing gun control laws.

Other forms of mass killing DID NOT go up
 
2012-12-15 10:12:35 PM
And people have to stop ignoring the signs that their family members or friends are mentally unstable.
 
2012-12-15 10:12:46 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.

Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?


No gun law is going to be perfect. The fact that it's only ever happened once there and it's happened twice in a weekend here has to tell you something's different here.
 
2012-12-15 10:13:29 PM
We will continue to hear the same old tire responses like "only criminals will have guns" "knives, autos are deadly weapons etc. These responses are meaningless and do not address or offer any type of resolution and prevention of the issues.

Most of my life I have been pretty tolerant of our present gun laws despite the fact that my two first and childhood friends in my life Billy and Jim died of bullets in their heads before they reached the age of 18. I never saw Billy's body, it was closed casket. I did see Jim's body because he lived for about a day. I visited him at the hospital, seeing a best friend with a head swollen to about double A face that was partially gone the rest purple and green. Quite a sad and profound sight for a young person. Such a sense of loss but certainly nothing that can compare with the parents of the young kids whom were massacred in Newtown.

l have enjoyed shooting guns, I grew up with a .22 rifle and in my adult years I have often enjoyed skeet shooting. But, now, I have reached a tipping point. I do not feel that being tolerant or soft on the issue is in our society's interest. I am sure that I am not alone. I am pretty sure that our nation is really going to take a deep hard look at this. I now support a total ban of handguns and guns that most would consider to be semi-automatic, automatic assault rifles. These weapons are designed for just one use, to kill people. Other guns such as rifles and shotguns... There should be no workarounds for buying without a background check, registration, and mandatory training and safety classes. Not just at purchase but for lifetime at regular intervals. You should also be able to show that these weapons are locked in a safe manner. Even at that I am going to question why you think you should own a gun, are you part of a "well regulated militia"? should be one of the questions. I am no longer interested in your entertainment value of a gun. I have never been interested in the "what if" gun fantasies that the culture relies upon.

We have a crises in this country -- and it is about guns, the lies that are said about them and the people and institutions (NRA) that perpetuate the lies.

There certainly will not be any type of solutions coming from the NRA, GOP, etc... The NRA does not represent sportsmen, the candidates they back are almost always vote no on environmental issues. Their interest lie with the manufacturers. They have never offered any solutions to this type of threat. Their main activity lately has been to issue "OH NO THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS" memos resulting in spikes in prices of ammo and weapons. When your stated goal is to uphold the second amendment, yet your lobby group seem oblivious to the fact that the world is changing, and you provide no ideas or solutions to the fact that through massacres like these will harm your supposedly long term goals in the eyes of the general public, you have failed. Failed over and over and over again. When you fail like that your responsibility will get taken away. Your ideas are no longer seem valid. In the end you may realize that your (in)actions may be the spark that starts the fire of bringing forth the reality of your fear-mongering memes. The result may well and should be a stark change in the way that the public views the gun culture, with disdain, much like drunk driving is now. I think we are likely to see a great backlash, Strict gun laws may well come in to fruition and I am all for it.

Tipping point for sure.
 
2012-12-15 10:13:41 PM

vygramul: There's something wrong with us, and it's not just that we have lots of guns.


American Exceptionalism?
 
2012-12-15 10:13:49 PM

evil saltine: vygramul: 2012 StagArms AR-15: Always preferred a rifle and wanted something that was cheaper to fire than the Nagant, whose Ammo it turns out is usually surplus Russian and usually random. Last load I got was light armor-piercing, and you can't fire that in an indoor range.

Right, dead children so you can have a cool toy.


Right, poor grandmas losing their life savings to Nigerian scammers just so you can post inane shiat on the internet.
 
2012-12-15 10:15:18 PM

HairBolus: Take a look at places like England and Australia in the aftermath of increasing gun control laws.

Other forms of mass killing DID NOT go up


Finding gun death statistics is not terribly difficult. I do wonder, though, at explosives used in homicides. I have a suspicion that, compared to other countries, we are well ahead there, too.
 
2012-12-15 10:15:53 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: vygramul: There's something wrong with us, and it's not just that we have lots of guns.

American Exceptionalism?


Something exceptionally wrong with us, yes.
 
2012-12-15 10:16:27 PM

violentsalvation: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Do you have ANY ideas? Because guns aren't going away. So you might want to be open to something that could help, or you're just another part of the problem. The last three you picked to fit your argument might have been treated for mental illness if treatment was more readily available and destigmatized.


Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. There is nothing that stands in the way of doing so except inertia. I think that shooting 20 kids might be enough to overcome that inertia.
 
2012-12-15 10:16:44 PM

Giltric: Practical_Draconian: Here's a few bones for you: Any firearms manufactured from 1945 or before will be given a pass as historic relics

Awesome!!!

.45's, M1 Garands, and Thompsons!

Please make more legislation without knowing what you are talking about....just like all the other gun grabbers.


I'm a gun owner, but if other gun owners think a society, any society is going to put up with these type of shootings for very long they are in for a nasty surprise. Their are people scraping those children's brains off the school walls, it cannot continue like this. I'm not sure how many more tots will get blown away before the people's outrage boils over but you bet we will reach the limit becuase lunitics with guns are becoming more common everyday, the real outrage is simmering now as people are beginning to realize the next massacre won't be far in the future. The breaking point is already close, if the pictures of the inside of the school get out, that might even be enough to push this country into action right now.
 
2012-12-15 10:16:48 PM

ohokyeah: Guns aren't the cause of all of these incidences of murder happening.

Violence in general typically is caused by mentally disturbed people.

For some reason we no longer have a comprehensive system to treat the mentally ill. Apparently the US prefers to either have the mentally ill to voluntarily commit themselves to institutions when flagged a risk or ignore their issues and allow them to become homeless because in their mental states they're unemployable.

More gun control is not going to solve this. Treatment for ill people is what's really needed.


cameroncrazy1984: ohokyeah: More gun control is not going to solve this. Treatment for ill people is what's really needed

Why can't we have both? We've seen that it works in other countries like Australia and the UK. Of course, they have both gun control and socialized medicine. Good luck getting either one past the GOP.


Because this is the US of A and we don't have anything to learn from anyone else because we are number one and so by definition whatever we do is the right way to do it!
 
2012-12-15 10:16:56 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.

Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?


The US has 5x the per capita gun related deaths compared to Norway.
 
2012-12-15 10:17:00 PM

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.

Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?

No gun law is going to be perfect. The fact that it's only ever happened once there and it's happened twice in a weekend here has to tell you something's different here.


Yeah. We are about 80 times bigger than they are, so we have more lunatics.
 
2012-12-15 10:17:34 PM

chuckufarlie: Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. T


That's about as likely as you being able to fire a semi-auto as fast as a machine gun.
 
2012-12-15 10:17:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.

Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?

No gun law is going to be perfect. The fact that it's only ever happened once there and it's happened twice in a weekend here has to tell you something's different here.


NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.

...stupid libs
 
2012-12-15 10:17:51 PM
AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process
AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
DISAGREE -- Ban all assault weapons
DISAGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

To the above 4 ideas, I argue that it's a lot of show, without much real practical effect. We have the TSA and shoe checks, but do you feel a lot of that is just looking like we're doing something, or do you genuinely feel safer going through an airport then you did previously? What would these changes practically do, in stopping these type of rampages? "Oh, he'll be restricted to one type of killing device, not multiple." "Oh, he'll need to reload a bit more often!"

Will it slightly increase the chance that someone could tackle an attacker in a massacre situation? Yes, I agree with that. Is that small chance enough to justify removing these weapons from the hands of the millions of law abiding citizens throughout our country that can responsibly handle them? I argue no. But again, my main point is that while slightly more effective, it just doesn't address the real issues. It still leaves room for people to get access to powerful weapons they can use to commit these tragedies, and at the added cost of preventing the legitimate self defense use by many Americans. I'm not advocating for the ban of all firearms nationwide, I'm just making the point from a practicality standpoint of stopping these massacres, it is a more logical solution to the problem than banning the "meaner" looking weapons.

Road rage is a huge problem, at least in my neck of the woods, and just recently down the road from me a man was followed home after he cut someone off in traffic; the assailant got out of his car, and started smashing the driver's head against the car, or something similar. The driver was able to pull out his concealed carry handgun, and use it to shoot the man in self defense. In your situation, this would be all but impossible, as in many situations a shotgun or rifle is not a practical self defense weapon. This is just one example, but there are many others.

DISAGREE -- No open carry or CCW allowed

Firstly, the violent crime rate for CCW holders is much much lower than the rate for the general population. Also, a few more of these people around could have changed the outcome of some of these events for the better. For all the people like Generic Republican who talk about the added risk of this.....it's better than nothing. In a terrible situation like that, I'd take my chances. If you honestly are so worried, tell me, which of these would you choose:

1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.

I know which one I'm taking. The cops are not showing up for at least a few minutes, so short of trying to tackle the asshole and hoping for the best, I'd rather have the CHANCE for someone to maybe take him out, than have no realistic way to defend myself. Never mind that the reason these guys are so effective is the element of surprise. Well trained CCW holders is its own element of surprise, and tips the balance back at least somewhat to the side of good. I'd rather take that, than hope the gunman runs out of bullets or has enough other targets to get at before finding me, while I'm hoping the farking cops finally show up.

Basically, if we are going to talk about changing gun laws, it's a matter of balance. Yes, the goal is to stop these tragedies from occurring. But we must also at the same point weigh the general effectiveness of the proposed changes, and the effect of the changes on our law abiding citizens. We don't live in a vacuum where it's a matter of "does it help solve the issue in ANY way? do it then". If that was the case, we could just ban all guns, post cops on every corner, etc. Short of proposing the conversion to a complete police state to solve these issues, we must weigh the good against the bad, and not just ignore any negative effect of more restrictions "BECUZ THE CHILLRUNS!
 
2012-12-15 10:18:27 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?


I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.
 
2012-12-15 10:18:47 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah. We are about 80 times bigger than they are, so we have more lunatics.


Just in this thread.
 
2012-12-15 10:19:00 PM

ohokyeah: Guns aren't the cause of all of these incidences of murder happening.

Violence in general typically is caused by mentally disturbed people.

For some reason we no longer have a comprehensive system to treat the mentally ill. Apparently the US prefers to either have the mentally ill to voluntarily commit themselves to institutions when flagged a risk or ignore their issues and allow them to become homeless because in their mental states they're unemployable.

More gun control is not going to solve this. Treatment for ill people is what's really needed.


So how do you propose passing legislation that commits all of the Republicans to mental institutions? It's kind of hard to pass health regulations when the mentally ill Republicans in congress themselves are voting on them.
 
2012-12-15 10:19:06 PM

themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that extends mental healthcare to everyone? We could call it Medicare Part E or something. Surely people would be okay with that if it'll prevent at least one mass shooting, right?


Done. Although it probably could stand a little beefing-up.
 
2012-12-15 10:19:23 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.

Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?


One mass shooting in Norway ever vs sixteen mass shootings in the US in 2012. See the difference?
 
2012-12-15 10:19:45 PM
Google Trends sheds some light on this situation. Link

Yes, the gun grabbers are feeling their oats now. They'll forget about it in a few months, though. But what if they don't?

The absolute maximum that happens is that we go back to 10-round maximums for handguns, with all currently-owned guns grandfathered in. With 340,000,000 used guns to choose from, let them have their precious AWB.
 
2012-12-15 10:19:45 PM

vygramul: Generally, people own multiple weapons for multiple reasons.


I guess I can understand your reasons, although I've never understand "going to the shooting range" as a hobby. I don't get it. "I pointed the gun at the paper target and pulled the trigger and made a hole in it, yaaaaay!" I fail to see the entertainment value, but then again I also don't get NASCAR or golf or other boring repetitive shiat, so what do I know. I've tried target shooting a couple of times and it's just dull and uninteresting to me. (Though trap shooting sounds fun.) And it sounds like you have some interesting historical pieces. But the stated reason for the mother was "defense." It just seems to me that an assault rifle is overkill for defense, unless you live in Somalia.
 
2012-12-15 10:19:47 PM

ohokyeah: Treatment for ill people is what's really needed.


Well yeah that might stop the white people from shooting up a school......but how will you stop gun violence?

This shooting was a statistical anomaly in the scheme of things....how about we teach kids not to look at Pablo Escobar as a role model, or Biggie and Tuvok.

Trace Adkins and Rascall Flatts never got into a firefight outside the country music awards.......In fact I don't think there has ever been a shooting outside the country music awards.
 
2012-12-15 10:19:53 PM
OK Conservatives you can have a ban on gay marriage because it's what the people want but it'll cost you your guns.
 
2012-12-15 10:20:03 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah. We are about 80 times bigger than they are, so we have more lunatics.


Now I'm sure someone is going to nitpick on "per capita" but I don't think there's a good way of scaling lunatics on a per capita basis.

But ultimately it's not the amount that is the culprit. American society is more thuggish than Norway. Chicago and DC had tight gun laws and yet they have huge crime problems.
 
2012-12-15 10:20:44 PM

Paleorific: There certainly will not be any type of solutions coming from the NRA, GOP, etc... The NRA does not represent sportsmen, the candidates they back are almost always vote no on environmental issues. Their interest lie with the manufacturers. They have never offered any solutions to this type of threat. Their main activity lately has been to issue "OH NO THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS" memos resulting in spikes in prices of ammo and weapons. When your stated goal is to uphold the second amendment, yet your lobby group seem oblivious to the fact that the world is changing, and you provide no ideas or solutions to the fact that through massacres like these will harm your supposedly long term goals in the eyes of the general public, you have failed. Failed over and over and over again. When you fail like that your responsibility will get taken away. Your ideas are no longer seem valid. In the end you may realize that your (in)actions may be the spark that starts the fire of bringing forth the reality of your fear-mongering memes. The result may well and should be a stark change in the way that the public views the gun culture, with disdain, much like drunk driving is now. I think we are likely to see a great backlash, Strict gun laws may well come in to fruition and I am all for it.

Tipping point for sure.


The world isn't changing.

Cowardly people are peeing their pants at the idea that other people have guns. They are using "think of the children" emotional pleas to emotion to justify oppressing their fellow Americans by taking away the civil right to bear arms.

That's what gun grabbers are to me: cowards. They live in fear, fear of their fellow man, fear of getting shot, fear of life. The odds of dying in an active shooter incident are still ridiculously low, you are way more likely to die of a long list of things, things we don't seem to give much of a crap about. They'll decry conservatives for using "think of the children", but then they'll come out and say that 20 dead kids is a reason to take away freedoms from every single American from now on. . .in other words "think of the children!"

Something bad happens, then they want a knee-jerk reaction that is quick and easy and makes it seem like it will never happen again.

Again, an assault weapons ban didn't stop Columbine. Any gun control that's much stronger won't pass Constitutional muster in light of the precedents of Heller v. DC and McDonald v Chicago. You aren't going to make any Constitutional changes when all those Red States will never vote to change the Second Amendment.

No tipping point. Hell, if it is, I'll be there to push back against any tipping. I won't be alone, I'd imagine I have a 9-digit sum of Americans behind me on that one. Yeah, I'll bet you can come up with 100,000,000 Americans that are stridently against increased gun control.

As Charleton Heston said, you can have my guns, when you take them from my cold, dead hands.
 
2012-12-15 10:21:06 PM

trackstr777: AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process
AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
DISAGREE -- Ban all assault weapons
DISAGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

To the above 4 ideas, I argue that it's a lot of show, without much real practical effect. We have the TSA and shoe checks, but do you feel a lot of that is just looking like we're doing something, or do you genuinely feel safer going through an airport then you did previously? What would these changes practically do, in stopping these type of rampages? "Oh, he'll be restricted to one type of killing device, not multiple." "Oh, he'll need to reload a bit more often!"

Will it slightly increase the chance that someone could tackle an attacker in a massacre situation? Yes, I agree with that. Is that small chance enough to justify removing these weapons from the hands of the millions of law abiding citizens throughout our country that can responsibly handle them? I argue no. But again, my main point is that while slightly more effective, it just doesn't address the real issues. It still leaves room for people to get access to powerful weapons they can use to commit these tragedies, and at the added cost of preventing the legitimate self defense use by many Americans. I'm not advocating for the ban of all firearms nationwide, I'm just making the point from a practicality standpoint of stopping these massacres, it is a more logical solution to the problem than banning the "meaner" looking weapons.

Road rage is a huge problem, at least in my neck of the woods, and just recently down the road from me a man was followed home after he cut someone off in traffic; the assailant got out of his car, and started smashing the driver's head against the car, or something similar. The driver was able to pull out ...


Nobody needs to own assault weapons or all magazines over a 5 round capacity. I will go a step further. There is not a legitimate reason for any civilian to own any semi-automatic or automatic rifles. They are useless for hunting. A bolt action rifle is all you need to go hunting.
 
2012-12-15 10:21:15 PM

trackstr777: Road rage is a huge problem, at least in my neck of the woods, and just recently down the road from me a man was followed home after he cut someone off in traffic; the assailant got out of his car, and started smashing the driver's head against the car, or something similar. The driver was able to pull out his concealed carry handgun, and use it to shoot the man in self defense.


Good thing the assailant didn't have his.
 
2012-12-15 10:21:42 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah. We are about 80 times bigger than they are, so we have more lunatics


Go back and learn what "per capita" means
 
2012-12-15 10:21:56 PM

Lionel Mandrake: NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.


Statistically, school shootings are a blip on the body count radar of crime victims. So yea, let's look at a larger data set than a few mass shootings.
 
2012-12-15 10:22:40 PM

Silverstaff: Gun control is nothing but an easy feel-good solution that doesn't actually prevent anything.


We already control guns - automatic firearms are fairly difficult to acquire. Accordingly, they are used in crimes very infrequently. So what is the rationale for so stringently regulating acquisition of fully automatic weapons? The very same reasoning can be used, but hasn't been, to shrink the pool of semi-automatic firearms available. That's what gun control is about - shrinking the pool and making them more difficult to acquire. You can whine about criminals not caring about gun laws but the fewer guns out there, the harder they are to get hold of.
 
2012-12-15 10:22:46 PM

Harry_Seldon: tenpoundsofcheese: justGreg: This isn't a theoretical debate. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than America (i.e., the entire civilized world) and they all have fewer gun deaths by orders of magnitude.

Norway has very strict gun laws and yet a lunatic managed to kill 80 people in a rampage including many children. What failed in that case? The gun laws or something else?

The US has 5x the per capita gun related deaths compared to Norway.


But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.

If we have higher per capita crime than Norway (?), I wouldn't be surprised to see a higher per capita gun deaths. If so, that is not because of a difference in the gun laws.
 
2012-12-15 10:23:05 PM

trackstr777: AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process
AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
DISAGREE -- Ban all assault weapons
DISAGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

To the above 4 ideas, I argue that it's a lot of show, without much real practical effect. We have the TSA and shoe checks, but do you feel a lot of that is just looking like we're doing something, or do you genuinely feel safer going through an airport then you did previously? What would these changes practically do, in stopping these type of rampages? "Oh, he'll be restricted to one type of killing device, not multiple." "Oh, he'll need to reload a bit more often!"

Will it slightly increase the chance that someone could tackle an attacker in a massacre situation? Yes, I agree with that. Is that small chance enough to justify removing these weapons from the hands of the millions of law abiding citizens throughout our country that can responsibly handle them? I argue no. But again, my main point is that while slightly more effective, it just doesn't address the real issues. It still leaves room for people to get access to powerful weapons they can use to commit these tragedies, and at the added cost of preventing the legitimate self defense use by many Americans. I'm not advocating for the ban of all firearms nationwide, I'm just making the point from a practicality standpoint of stopping these massacres, it is a more logical solution to the problem than banning the "meaner" looking weapons.

Road rage is a huge problem, at least in my neck of the woods, and just recently down the road from me a man was followed home after he cut someone off in traffic; the assailant got out of his car, and started smashing the driver's head against the car, or something similar. The driver was able to pull out his concealed carry handgun, and use it to shoot the man in self defense. In your situation, this would be all but impossible, as in many situations a shotgun or rifle is not a practical self defense weapon. This is just one example, but there are many others.

DISAGREE -- No open carry or CCW allowed

Firstly, the violent crime rate for CCW holders is much much lower than the rate for the general population. Also, a few more of these people around could have changed the outcome of some of these events for the better. For all the people like Generic Republican who talk about the added risk of this.....it's better than nothing. In a terrible situation like that, I'd take my chances. If you honestly are so worried, tell me, which of these would you choose:

1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.

I know which one I'm taking. The cops are not showing up for at least a few minutes, so short of trying to tackle the asshole and hoping for the best, I'd rather have the CHANCE for someone to maybe take him out, than have no realistic way to defend myself. Never mind that the reason these guys are so effective is the element of surprise. Well trained CCW holders is its own element of surprise, and tips the balance back at least somewhat to the side of good. I'd rather take that, than hope the gunman runs out of bullets or has enough other targets to get at before finding me, while I'm hoping the farking cops finally show up.

Basically, if we are going to talk about changing gun laws, it's a matter of balance. Yes, the goal is to stop these tragedies from occurring. But we must also at the same point weigh the general effectiveness of the proposed changes, and the effect of the changes on our law abiding citizens. We don't live in a vacuum where it's a matter of "does it help solve the issue in ANY way? do it then". If that was the case, we could just ban all guns, post cops on every corner, etc. Short of proposing the conversion to a complete police state to solve these issues, we must weigh the good against the bad, and not just ignore any negative effect of more restrictions "BECUZ THE CHILLRUNS!


You idiot, "becuase the children" is a valid response when they are getting shot in their classroom.
 
2012-12-15 10:23:06 PM

HairBolus: Farker Soze: Too bad you conveniently left out bombs when replying. These crazies are using guns because the gun culture here in America and the media makes shoot-em-ups the thing to do. Take away the guns and we still have a culture of crazy attention whores. You should be careful what you wish for, because if firebombing suddenly becomes what the cool psychos do because of lack of guns, the death toll will be much higher. You don't think the Aurora guy probably would have killed more people if he's used a couple chains and padlocks and the 10 gallons of gas he had in his apartment instead of a jam-o-matic scary looking drum magazine and a tacticool shotgun? Gunning an SUV into the crowded line outside? A barrel full of lawn fertilizer and diesel fuel driven into the lobby? I'll stick with handguns, they're notoriously unreliable at killing people.

Take a look at places like England and Australia in the aftermath of increasing gun control laws.

Other forms of mass killing DID NOT go up


Right, so it won't happen here, definitely. Because we can ignore the underlying cause of untreated crazy farkers thinking killing random people will get them the attention they crave (which it does because we let them, we practically glorify them) In American and expect things to change.
 
2012-12-15 10:23:30 PM
I'm amazed that the gun nuts have somehow been more pants passingly whiny over the past two days than the bleeding heart liberals.

Good god. These threads and Facebook have been filled with people crying about how nobody is going to take my guns and how it is stupid and oh my god unfair.

The idiotic thing is 90% of the same goddamn people were arguing against increased health care access 2 years ago. Now the same motherf*ckers are using that as the obvious solution to save their precious guns.

Let's increase access to mental health care. Let's also add in mental health evaluations to gun purchases to make sure that nutjobs like the VT killer aren't buying weapons. Lets also make sure that gun owners are properly securing their weapons and preventing the access to the registered owner. That way nutjobs like Lanza aren't getting the weapons.

People full these damn threads with idiotic comments about how nothing will work. Well, there are countries around the damn world that have gun laws and less per capita violence...what in the blue bloody f*ck are they doing?
 
2012-12-15 10:24:02 PM

Silverstaff: That's what gun grabbers are to me: cowards. They live in fear, fear of their fellow man, fear of getting shot, fear of life. The odds of dying in an active shooter incident are still ridiculously low, you are way more likely to die of a long list of things, things we don't seem to give much of a crap about. They'll decry conservatives for using "think of the children", but then they'll come out and say that 20 dead kids is a reason to take away freedoms from every single American from now on. . .in other words "think of the children!"


This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue. 

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.
 
2012-12-15 10:24:24 PM

Silverstaff: You aren't going to make any Constitutional changes when all those Red States will never vote to change the Second Amendment.


I suppose that's a valid point. Conservatives support the right to own any sort of weapon and they don't really care who suffers as a result.
 
2012-12-15 10:24:32 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: vygramul: Generally, people own multiple weapons for multiple reasons.

I guess I can understand your reasons, although I've never understand "going to the shooting range" as a hobby. I don't get it. "I pointed the gun at the paper target and pulled the trigger and made a hole in it, yaaaaay!" I fail to see the entertainment value, but then again I also don't get NASCAR or golf or other boring repetitive shiat, so what do I know. I've tried target shooting a couple of times and it's just dull and uninteresting to me. (Though trap shooting sounds fun.) And it sounds like you have some interesting historical pieces. But the stated reason for the mother was "defense." It just seems to me that an assault rifle is overkill for defense, unless you live in Somalia.


I guess it's just because accuracy is not easy. Like bow & arrow or darts, it's a challenge of dexterity, eyesight, and self-control to try to be consistent in doing a skill that is actually useful in other contexts and yet lots of people are generally not very good at. It's not my favorite hobby, as I now live too far from a range to do it regularly.
 
2012-12-15 10:25:06 PM
Don't dismiss the Call of Duty effect.
 
2012-12-15 10:25:42 PM

bulldg4life: I'm amazed that the gun nuts have somehow been more pants passingly whiny over the past two days than the bleeding heart liberals.

Good god. These threads and Facebook have been filled with people crying about how nobody is going to take my guns and how it is stupid and oh my god unfair.

The idiotic thing is 90% of the same goddamn people were arguing against increased health care access 2 years ago. Now the same motherf*ckers are using that as the obvious solution to save their precious guns.

Let's increase access to mental health care. Let's also add in mental health evaluations to gun purchases to make sure that nutjobs like the VT killer aren't buying weapons. Lets also make sure that gun owners are properly securing their weapons and preventing the access to the registered owner. That way nutjobs like Lanza aren't getting the weapons.

People full these damn threads with idiotic comments about how nothing will work. Well, there are countries around the damn world that have gun laws and less per capita violence...what in the blue bloody f*ck are they doing?


This X 1000!
 
2012-12-15 10:26:00 PM
tenpoundsofcheese:
But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.


Yes, so, address the question: How do we get these radical conservatives world-wide to self-commit themselves to mental institutions?
 
2012-12-15 10:26:02 PM

trackstr777: 1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.


The obvious solution is to keep a shooter from entering the building in the first place.
 
2012-12-15 10:26:34 PM

Giltric: This shooting was a statistical anomaly in the scheme of things....how about we teach kids not to look at Pablo Escobar as a role model, or Biggie and Tuvok.


Tim Russ?

cameroncrazy1984: The fact that it's only ever happened once there and it's happened twice in a weekend here has to tell you something's different here.


You're right. Let's go back to what the gun laws were like in let's say.... 1947. Is that random enough? Because we had no school shootings and a person could order an army issued rifle in the mail. That's different enough from what we have today and there was no gun problem. Deal?
 
2012-12-15 10:27:11 PM

Snarfangel: Can't we just have a full-blown Constitutional Convention, so everyone can get in on the fun? 

/I'll let people argue about gun control, while I sneak in proportional representation and a better tax code.


I'm not having a Constitutional Convention until the old white guys learn how to act like grown-ups on the Internet.
 
2012-12-15 10:27:17 PM

Silverstaff: Paleorific: There certainly will not be any type of solutions coming from the NRA, GOP, etc... The NRA does not represent sportsmen, the candidates they back are almost always vote no on environmental issues. Their interest lie with the manufacturers. They have never offered any solutions to this type of threat. Their main activity lately has been to issue "OH NO THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS" memos resulting in spikes in prices of ammo and weapons. When your stated goal is to uphold the second amendment, yet your lobby group seem oblivious to the fact that the world is changing, and you provide no ideas or solutions to the fact that through massacres like these will harm your supposedly long term goals in the eyes of the general public, you have failed. Failed over and over and over again. When you fail like that your responsibility will get taken away. Your ideas are no longer seem valid. In the end you may realize that your (in)actions may be the spark that starts the fire of bringing forth the reality of your fear-mongering memes. The result may well and should be a stark change in the way that the public views the gun culture, with disdain, much like drunk driving is now. I think we are likely to see a great backlash, Strict gun laws may well come in to fruition and I am all for it.

Tipping point for sure.

The world isn't changing.

Cowardly people are peeing their pants at the idea that other people have guns. They are using "think of the children" emotional pleas to emotion to justify oppressing their fellow Americans by taking away the civil right to bear arms.

That's what gun grabbers are to me: cowards. They live in fear, fear of their fellow man, fear of getting shot, fear of life. The odds of dying in an active shooter incident are still ridiculously low, you are way more likely to die of a long list of things, things we don't seem to give much of a crap about. They'll decry conservatives for using "think of the children", but then they'll come out and say that 20 dead kids is a reason to take away freedoms from every single American from now on. . .in other words "think of the children!"

Something bad happens, then they want a knee-jerk reaction that is quick and easy and makes it seem like it will never happen again.

Again, an assault weapons ban didn't stop Columbine. Any gun control that's much stronger won't pass Constitutional muster in light of the precedents of Heller v. DC and McDonald v Chicago. You aren't going to make any Constitutional changes when all those Red States will never vote to change the Second Amendment.

No tipping point. Hell, if it is, I'll be there to push back against any tipping. I won't be alone, I'd imagine I have a 9-digit sum of Americans behind me on that one. Yeah, I'll bet you can come up with 100,000,000 Americans that are stridently against increased gun control.

As Charleton Heston said, you can have my guns, when you take them from my cold, dead hands.


What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?
 
2012-12-15 10:27:41 PM

pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this country needs to e ...


Agreed, it needs to end. But what you're proposing doesn't end it.

We banned handguns in Chicago, here was the result:

www.justfacts.com

Handgun related crime doubled.

We banned handguns in D.C. here was the result:

www.justfacts.com

I'm almost ashamed to discuss what happened.

And just for kicks, this is what happened in Britain:

www.justfacts.com

Yup, that's right, homicides doubled after the 1968 gun ban.

Now that all facts we know point to gun bans doing nothing about homicides, what could improve the situation? Obviously it's not more gun bans, we tried that on any number of fronts and it only seems to exacerbate the issue. Maybe, just maybe, there's another variable at play...
 
2012-12-15 10:28:40 PM
kapaso

"You idiot, "becuase the children" is a valid response when they are getting shot in their classroom."

I didn't say we should do nothing, just that it isn't a valid justification for EVERYTHING. How about this: we could stop the spread of child pornography, along with a host of other crimes, and all we would need to do is allow warrantless surveillance of every American citizen across any electronic means at all times. And I'm not talking about the NSA or whatever 3-letter agency does shiat like this now, let's open up a new federal agency who has the sole purpose to do this and only this, with billions in funding, 1984 style. Sure, we'd sacrifice many of the liberties this country was founded on, but it's "FOR THE CHILDREN!". Are you for or against this idea?

Once again, you're the idiot making this a black and white issue. You try to posit the argument that to be against restrictions is to be for child killings, while I make the counterpoint that the net positive effect of stopping child killing must be weighed against the loss of freedoms and net negative effects, mainly the loss of ability to effectively defend one's self. So can you admit you're WRONG and it's not as simple as you make it seem, or are you FOR a 1984 style government because it would cut down on crime?
 
2012-12-15 10:28:45 PM

trackstr777: AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process


What does that mean exactly? Do we keep guns out of the hands of everyone with autism or ass burgers? Folks on Prozac or Ritalin? How is that going to work, exactly? Are we going to start giving folks Voight-Kampf tests ("Tell me only the good things that come into your mind about your mother." "I'll tell you about my mother!") before they buy a gun? Do you need to get a clean bill of health from a shrink before getting a gun? Is there some kind of quiz you can give that detects the presence of a Dark Passenger?

I keep hearing folks bring up the mental health thing, but in a world where having your kid on some kind of psych medication is trendy, where doctors hand out Prozac like Halloween candy, and a huge chunk of the population believes the President is a seekret muslin, if we start forbidding mentally defectives from having guns, there's not going to be a whole hell of a lot of people left qualified to own a gun. Fine with me, but I'm not sure that's the direction people are expecting to go.
 
2012-12-15 10:29:46 PM

chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.


Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?
 
2012-12-15 10:29:51 PM

BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic


It's the differences between digging a hole with a shovel or a backhoe.

Yes, a hole will be dug, but the backhoe will move alot more dirt.
 
2012-12-15 10:30:00 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.

Statistically, school shootings are a blip on the body count radar of crime victims. So yea, let's look at a larger data set than a few mass shootings.


"blip"

assets.nydailynews.com 

/thx for the TF
 
2012-12-15 10:30:16 PM
This petition needs to be directed at Republicans in Congress. Otherwise, it is a wasted effort.
 
2012-12-15 10:30:47 PM

bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?


Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.
 
2012-12-15 10:31:06 PM

rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this country ...


banning guns in DC when you can just go to Virginia and buy one almost anywhere, anytime.

Got to admit that when you hide the facts, your story does sound better.
 
2012-12-15 10:32:23 PM

Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.


If you're really scared about a petition to Obama then you must live a life being virtually scared of everything.
 
2012-12-15 10:33:02 PM

Farker Soze: HairBolus:

Take a look at places like England and Australia in the aftermath of increasing gun control laws.

Other forms of mass killing DID NOT go up


Right, so it won't happen here, definitely. Because we can ignore the underlying cause of untreated crazy farkers thinking killing random people will get them the attention they crave (which it does because we let them, we practically glorify them) In American and expect things to change.


Ok. Ignore real world examples of what happened in other countries. The opposite would happen in the US because of AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM. USA! USA!
 
2012-12-15 10:33:14 PM

trackstr777: kapaso

"You idiot, "becuase the children" is a valid response when they are getting shot in their classroom."

I didn't say we should do nothing, just that it isn't a valid justification for EVERYTHING. How about this: we could stop the spread of child pornography, along with a host of other crimes, and all we would need to do is allow warrantless surveillance of every American citizen across any electronic means at all times. And I'm not talking about the NSA or whatever 3-letter agency does shiat like this now, let's open up a new federal agency who has the sole purpose to do this and only this, with billions in funding, 1984 style. Sure, we'd sacrifice many of the liberties this country was founded on, but it's "FOR THE CHILDREN!". Are you for or against this idea?

Once again, you're the idiot making this a black and white issue. You try to posit the argument that to be against restrictions is to be for child killings, while I make the counterpoint that the net positive effect of stopping child killing must be weighed against the loss of freedoms and net negative effects, mainly the loss of ability to effectively defend one's self. So can you admit you're WRONG and it's not as simple as you make it seem, or are you FOR a 1984 style government because it would cut down on crime?


Why is it right wingers are only capable of arguing with positions that they make up?

I never advocated any solution, and I sure don't see the issue as black and white, idiot.
 
2012-12-15 10:33:36 PM

bulldg4life: I'm amazed that the gun nuts have somehow been more pants passingly whiny over the past two days than the bleeding heart liberals.


Ah, only delusional retards think that. We've seen a constant stream of whiny douchy folks trying to smear the blood of dead kids upon their shirt while crying that not enough people are taking their hysterical poorly planned schemes seriously.

Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.


It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.

Mrtraveler01: ...but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away


Because that's the solution being proposed! The pro-civil rights folks have offered a lot of things we can do to prevent this tragedy but the pinheaded anti-civil rights folks keep plugging their ears and yelling "No! Must ban guns! Ban them!!! Australia!!!!"
 
2012-12-15 10:33:40 PM
Knee jerk responses to national tragedies never had poor consequences.
www.newsrealblog.com
 
2012-12-15 10:34:02 PM

chuckufarlie: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this ...


So Britain, a European island where their neighbors damned near outlaw guns fits right into the same theory?

Can you cite a single gun control law that had any affect on homicide rates? Positive or negative?
 
2012-12-15 10:34:34 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: NO! One mass shooting provides the only relevant data. The many, many, many, many years we have far surpassed them are irrelevant, because one guy killed a lot of people one day.

Statistically, school shootings are a blip on the body count radar of crime victims. So yea, let's look at a larger data set than a few mass shootings.


That tool is weighing his entire "argument" on ONE incident.

You don't need to talk to me about larger data sets.
 
2012-12-15 10:34:39 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.

Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?


the phrase is that correlation does not imply causation. I think that you probably need to have that explained, don't ya?

There has never been a time or location that banned guns where there was not a way to get them across the border.


Tell me, how many children have to be gunned down before you are willing to budge from your position? Another fifty? Maybe you would need two hundred more to die violently before you see the folly of your position.

Go ahead, give me a number.
 
2012-12-15 10:34:43 PM

rohar: IMDWalrus: rohar: Ok, I''ll bite. Can anyone come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative would do.

/without that we're busy arguing over I believe, you believe
//no offense, but your beliefs aren't much better than mine

...because the real world so very often gives us controlled situations where you get one variable correlations, which is why you've spent the rest of the thread dismissing everyone's attempts to meet your impossible scenario.

You're an idiot.

In this case, it has. You seem to be ignorant of our recent history. It's ok, I won't hold it against you.


I'm not ignorant. You're just being a disingenuous ass.

rohar: Yes, but Australia has comprehensive mental health benefits. Look at that, an important external variable. What happened on that front at approximately the same time?


Nothing - their mental health law passed in 1986, a full decade before their assault weapons ban.

rohar: Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.


If we're going to blame single variables, why not go with the massive explosion of cocaine use? Increased gang activity? The advent of video games? Global warming?

The way you're picking and choosing statistics is making me think that you're either someone who's attempting to sound smart but doesn't really understand what you're talking about, or you're just trying to make your talking points work.
 
2012-12-15 10:34:44 PM

trackstr777: 1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.

I know which one I'm taking.


Citizen A is in aisle 10. Citizen B is in aisle 11. Both hear gunshots go off somewhere nearby. Both draw weapons and start looking for the shooter. Citizen A checks around the corner and sees Citizen B crouched in aisle 11 with a gun. How does Citizen A know that Citizen B is a "good guy"? He doesn't... so as Citizen B turns to look in the direction of Citizen A, Citizen A fires... Citizen C heard the shots too and then another shot. He zeroes in on Citizen A, who just shot Citizen B. Citizen C shoots Citizen A...

All sorts of scenarios like this are a problem with the idea of "hero citizen saves the day". The reality is that all any of those people with guns is likely going to do is make matters worse and increase the amount of lead flying around. Sure... there is the off chance that they might just put one in the head of the original shooter and drop them like a rock... but the chances are much higher that they are just going to make matters worse.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:03 PM

chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Do you have ANY ideas? Because guns aren't going away. So you might want to be open to something that could help, or you're just another part of the problem. The last three you picked to fit your argument might have been treated for mental illness if treatment was more readily available and destigmatized.

Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. There is nothing that stands in the way of doing so except inertia. I think that shooting 20 kids might be enough to overcome that inertia.


lol. There are tens of millions of semi-auto firearms in the US, or more, millions of them have been resold and are legally unregistered. I own a handful myself. Good luck, you support a gun control argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:04 PM

Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.


Where in the article (or the petition) is it implied that guns will be taken?

I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:11 PM
Millions of ignorant know-nothings add their name to an online petition asking the president to discuss gun control?

Color me shocked. SHOCKED.

/sounds like the perp's gun control worked splendidly and he scored 26 kills
//if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe 
///check him for prescription anti-depressants since the leader of Columbine pair, Cho@VTech, Loughner were all using too
 
2012-12-15 10:35:31 PM
Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:31 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun vio ...


still waiting on that number!!!
 
2012-12-15 10:35:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.

If you're really scared about a petition to Obama then you must live a life being virtually scared of everything.


Whoosh, way over your head.
 
2012-12-15 10:35:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.


Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.
 
2012-12-15 10:36:29 PM

mittromneysdog: This petition needs to be directed at Republicans in Congress. Otherwise, it is a wasted effort.


Because Obama has a long record of toughening gun laws, right? The only gun legislation he's signed as President has made it easier to take guns certain places.
 
2012-12-15 10:36:51 PM

Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese:
But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.

Yes, so, address the question: How do we get these radical conservatives world-wide to self-commit themselves to mental institutions?


By stop giving a pass to the radical liberals.
 
2012-12-15 10:37:02 PM

mittromneysdog: Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.


We just won a presidential election for the second straight time. I am thinking that there are enough people to support a change if Congress would act. Not that I expect them to act.
 
2012-12-15 10:37:23 PM
Popcorn Johnny

"The obvious solution is to keep a shooter from entering the building in the first place."

Which goes back to my original points, of asking how exactly you propose to make that happen? Do you sincerely expect to ban ALL firearms, and get rid of the millions of legal firearms throughout the country? If you want to stop the shooter in the first place, you can't just ban the mean looking ones or the ones with more bullets...you need to get rid of them ALL.

The other option to not letting them in the building is more people with guns. I guess despite our economy just barely starting to turn itself around and a huge deficit, we could pay billions for more law enforcement throughout the country, so we could start posting a cop or two in every school, church, supermarket, mall, etc. Unless you want to make every elementary school like a prison or get rid of EVERY gun, the only way to stop shooters from entering is negating that with armed individuals to combat them in those places.

Since you seem to be against normal citizens taking up that role, it means getting someone in uniform to do it, right? Let's ignore the other problem that pulling this off is really starting to turn our country into a "papers please" Soviet Russia type of place, and start with the simpler issue of "how are you going to get all the properly trained people to do that, and how the hell are you going to pay for it?"
 
2012-12-15 10:37:36 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "blip"


Smearing yourself with the blood of the dead isn't an ennobling act.

There are a number of women who've been the victims of sexual violence at the hands of felons released due to lenient prison sentences. Would it sway you if I posted their pics and demanding we pass a three strikes law on felonies?

No?

Then don't try and act the noble defender of the children when they're just a damn prop to you.
 
2012-12-15 10:37:50 PM

Mrbogey: It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.


"It's not conceit when people way more awesome than you point out your pathetic inferiority!!"

...what a doosh 
 
2012-12-15 10:38:10 PM
In other news, a bunch of bleeding hearts gave their contact info away to be sold to the highest bidder.

When I think of internet petitions, I think of that crazy guy on the street with a "The end is near!" sign. No one gives a shiat.
 
2012-12-15 10:38:11 PM

urban.derelict: //if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe


Yeah, dammit. WHY DON'T KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS PACK HEAT!!!
 
2012-12-15 10:38:17 PM

Silverstaff: Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.

Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.


You're being willfully dishonest if you haven't seen the same rabid deep from pro gun people the last two days
 
2012-12-15 10:38:39 PM

Silverstaff: Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.

Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.


we can eliminate certain types of guns without tarnishing the Second Amendment.

BTW, the assholes are not abusing a civil right, you moron, they are killing children,
 
2012-12-15 10:38:51 PM

Lionel Mandrake: "BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion."


---

Let's take a moment to inventory the weapons that Tim McVeigh, Mohammed Atta and Julio Gonzalez used to successfully commit mass murder, shall we?

(Spoiler: zero firearms in each case, and body counts 5, 100, and 3 times as high [respectively] as the highest-grossing shooting in US history.)
 
2012-12-15 10:39:38 PM

Lionel Mandrake: That tool is weighing his entire "argument" on ONE incident.


Yea, he's using sophistry. Something as an anti-civil gun rights activist you should be quite familiar.
 
2012-12-15 10:39:38 PM

chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.

Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?

the phrase is that correlation does not imply causation. I think that you probably need to have that explained, don't ya?

There has never been a time or location that banned guns where there was not a way to get them across the border.


Tell me, ...


No. I need no explanation. Unless you can identify a causation without a matching correlation. Problem here is that there has been no gun legislation with any correlation to rates of gun related crime. By definition, causation does not occur without correlation (correlation must be a part of causation, but correlation on it's own is not causation).

No gun control law in America has ever had an affect on mortality rates. It's never happened in the many years we've been trying it. That said, gun control laws have been fairly predictable, while mortality rates fluctuate dramatically decade to decade.

Maybe, just maybe, some other legislation is at play. I'm sure you can figure it out, you're all that intelligent and all. Right?
 
2012-12-15 10:39:59 PM
First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.
 
2012-12-15 10:40:02 PM

spmkk: Lionel Mandrake: "BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion."

---

Let's take a moment to inventory the weapons that Tim McVeigh, Mohammed Atta and Julio Gonzalez used to successfully commit mass murder, shall we?

(Spoiler: zero firearms in each case, and body counts 5, 100, and 3 times as high [respectively] as the highest-grossing shooting in US history.)


Therefore there is no need for gun laws.
 
2012-12-15 10:40:18 PM
Well, they did say he was coming for their guns....
 
2012-12-15 10:40:24 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: rohar: pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.

Can you come up with a correlation between a change in gun control laws and a change in gun violence corrected for external variables? Either positive or negative?

If not, why go down that road?

Let's call it an experiment. We experiemented with supply side economics, alcohol prohibition, raising the drinking age, bailouts and lot of other things. All these things have a common denominator, they were passed in a an attempt to deal with problems people were having. We can argue until we're blue int he face about what the right answer is. How about we just do SOMETHING and see how it works? If it doesn't work, let's try something else.

Inaction is not an acceptable response to this situation. Everyone has theories. Let's start putting them to the test and then put the ones that don't work to rest. Right, wrong or indifferent we have to do SOMETHING.

That's just the thing, we've already put them to the test. We've passed legislation, historically, that had a direct affect on gun violence both positively and negatively. We already know how to change this. But you're right, we should abandon everything you know in favor of your statistically unfounded "experiment".

Oh give it a rest. I'm no expert on gun law and I don't know the right answer. I freely admit that. My point is that inaction is unacceptable. The status quo needs to change.

Do you disagree with me about that?

One law isn't going to fix shiat. But the time for ignoring gun violence in this ...

So Britain, a European island where their neighbors damned near outlaw guns fits right into the same theory?

Can you cite a single gun control law that had any affect on homicide rates? Positive or negative?


Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?
 
2012-12-15 10:40:59 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Mrbogey: It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.

"It's not conceit when people way more awesome than you point out your pathetic inferiority!!"

...what a doosh


You sound f*cking stupid, anyone ever tell you that?

/"come at me, I'm armed -- go for it!"
//an ^ argument you will never hear from anti-gun nuts while they hide under their blankets and cry into their pillows
 
2012-12-15 10:40:59 PM

chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.

We just won a presidential election for the second straight time. I am thinking that there are enough people to support a change if Congress would act. Not that I expect them to act.


Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.

I'd like people to prove me wrong. I'd like the Republicans to get clobbered in 2014 on the issue of gun safety. But I'm not holding my breath. I mean, I'd also like to win Powerball when the jackpot is half a billion dollars.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:14 PM

bulldg4life: Therefore there is no need for gun laws.


A sensible person would discern that current gun laws are good enough.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:24 PM
JohnnyC

"Citizen A is in aisle 10. Citizen B is in aisle 11. Both hear gunshots go off somewhere nearby. Both draw weapons and start looking for the shooter. Citizen A checks around the corner and sees Citizen B crouched in aisle 11 with a gun. How does Citizen A know that Citizen B is a "good guy"? He doesn't... so as Citizen B turns to look in the direction of Citizen A, Citizen A fires... Citizen C heard the shots too and then another shot. He zeroes in on Citizen A, who just shot Citizen B. Citizen C shoots Citizen A...

All sorts of scenarios like this are a problem with the idea of "hero citizen saves the day". The reality is that all any of those people with guns is likely going to do is make matters worse and increase the amount of lead flying around. Sure... there is the off chance that they might just put one in the head of the original shooter and drop them like a rock... but the chances are much higher that they are just going to make matters worse."


Never said it was a perfect solution. But once again, I'd rather take that scenario than the scenario where I'm cowering in a corner of the produce aisle, and my means of defense is the largest apple or banana I can find. The cops aren't going to save you, the banana isn't going to save you, and the CCW holder also might not save you, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who has the best chance of doing so in the crucial first minutes when this all goes down.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:41 PM
My heart goes out to everyone harmed by this tragedy, their friends, and their families.

I would like to say that since 1991, American society appears to becoming less violent, though, rather than more so.

www.americanprogress.org

Arguments for increased gun control need to recognize that A) Connecticut actually has fairly strict gun laws compared to other states (it was ranked #5 according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), B) We survived the 90's, which had much higher rates of violence, and C) Pushing through laws based on shock and sadness gives us things like the Patriot Act and the TSA.

We do need measures to get mentally ill people the help they need, and ways to keep guns out of the hands of those likely to harm others. I just don't want to see expensive measures rammed through Congress that would have been useless to prevent the tragedy in Connecticut to begin with.
 
2012-12-15 10:42:50 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: Okay, gun safety advocates. Here's the simple reality. Gun rights voters are willing to vote solely on the issue of gun rights. People who otherwise despise the Republican agenda vote Republican for no reason other than gun rights. For this reason alone, it is political suicide for the Democrats to address gun safety.

If you want government action on gun safety, you need to make yourselves as fanatically devoted to the issue as gun rights advocates are to theirs. If you despise literally everything else the Democrats support, you must still march to the polls en masse, you must volunteer for their campaigns, you must donate large sums of money to their cause, and to organizations like the Brady campaign. Democrats must win where otherwise they would lose solely on the issue of gun safety. Republicans must lose where otherwise they would win.

Until then, you can neither expect action on gun safety, nor will you deserve any.

We just won a presidential election for the second straight time. I am thinking that there are enough people to support a change if Congress would act. Not that I expect them to act.

Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.

I'd like people to prove me wrong. I'd like the Republicans to get clobbered in 2014 on the issue of gun safety. But I'm not holding my breath. I mean, I'd also like to win Powerball when the jackpot is half a billion dollars.


I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.
 
2012-12-15 10:43:13 PM

rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: rohar: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Funny thing, statistically violent crime was much lower per capita before we completely defunded public mental health in the '80s.

/kinda takes the wind out of your argument don't it?

I suppose that you are assuming that nothing else had an impact on that statistic, do you? Of all of the things that could have had an impact on that result, you are going to go with your "idea".

Causation and correlation - look it up.

Certainly. But causation does not occur without correlation. Can you find any point in history where there was a passage of a gun control law and violent crime decreased?

the phrase is that correlation does not imply causation. I think that you probably need to have that explained, don't ya?

There has never been a time or location that banned guns where there was not a way to get them across the border.


Tell me, ...

No. I need no explanation. Unless you can identify a causation without a matching correlation. Problem here is that there has been no gun legislation with any correlation to rates of gun related crime. By definition, causation does not occur without correlation (correlation must be a part of causation, but correlation on it's own is not causation).

No gun control law in America has ever had an affect on mortality rates. It's never happened in the many years we've been trying it. That said, gun control laws have been fairly predictable, while mortality rates fluctuate dramatically decade to decade.

Maybe, just maybe, some other legislation is at play. I'm sure you can figure it out, you're all that intelligent and all. Right?


Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.
 
2012-12-15 10:43:41 PM

mittromneysdog: urban.derelict: //if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe

Yeah, dammit. WHY DON'T KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS PACK HEAT!!!


You're goddamn right. Why didn't the principal, in his duties to protect and direct students to a wealth of knowledge, have ZERO security at the school? Schools are PERFECT TARGETS because they're "GUN-FREE" which means perps can take their time, like this gentleman did.

Nobody wonders why this happened out in the middle of nowhere in New England, nobody wonders why Holmes got away with multiple murders in a Colorado movie theatre -- NOBODY ELSE HAS F*CKING WEAPONS YOU F*CKING DIPshiatS

/unarmed = always the victim, never the hero
 
2012-12-15 10:43:41 PM

Mrbogey: bulldg4life: Therefore there is no need for gun laws.

A sensible person would discern that current gun laws are good enough.


With the ability of mentally disturbed people purchasing multiple guns, someone that feels current gun laws are sufficient should be deemed a goddamn idiot
 
2012-12-15 10:43:44 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Mrbogey: Because that's the solution being proposed! The pro-civil rights folks have offered a lot of things we can do to prevent this tragedy but the pinheaded anti-civil rights folks keep plugging their ears and yelling "No! Must ban guns! Ban them!!! Australia!!!!"


All I've heard from the "pro civil rights folks" is idiotic things like "the teachers should've been armed" and other stupid remarks. The closest thing I've heard was trying to find a way to restrict access to guns to people who are mentally unstable/ill.

Mrbogey: It's not "smugness" it's people smarter than you in this realm of study telling you that you're wrong. Stop whining that nobody is taking your crazy seriously.
"It's not conceit when people way more awesome than you point out your pathetic inferiority!!"

...what a doosh



Amen.

I don't care if you own a gun. I just don't need to hear you bragging about it.
 
2012-12-15 10:44:36 PM

chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.


Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.
 
2012-12-15 10:44:49 PM

Mrbogey: There are a number of women who've been the victims of sexual violence at the hands of felons released due to lenient prison sentences. Would it sway you if I posted their pics and demanding we pass a three strikes law on felonies?


Three rape convictions and we throw away the key?

Pix or no, why the hell would I have a problem with that?
 
2012-12-15 10:44:56 PM

Snarfangel: My heart goes out to everyone harmed by this tragedy, their friends, and their families.

I would like to say that since 1991, American society appears to becoming less violent, though, rather than more so.

[www.americanprogress.org image 507x427]

Arguments for increased gun control need to recognize that A) Connecticut actually has fairly strict gun laws compared to other states (it was ranked #5 according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), B) We survived the 90's, which had much higher rates of violence, and C) Pushing through laws based on shock and sadness gives us things like the Patriot Act and the TSA.

We do need measures to get mentally ill people the help they need, and ways to keep guns out of the hands of those likely to harm others. I just don't want to see expensive measures rammed through Congress that would have been useless to prevent the tragedy in Connecticut to begin with.


the idiot in Connecticut had not been diagnosed as having mental health issues. There is no reason to believe that increased measures to get help for mentally ill people would have changed anything that happened yesterday. Or what happened in Oregon last week or in Colorado last summer.
 
2012-12-15 10:45:25 PM

mittromneysdog: Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.


That must be why Obama won, handily? You think it was because the weather was good.

Don't get me wrong... midterms tend to be lower turnout in general, but it seems you're just making shiat up to support your opinion. Unless of course you have some citation you can provide that shows that what you said is in any way backed up by fact?
 
2012-12-15 10:45:36 PM

Mrbogey: A sensible person would discern that current gun laws are good enough.


a sensible person would f*cking pack heat, for christ sake.

Option A: a perp breaks into your house. Do you

a. call the cops and hide in fear for your life
b. shoot the motherf*cker dead, report the dead body in the hall after you step over it to make a sammich

Cops haev f*cking TOLD ME -- "kill them, that way there is only one story: YOURS"
 
2012-12-15 10:45:40 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: That tool is weighing his entire "argument" on ONE incident.

Yea, he's using sophistry. Something as an anti-civil gun rights activist you should be quite familiar.


Oh look! Another idiot who thinks not toeing the NRA line makes you an anti-civil rights activist!! 

Fight on, mighty civil rights warrior!!
 
2012-12-15 10:45:41 PM
mittromneysdog

"Don't count on it. The gun rights voters will get out in the midterms. The gun safety voters can't be bothered to show up to presidential elections if the weather is bad.

I'd like people to prove me wrong. I'd like the Republicans to get clobbered in 2014 on the issue of gun safety"

As a gun rights voter who voted Obama in the last two general elections and DID vote in the last midterms, I'm getting a kick out of your reply. Did I mention that my brother, a gun user, and two of my three best friends, also gun owners, voted Obama? It's not as simple as pro-guns/Republicans, anti-guns/Democrats anymore.
 
2012-12-15 10:45:47 PM

birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?


Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.
 
2012-12-15 10:45:48 PM
provideocoalition.com

\not obscure
 
2012-12-15 10:46:00 PM

kapaso: Maybe we should let the tsa run school security, arm the teachers and every adult on campus with an assault rifle and a tactical shotgun (a pistol against someone with an ak 47 would defeat the whole point) and body armor, then our kids will finally be safe. That might work, of course once we've turned our schools into a cross between an airport and a prison we will finally have something concrete to look at everyday and remind us what a shiathole this country is becoming.


Why stop there? We should arm the kindergartners. If they're trained responsibly, there will be no danger to anyone but the attacker.
 
2012-12-15 10:46:24 PM

urban.derelict: You sound f*cking stupid, anyone ever tell you that?


Yes. douchebags say retarded shiat like that all the time.
 
2012-12-15 10:46:49 PM

wildcardjack: First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.


The mental healthcare system has been the whipping boy for many states when it comes to budget cuts and look at what it's caused us. Until we realize that adequate mental healthcare is critical, we'll never address the cause.

The cynic in me doesn't see this happening though.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:10 PM

Lionel Mandrake: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

You do know that the same day this happened a lunatic in China went into a school and stabbed 22 kids, right?

And you do know that no one died, right?

The "they'll just use a knife or ax or baseball bat" argument is the absolute stupidest argument in the entire discussion.


The gun fetishists keep bringing up that thing in China as proof of what? If people did not have access to guns they would wound each other instead of murder?
 
2012-12-15 10:47:12 PM

Silverstaff: Mrtraveler01: This is why I can't stand you guys. You guys act so smug and have your heads up your ass just because you own a gun.

I honestly don't care if you own a gun or what type of gun you own, but to think that maybe there is something we can do to minimize the frequency of these tragic events is the equivalent of trying to take your guns away makes me realize that we might as well get used to more tragic shootings like this because we'll never do anything to fix it.

Seriously, fark this country and the way it handles this issue.

Sorry for the rant but some of these pro-gun people give Prius owners a run for their money in a smugness contest.

Want to know why I'm ranting?

Because I've spent the day online, not just on Fark, but on other message boards, on progressive Facebook groups, on discussions on news sites. The level of left-wing derp online is toxic right now. It's like a mirror-universe version of Teabagger derp. People that I used to think were rational and sensible are now talking about oppressing me and taking away my guns. If I want to own an AR-15 and a Beretta 92 for sport shooting and home defense, that's my own goddamn business.

There are a lot of vocal posters out there clamoring for repealing the Second Amendment, or for draconian anti-gun laws. You've seen people in this very thread trying to say there is no reason for anybody to have a semi-automatic rifle.

It makes me angry because I see people who just a little while ago were ranting about Republicans wanting to take away their freedoms during the election, now standing up without noticing their own hypocrisy talking about revoking basic Constitutional rights because of one mans crimes.

It is like saying that the First Amendment should be repealed because of the WBC. A few assholes abusing a civil right shouldn't spoil it for the rest of us.


One man's crimes? Where have you been the last five years? This shiat keeps happening and it's always from legally purchased guns. There was a mass shooting in a mall last week. There will probably be another mass shooting next week.

You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:18 PM
Your blue states only need to secede from the Union and they could do away with the 2nd Amendment very easily. You know they're gonna keep proliferating weapons and bullets in the red states so you might want to consider a divorce. The federal government got their asses kicked by a few Branch Davidians and I don't think you libs really want to get into a gun grabbing war with all the armed people in this country.

Do something constructive instead of blowing a bunch of hot air.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:36 PM

urban.derelict: mittromneysdog: urban.derelict: //if only ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL HAD A F*CKING GUN then MAYBE they could have been safe

Yeah, dammit. WHY DON'T KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS PACK HEAT!!!

You're goddamn right. Why didn't the principal, in his duties to protect and direct students to a wealth of knowledge, have ZERO security at the school? Schools are PERFECT TARGETS because they're "GUN-FREE" which means perps can take their time, like this gentleman did.

Nobody wonders why this happened out in the middle of nowhere in New England, nobody wonders why Holmes got away with multiple murders in a Colorado movie theatre -- NOBODY ELSE HAS F*CKING WEAPONS YOU F*CKING DIPshiatS

/unarmed = always the victim, never the hero


Rock on, bro! I do believe this KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS SHOULD PACK HEAT argument is a winning one for gun rights advocates. I think you should make it in as many public forums as possible. That's it. Shout it at the top of your lungs. Write to the editor of your newspaper. Do everything in your power to get this message out to as many people as possible.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:38 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.


As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.
 
2012-12-15 10:47:49 PM
keithgabryelski

Thanks man, appreciate it.
 
2012-12-15 10:48:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: I don't care if you own a gun. I just don't need to hear you bragging about it.


I let people know so they don't make the mistake of coming anywhere near my house. I don't want to clean your f*cking blood off my sh*t because you decided to break into my house...

guns deter crime. lack of guns promotes crime. Look what happened in D.C. when they tried to ban handguns:

all the criminals were armed, none of the law abiding citizens were
 
2012-12-15 10:48:22 PM
Fact: There is no correlation between the number of handguns in a population and the amount of handgun violence in said population.*

* Ignoring all of the societies in the world that have banned/severely restricted handgun ownership. Statistics can suckmaballs.
 
2012-12-15 10:49:13 PM

chuckufarlie: banning guns in DC when you can just go to Virginia and buy one almost anywhere, anytime.


As long as you are 21 and pass the background check....right?...hell even law enforcemnet has to jump through hoops when purchasing a non duty weapon.

something something facts something something sounds better.
 
2012-12-15 10:49:15 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.


I think the question we need to ask is how much more regulation "pro-civil rights gun folks" would be willing to accept?
 
2012-12-15 10:49:20 PM

bulldg4life: I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.


Okay, as a gun nut, who is normally a liberal, and on most political issues on the other side of the fence, let me speak here.

I spent way too much time today online. Not just on Fark, but on some of my favorite Facebook groups, like say Americans Against The Tea Party, formerly one of my favorites, but now a group I finally had to just quit because the anti-gun rhetoric was getting way too annoying.

There are a lot of people on there who instantly jumped to talking about repealing the second amendment, about criminalizing all gun possession, talking about how barbaric and backwards the very idea of guns in non police/military hands is.

The immediate response to that is: over our dead bodies. Extremist rhetoric on one side breeds like responses.

You want me to talk rationally about what could be done?

1. Improvements in psychiatric care. Single payer psychiatric care nationwide. Any American who wants counseling or psychiatric care should get it, for free, including medications and inpatient care. Would probably have the side effect of seriously cutting down on homelessness too.

2. Media changes. Stop sensationalizing this crap. Don't let it be a path to Herostratic Fame, i.e. making the people who did this famous. Downplay the name of the shooter, play up the names of the victims. Minimize coverage of the person who did it. Ill people who want to be famous shouldn't think of committing atrocities to get fame, fame from evil deed should be damn hard to get. The Romans had it right, Damnio Memoriae. We can't quite do that in a society with the First Amendment, but knowing how to deal with people who do bad things for the fame is millennia old challenge of society.

3. Regulate ammunition. I'd say make ammo like pseudoephedrine is in many states. Track the sales, and put an upper cap on how much can be bought per-person per-month.

I'd say that would do a lot of it, just off the top of my head.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:09 PM

BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.


By this same logic, since the knowledge on how to build nuclear weapons is out there, we should just give some to Iran, right? I mean it's against the law to randomly nuke other countries, so there's absolutely no point in restricting access to the tools.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: The closest thing I've heard was trying to find a way to restrict access to guns to people who are mentally unstable/ill.


Then you're a "low information" person. Several congressmen have called for a comprehensive semi-auto rifle ban.

bulldg4life: With the ability of mentally disturbed people purchasing multiple guns, someone that feels current gun laws are sufficient should be deemed a goddamn idiot


This guy didn't buy his guns. Current gun laws prohibit mentally unfit persons from buying them.

Connecticut has "liberal" laws on declaring a person mentally unsound. They're one of only a few states that don't have forced treatment for mentally disturbed folks. Luckily for those who worked to reform Connecticut law, this guy was sheltered by his mother enough that in most any state he would have stayed off the radar of mental health screeners.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:42 PM

birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.


Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:48 PM

bulldg4life: Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.

Where in the article (or the petition) is it implied that guns will be taken?

I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.


The goal of this petition is to force the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns.


Oh, I see, they don't want to take guns, they just want to restrict who and what guns any future person can own. Technically they aren't taking your gun so why all the complaints? No gun grabbing here.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:48 PM

chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.

As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.


I am the father of a six year old boy, and I've been moved to tears more than once by the coverage of these events. They showed a little memorial shrine some people had made, that had some little boy/girl's stuffed tiger wearing a bowtie. I know that was some victim's beloved toy, and I could NOT fight back the tears.

But damn, we're talking HALF A BILLION DOLLARS here. Good for you. Seriously. I'm just saying I'm not that much of a saint.
 
2012-12-15 10:50:52 PM

rohar: birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?

Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.


I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't read anything by them. Specifically all the stuff that cites correlations between gun legislation and gun crime: a major portion of their work on the cost of gun violence.

See, in my world data trumps anecdote. And I'm pretty sure that Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig are two of the most highly respected empirical researchers of gun violence, who come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion as you, anecdotally, or with very broad bivariate relationships seem to have arrived at.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:16 PM

Popcorn Johnny: keithgabryelski

Thanks man, appreciate it.


ditto.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:20 PM

wildcardjack: First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.


The idiot in Connecticut was never diagnosed as being mentally ill. You have to identify the issue before you can rectify the situation. There is a mental health care system in this country but you cannot force people to enter it. Not one of the last three shooters had been diagnosed prior to the event.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:32 PM

wildcardjack: First off, this last shooting was done with someone else's firearms.

Second, I'm not opposed to a 3-7 day waiting period on firearm sales. But I'd like to see if there's any statistics supporting the prior application of waiting periods.

It looks like most of these shootings have been a byproduct of a non-existent mental healthcare system. Addressing the guns to solve mass murder is addressing a symptom, not a cause.


Reminds me of this gem, for some reason.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:35 PM

trackstr777: 1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.
2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.


Secanrio 3: No one has a gun. No one gets shot.
 
2012-12-15 10:51:38 PM
What is the magic number?
27 Killed?
63 Killed?
95 Killed?
Pick a G@d D@mned number, and Commit to changing something when it has been hit. Because sooner or later you are going to see it. Me personally, it was ONE and we passed that point long ago.

R.I.P. John Lennon
 
2012-12-15 10:53:07 PM

Silverstaff: There are a lot of people on there who instantly jumped to talking about repealing the second amendment, about criminalizing all gun possession, talking about how barbaric and backwards the very idea of guns in non police/military hands is.


Those people are idiots.

Silverstaff: 1. Improvements in psychiatric care. Single payer psychiatric care nationwide. Any American who wants counseling or psychiatric care should get it, for free, including medications and inpatient care. Would probably have the side effect of seriously cutting down on homelessness too.


Sounds nice but the cynic in me doesn't see this happening.

Silverstaff: 2. Media changes. Stop sensationalizing this crap. Don't let it be a path to Herostratic Fame, i.e. making the people who did this famous. Downplay the name of the shooter, play up the names of the victims. Minimize coverage of the person who did it. Ill people who want to be famous shouldn't think of committing atrocities to get fame, fame from evil deed should be damn hard to get. The Romans had it right, Damnio Memoriae. We can't quite do that in a society with the First Amendment, but knowing how to deal with people who do bad things for the fame is millennia old challenge of society.


Sounds nice but the cynic in me doesn't see this happening (it's all about the $ due to our commercialized media)

Silverstaff: 3. Regulate ammunition. I'd say make ammo like pseudoephedrine is in many states. Track the sales, and put an upper cap on how much can be bought per-person per-month.


I like that too but you just lost the support of the pro-gun folks. They'll never support anything like that.
 
2012-12-15 10:53:31 PM

Farker Soze: bulldg4life: Farker Soze: bulldg4life: What color is the sky in your world? And, why do you feel the need to write such tripe to save your precious guns?

Yeah, don't you know Obama isn't going to take your guns? Now quick, everyone go sign this petition telling Obama to take your guns.

Where in the article (or the petition) is it implied that guns will be taken?

I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.


The goal of this petition is to force the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns.

Oh, I see, they don't want to take guns, they just want to restrict who and what guns any future person can own. Technically they aren't taking your gun so why all the complaints? No gun grabbing here.


If you're going to cry and whine, then you should do it with proper info. Blindly biatching about gun grabbing is pretty stupid when it isn't being suggested.
 
2012-12-15 10:54:01 PM

Mrtraveler01: ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

I think the question we need to ask is how much more regulation "pro-civil rights gun folks" would be willing to accept?


Mandatory 10 week military boot camp for anyone who wants a gun. The Amendment was supposed to apply to citizen militias, after all. A militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, should be well trained.
 
2012-12-15 10:54:02 PM

Popcorn Johnny: keithgabryelski

Thanks man, appreciate it.


keep up the good fight.
 
2012-12-15 10:54:05 PM

birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.


Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?
 
2012-12-15 10:54:14 PM

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: The closest thing I've heard was trying to find a way to restrict access to guns to people who are mentally unstable/ill.

Then you're a "low information" person.


Coming from someone who bought that "Benghazi truther" tripe hook line and sinker, I take it as a compliment. ;)
 
2012-12-15 10:54:14 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.

As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.

I am the father of a six year old boy, and I've been moved to tears more than once by the coverage of these events. They showed a little memorial shrine some people had made, that had some little boy/girl's stuffed tiger wearing a bowtie. I know that was some victim's beloved toy, and I could NOT fight back the tears.

But damn, we're talking HALF A BILLION DOLLARS here. Good for you. Seriously. I'm just saying I'm not that much of a saint.


I have been the same way many times in the last 36 or so hours. My daughter was diagnosed with a heart condition when she was about ten, She has outgrown it now but back then, any time that the phone at my office rang, I was afraid it was my wife with terrible news. What those parents are going through is thousands of times worse than what I went through.
 
2012-12-15 10:54:15 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Oh look! Another idiot who thinks not toeing the NRA line makes you an anti-civil rights activist!!


Are you against ownership of firearms suitable for defense of oneself? Then you oppose a court sanctified civil right.
 
2012-12-15 10:54:51 PM

mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.

As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.

I am the father of a six year old boy, and I've been moved to tears more than once by the coverage of these events. They showed a little memorial shrine some people had made, that had some little boy/girl's stuffed tiger wearing a bowtie. I know that was some victim's beloved toy, and I could NOT fight back the tears.

But damn, we're talking HALF A BILLION DOLLARS here. Good for you. Seriously. I'm just saying I'm not that much of a saint.


I'll tell you what I would forego the jackpot for though. Is if I could undo this nightmare, and get reasonable gun safety laws in place. If I could bring back those kids, it would be worth it.

So I'm not all bad. I think.
 
2012-12-15 10:54:55 PM

Mrbogey: Mrtraveler01: The closest thing I've heard was trying to find a way to restrict access to guns to people who are mentally unstable/ill.

Then you're a "low information" person. Several congressmen have called for a comprehensive semi-auto rifle ban.

bulldg4life: With the ability of mentally disturbed people purchasing multiple guns, someone that feels current gun laws are sufficient should be deemed a goddamn idiot

This guy didn't buy his guns. Current gun laws prohibit mentally unfit persons from buying them.

Connecticut has "liberal" laws on declaring a person mentally unsound. They're one of only a few states that don't have forced treatment for mentally disturbed folks. Luckily for those who worked to reform Connecticut law, this guy was sheltered by his mother enough that in most any state he would have stayed off the radar of mental health screeners.


And, as I mentioned some posts ago, it seems that his mother's lax storage of her weapons is what allowed him to do this.
 
2012-12-15 10:55:28 PM

Lsherm: "syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

Well, they might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes."



You know what else might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes? Someone else on location who has a gun, knows how to use it, and makes sure that the person doesn't get 10 minutes.

If we live in a place where it takes those with the right tools 10 farking minutes to finally resolve a situation where every second is critical -- which we clearly do -- then we need to make sure that more people have the right tools.

And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).
 
2012-12-15 10:55:46 PM

violentsalvation: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.


Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.
 
2012-12-15 10:55:53 PM
Giltric: chuckufarlie: banning guns in DC when you can just go to Virginia and buy one almost anywhere, anytime.

As long as you are 21 and pass the background check....right?...hell even law enforcemnet has to jump through hoops when purchasing a non duty weapon.

something something facts something something sounds better.


Not in Virginia, The kid that shot up the college in Virginia had actually been diagnosed as mentally ill and he was still able to buy a gun.
 
2012-12-15 10:55:58 PM
In before "Obama had those kids shot so he could take away our guns"
 
2012-12-15 10:56:02 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Oh look! Another idiot who thinks not toeing the NRA line makes you an anti-civil rights activist!!

Are you against ownership of firearms suitable for defense of oneself? Then you oppose a court sanctified civil right.


Does the NRA still care about gun rights still?

I mean they endorsed someone for President who tried to ban assault weapons when they were Governor.  I thought they were just another PAC these days.
 
2012-12-15 10:56:06 PM
The shooter's mother legally owned the murder weapons. She is a poster-child for typical NRA rhetoric about the right to bear-arms, except she was an idiot who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns. She and her son are the reason that our permissive gun laws feed these tragedies. If you think guns are nice things, they are the reason you can't have nice things, they and the millions just like them.
 
2012-12-15 10:56:07 PM

birdmanesq: rohar: birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?

Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.

I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't read anything by them. Specifically all the stuff that cites correlations between gun legislation and gun crime: a major portion of their work on the cost of gun violence.

See, in my world data trumps anecdote. And I'm pretty sure that Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig are two of the most highly respected empirical researchers of gun violence, who come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion as you, anecdotally, or with very broad bivariate relationships seem to have arrived at.


Sadly, the first 5 results from the googles doesn't provide that. Maybe you could show me?
 
2012-12-15 10:56:09 PM
See, he's getting ready to take yer guns
 
2012-12-15 10:56:25 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.


I have read it.

Hell, I got an A when I took 400-level courses in Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties in college. I'm no lawyer, but I've sure as heck read up on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

I've also read the relevant case law: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled four years ago that the right to bear arms is unconnected to militia service, it's a protected civil right that defends the right to bear arms for any lawful use (sporting, collecting, self-defense) without regard to membership in any form of militia.

The tortured syntax of the Second Amendment does mention the militia, but it doesn't connect the right to bear arms to it. That's the current law of the land.
 
2012-12-15 10:56:47 PM

Mrbogey: chuckufarlie: Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. T

That's about as likely as you being able to fire a semi-auto as fast as a machine gun.


nice job of misquoting, you moron.
 
2012-12-15 10:57:24 PM
Publikwerks

Secanrio 3: No one has a gun. No one gets shot

While I've agreed that logically, this makes more sense than the partial bans people are proposing, from a practicality standpoint, all I say is good luck. Reasons why:

1) When you do start trying to take them all away, how exactly are you going to accomplish that? Firstly, 2nd amendment. Secondly, still a conservative SCOTUS. The outcry over this tragedy is heavy, but I don't think it's heavy enough for that kind of change.
2) Millions and millions of firearms in the USA. How are you going to get them all?
3) Even if you develop a plan to get them all, what about the people holding them who really want to keep their constitutional right to do so?
4) Even if you combat all those people or change their minds and get ALL those guns...black market, anyone? Heroin, crack, and meth, all illegal substances. Hell some drugs have been illegal for the better part of the last century. Yet I don't use them nor have any friends who do, and I'm sure living in a downtown area and knowing people who know people, I could probably find any of them with a few phone calls or some driving to a bad area of town. Now say I'm motivated enough to take my own life, and want to take a bunch of people with me. You think some gang banger asshole living in the ghetto is going to properly vet me before he sells me some Saturday Night Special?
 
2012-12-15 10:57:30 PM

spmkk: And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).


Cross-fire is imaginary?

Wow, you just proved that all of physics is imaginary.
 
2012-12-15 10:57:37 PM

bulldg4life: If you're going to cry and whine, then you should do it with proper info. Blindly biatching about gun grabbing is pretty stupid when it isn't being suggested.


biatching, not me. I have my guns (hell I'm armed to the teeth!) and no one is suggesting taking them, of course. It's just that no one else can get one anymore. So, fark 'em, I got mine, amirite?
 
2012-12-15 10:58:13 PM

chuckufarlie: I have been the same way many times in the last 36 or so hours. My daughter was diagnosed with a heart condition when she was about ten, She has outgrown it now but back then, any time that the phone at my office rang, I was afraid it was my wife with terrible news. What those parents are going through is thousands of times worse than what I went through.


Yeah, actually, my little boy was a preemie, and when he came out, it didn't look like he was going to make it. It was hard. But he pulled through, and now he's just as cute as they come.

I also teared up when they showed some parent reunited with her little girl. She picked her up and hugged her so tight. What made it awful was realizing their were 20 parents who didn't get to do that. And they'll never get to do that ever again. And it was just more than I could bear to think about.

Needless to say, my little guy is getting an extra generous Christmas this year. Just because.
 
2012-12-15 10:58:36 PM

Farker Soze: bulldg4life: If you're going to cry and whine, then you should do it with proper info. Blindly biatching about gun grabbing is pretty stupid when it isn't being suggested.

biatching, not me. I have my guns (hell I'm armed to the teeth!) and no one is suggesting taking them, of course. It's just that no one else can get one anymore. So, fark 'em, I got mine, amirite?


I'm pretty sure you can still get guns.
 
2012-12-15 10:58:47 PM

rohar: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr ea ts-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an d- death/index.html

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.
Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.
Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide
 
2012-12-15 10:58:50 PM

rohar: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?


There is a body of work by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook available at your fingertips. All you have to do is google, friend.

And, no, they aren't ignoring regional differences.
 
2012-12-15 10:59:41 PM
Why is it whenever someone suggests trying to control guns, Conservatives automatically assume we want to take theirs away?
 
2012-12-15 10:59:49 PM

violentsalvation: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Do you have ANY ideas? Because guns aren't going away. So you might want to be open to something that could help, or you're just another part of the problem. The last three you picked to fit your argument might have been treated for mental illness if treatment was more readily available and destigmatized.

Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. There is nothing that stands in the way of doing so except inertia. I think that shooting 20 kids might be enough to overcome that inertia.

lol. There are tens of millions of semi-auto firearms in the US, or more, millions of them have been resold and are legally unregistered. I own a handful myself. Good luck, you support a gun control argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.


There is a very easy way to identify men who own such weapons. All we need to do is get doctors in this country to identify the patients with small penises.
 
2012-12-15 11:00:51 PM

spmkk: You know what else might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes? Someone else on location who has a gun, knows how to use it, and makes sure that the person doesn't get 10 minutes.


"She'd take them to the range a lot. ... Nancy was an enthusiast -- so much so that she wanted to pass it on to her kids."
 
2012-12-15 11:01:04 PM

keithgabryelski: rohar: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr ea ts-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an d- death/index.html

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.
Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.
Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide


Uh, there's nothing there that cites a correlation between gun control laws and violent crime. Hell, there's no mention of gun control laws.

You understand the idea of "data" right?
 
2012-12-15 11:01:13 PM

birdmanesq: It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.

What part of "tipping point" do you not understand?
 
2012-12-15 11:01:13 PM

Old enough to know better: Why is it whenever someone suggests trying to control guns, Conservatives automatically assume we want to take theirs away?


Because it is an easy strawman to beat up.
 
2012-12-15 11:01:24 PM

birdmanesq: And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.


That's a contradiction. Strawbuying is illegal. Ergo, the person who bought the weapon violated the law and should be imprisoned for it. If you have a problem with straw buyers, you'll have to ask the head of the ATF, DOJ, and Executive branch why they're not charging them with a crime.
 
2012-12-15 11:01:42 PM

TDBoedy: Well, unless the regulations people want deal with the safe storage of firearms then the point is kinda moot. The killer stole the weapons from his mother who he killed. He didn't pick these up at a gun show or some other "loophole". Its likely he couldn't 1) afford them and 2) pass any kind of background check needed for purchase.

This was the gun owner's failure to secure her own firearms coming back to haunt her.



This cannot be repeated enough.
 
2012-12-15 11:01:50 PM

chuckufarlie: There is a very easy way to identify men who own such weapons. All we need to do is get doctors in this country to identify the patients with small penises.


Heh.
 
2012-12-15 11:02:05 PM

rohar: birdmanesq: rohar: birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?

Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.

I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't read anything by them. Specifically all the stuff that cites correlations between gun legislation and gun crime: a major portion of their work on the cost of gun violence.

See, in my world data trumps anecdote. And I'm pretty sure that Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig are two of the most highly respected empirical researchers of gun violence, who come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion as you, anecdotally, or with very broad bivariate relationships seem to have arrived at.

Sadly, the first 5 results from the googles doesn't provide that. Maybe you could show me?


It's funny, my google popped pretty good results on "cook ludwig gun violence."

Including "The Principles for Effective Gun Policy" in the top ten hits.
 
2012-12-15 11:02:15 PM

Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).

Cross-fire is imaginary?

Wow, you just proved that all of physics is imaginary."



Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.
 
2012-12-15 11:02:20 PM

cretinbob: In before "Obama had those kids shot so he could take away our guns"


It was the NRA. These shootings always increase panic buys.
 
2012-12-15 11:02:22 PM

GardenWeasel: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that extends mental healthcare to everyone? We could call it Medicare Part E or something. Surely people would be okay with that if it'll prevent at least one mass shooting, right?

They were wealthy. Adam had access to mental health care. That wasn't the problem. Whether or not he actually went is a different question.


It'll also take a destigmatization of mental illness in the USA, in terms of community and jobs/careers, or no one will attend for fear of retribution.
 
2012-12-15 11:02:47 PM

trackstr777: AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process
AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
DISAGREE -- Ban all assault weapons
DISAGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

To the above 4 ideas, I argue that it's a lot of show, without much real practical effect. We have the TSA and shoe checks, but do you feel a lot of that is just looking like we're doing something, or do you genuinely feel safer going through an airport then you did previously? What would these changes practically do, in stopping these type of rampages?


We have a dialog started here, thanks to Popcorn Johnny and others. OK, here's mine:
AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process
AGREE -- Stiff penalties if your gun ends up in somebody else's hands

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military
AGREE -- Ban all assault weapons
AGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity
DISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

It shouldn't be easy to launch an assault. I know people will be able to modify legal weapons, but the ones who can't won't have access and the ones who can will be sending off "watch me" signals. I could compromise on the bans, though, if the steps to getting assault weapons and bigger magazines were more difficult -- a skill test maybe?

I also like this from Practical_Draconian
AGREE -- Add a 32% surchage tax on all firearm purchases, new and used, for state mental health facilities. State's rights, building "the nuthouses" from the ground floor up and keeping it local.

Next?
 
2012-12-15 11:02:51 PM

birdmanesq: rohar: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?

There is a body of work by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook available at your fingertips. All you have to do is google, friend.

And, no, they aren't ignoring regional differences.


...but they cite no correlatiive data on this subject. Neither do you. I swear, this is like having a conversation with an end table.
 
2012-12-15 11:02:59 PM

rohar: Uh, there's nothing there that cites a correlation between gun control laws and violent crime. Hell, there's no mention of gun control laws.

You understand the idea of "data" right?


Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide

from this:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

the source is cited.
 
2012-12-15 11:03:00 PM
Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.
 
2012-12-15 11:03:10 PM

spmkk: Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.


And you're basing this on?
 
2012-12-15 11:03:18 PM

Silverstaff: ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

I have read it.

Hell, I got an A when I took 400-level courses in Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties in college. I'm no lawyer, but I've sure as heck read up on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

I've also read the relevant case law: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled four years ago that the right to bear arms is unconnected to militia service, it's a protected civil right that defends the right to bear arms for any lawful use (sporting, collecting, self-defense) without regard to membership in any form of militia.

The tortured syntax of the Second Amendment does mention the militia, but it doesn't connect the right to bear arms to it. That's the current law of the land.


They also found in District of Columbia v. Heller that restrictions were fine. So, I say remove the exception to the NFA for anything with a removable magazine, treat em all as title II
 
2012-12-15 11:03:23 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Oh look! Another idiot who thinks not toeing the NRA line makes you an anti-civil rights activist!!

Are you against ownership of firearms suitable for defense of oneself? Then you oppose a court sanctified civil right.


I am for having a discussion/considering ideas and actions that might prevent gun-relating killings (or any killings), including, but not limited to taking a look at what constitutes "arms" under the 2nd Amendment.

Clearly, there have always been "arms" that citizens are NOT allowed to "bear," so let's look at where to draw that line.

All rights have limits (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc), so let's consider some limitations.

OMG!!!! I HATE CIVIL RIGHTS!!1! DEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRP!!
 
2012-12-15 11:04:08 PM
Is the thread where we let government use a tragedy to further limit the rights of responsible law-abiding citizens?

/ terrorists win
// including domestic terrorists
 
2012-12-15 11:04:25 PM
I have a bit of advice for the pro gun crowd...

Quit acting so farking crazy and like guns are some kind of fetish and be willing to have some rational conversation about how to deal with gun deaths or you better believe its going to hurt. The nation is sick of it. Period. And you guys better find some sane mainstream voices then the NRA and Ted Nugent or all of your nightmares will come true. Preaching to the choir will not work.

Oh and leave the " Well if there were more guns then this would not have happened" Argument behind its not working

//And other thing the people who were posting Gun pictures like they were pin up picts yesterday were beyond revolting.
///Waited a day before saying what was on my mind.
 
2012-12-15 11:05:15 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: I have a bit of advice for the pro gun crowd...

Quit acting so farking crazy and like guns are some kind of fetish and be willing to have some rational conversation about how to deal with gun deaths or you better believe its going to hurt. The nation is sick of it. Period. And you guys better find some sane mainstream voices then the NRA and Ted Nugent or all of your nightmares will come true. Preaching to the choir will not work.

Oh and leave the " Well if there were more guns then this would not have happened" Argument behind its not working


THIS!
 
2012-12-15 11:05:18 PM

birdmanesq: The Principles for Effective Gun Policy


Yes, I read that. Guess what? No statistics showing a change in homicides as a function of legislation.

You want to try again?
 
2012-12-15 11:05:27 PM

cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.



No, what will happen is what allways happens.
A few people will put up a fight, because most people talk a big game, but would wuss out.

Those few who do, well, all one has to do is look up Waco or Ruby Ridge to see who wins.
 
2012-12-15 11:05:29 PM
Old enough to know better
"Why is it whenever someone suggests trying to control guns, Conservatives automatically assume we want to take theirs away?"

MayoSlather: "Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots"
tolallorti: "My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians"
Popcorn Johnny: "Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military, Ban all assault weapons, Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity"
Paleorific: " I now support a total ban of handguns and guns that most would consider to be semi-automatic, automatic assault rifles."

Yea...where'd we get THAT crazy idea?
 
2012-12-15 11:05:41 PM

chuckufarlie: the idiot in Connecticut had not been diagnosed as having mental health issues


Mybe we should stop candy coating mental health issues by calling them "personality disorders" so we don't offend anyone.

Why are people afraid of offending some crazy autistic kid by labelling him batshiat insane yet people have no qualms about offending the people with guns by calling their personal defense weapons a scary term like assault rifle?
 
2012-12-15 11:06:17 PM

ItchyMcDoogle: I have a bit of advice for the pro gun crowd...

Quit acting so farking crazy and like guns are some kind of fetish and be willing to have some rational conversation about how to deal with gun deaths or you better believe its going to hurt. The nation is sick of it. Period. And you guys better find some sane mainstream voices then the NRA and Ted Nugent or all of your nightmares will come true. Preaching to the choir will not work.

Oh and leave the " Well if there were more guns then this would not have happened" Argument behind its not working

//And other thing the people who were posting Gun pictures like they were pin up picts yesterday were beyond revolting.
///Waited a day before saying what was on my mind.


Someone up thread says the answer is kindergarten teachers packing heat.

They actually said that. Ya rly.
 
2012-12-15 11:06:20 PM

birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.

Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.


People keep ignoring Chicago and other cities rife with gun violence and tight on guns like their numbers are meaningless. Straw purchasing in itself is illegal, but it's pretty much uncontrollable.
 
2012-12-15 11:06:38 PM

Mrbogey: birdmanesq: And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

That's a contradiction. Strawbuying is illegal. Ergo, the person who bought the weapon violated the law and should be imprisoned for it. If you have a problem with straw buyers, you'll have to ask the head of the ATF, DOJ, and Executive branch why they're not charging them with a crime.


See, this is a convenient out. The fact that a person purchased a firearm legally and then resold that firearm illegally means that it's the buyer's individual bad act, not the fact that we are unwilling to license and register firearms to individual owners--or otherwise regulate at the point of sale. All this demonstrates is the ease with which legal firearms become illegal firearms.
 
2012-12-15 11:07:09 PM

cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.


If it's the Alex Jones types vs. everyone else, it will be a very quick war.

And Alex Jones will not like how it ends.
 
2012-12-15 11:07:18 PM

BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way.


In your country, yes. But why?
 
2012-12-15 11:07:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

And you're basing this on?"



Among other things, the complete lack of evidence that it ever has made such a situation worse, despite the torrential frequency with which that talking point is trotted out. (With the exception of, ironically, a number of police shootings.)
 
2012-12-15 11:07:59 PM

Giltric: Why are people afraid of offending some crazy autistic kid by labelling him batshiat insane yet people have no qualms about offending the people with guns by calling their personal defense weapons a scary term like assault rifle?


Jesus Christ...

The poor babies. We don't want to hurt their feeling now do we?

/rolls eyes
 
2012-12-15 11:08:03 PM

keithgabryelski: rohar: Uh, there's nothing there that cites a correlation between gun control laws and violent crime. Hell, there's no mention of gun control laws.

You understand the idea of "data" right?

Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide

from this:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

the source is cited.


fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.
 
2012-12-15 11:08:26 PM

chuckufarlie: Mrbogey: chuckufarlie: Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. T

That's about as likely as you being able to fire a semi-auto as fast as a machine gun.

nice job of misquoting, you moron.


Everyone!!!

Your attention. I'd like to publicly apologize to Chuck for not properly quoting him in context. That was wrong of me and I'd like to fix that by doing such right now.

chuckufarlie: Really? I can fire a semi-automatic at about the same rate as I can fire a fully automatic rifle. Anybody can spray and pray with a semi-auto.


Since I care about my reputation, I'd hate to tarnish it by giving the impression of dishonesty. I hope this response is satisfactory.
 
2012-12-15 11:08:37 PM

Publikwerks: cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.


No, what will happen is what allways happens.
A few people will put up a fight, because most people talk a big game, but would wuss out.

Those few who do, well, all one has to do is look up Waco or Ruby Ridge to see who wins.


This isnt Clinton era hatred. This is Obama era hatred.

This is the worst kind of partisan hatred in the history of our nation since Lincoln.

People are very, VERY angry right now. Why they are angry does not matter; the fact that they are angry does. Further angering extremely angry people is always going to lead to disastrous results.
 
2012-12-15 11:08:45 PM

rohar: birdmanesq: The Principles for Effective Gun Policy

Yes, I read that. Guess what? No statistics showing a change in homicides as a function of legislation.

You want to try again?


Except that is exactly the question that their primary analysis is built on.

Try again.
 
2012-12-15 11:10:01 PM

rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.


you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.
 
2012-12-15 11:10:03 PM
Mrbogey

LOL. Favorites list for you.
 
2012-12-15 11:10:18 PM

spmkk: Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

And you're basing this on?"


Among other things, the complete lack of evidence that it ever has made such a situation worse, despite the torrential frequency with which that talking point is trotted out. (With the exception of, ironically, a number of police shootings.)


Is that like the complete lack of evidence that someone with a CCW managed to stop a mass shooting?
 
2012-12-15 11:10:41 PM

chuckufarlie: Do you have ANY ideas? Because guns aren't going away. So you might want to be open to something that could help, or you're just another part of the problem. The last three you picked to fit your argument might have been treated for mental illness if treatment was more readily available and destigmatized.

Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. There is nothing that stands in the way of doing so except inertia. I think that shooting 20 kids might be enough to overcome that inertia.

lol. There are tens of millions of semi-auto firearms in the US, or more, millions of them have been resold and are legally unregistered. I own a handful myself. Good luck, you support a gun control argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.

There is a very easy way to identify men who own such weapons. All we need to do is get doctors in this country to identify the patients with small penises.




LOL again. I enjoy pistol target shooting so obviously I have a microscopic penis. Another awesome gun control argument. They should have you testify in front of Congress.
 
2012-12-15 11:11:12 PM

chuckufarlie: The kid that shot up the college in Virginia had actually been diagnosed as mentally ill and he was still able to buy a gun.


Wait, you know this but were unwilling to believe me in another thread when I claimed that he was mentally ill before he went on the killing spree? Just caught you as an absolute liar.
 
2012-12-15 11:11:19 PM

cman: People are very, VERY angry right now. Why they are angry does not matter; the fact that they are angry does. Further angering extremely angry people is always going to lead to disastrous results


So Waco II Electric Boogaloo?
 
2012-12-15 11:11:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: Farker Soze: bulldg4life: If you're going to cry and whine, then you should do it with proper info. Blindly biatching about gun grabbing is pretty stupid when it isn't being suggested.

biatching, not me. I have my guns (hell I'm armed to the teeth!) and no one is suggesting taking them, of course. It's just that no one else can get one anymore. So, fark 'em, I got mine, amirite?

I'm pretty sure you can still get guns.


Don't be obtuse. You know I'm talking about the hypothetical future they supposedly want. "We're not planning on taking guns, we're just restricting future owners" is just a dog whistle anyway. I'm sure you guys know that grandfather clauses are stupid, unfair, and rarely work. Just look at the toothless 1994 AWB. To have any real effect they're going to have to grab guns. There are too many out there right now.
 
2012-12-15 11:11:43 PM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.

If it's the Alex Jones types vs. everyone else, it will be a very quick war.

And Alex Jones will not like how it ends.


Alex Jones is far more popular than the general population assumes. When it comes to independent talk radio, he is the king.
 
2012-12-15 11:11:48 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Mandatory 10 week military boot camp for anyone who wants a gun. The Amendment was supposed to apply to citizen militias, after all. A militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, should be well trained.


That would mean mandatory 10 week military boot camp for everyone whether you want a gun or not....cause we are all part of the militia.

/i'm ok with this
 
2012-12-15 11:12:20 PM

MBA Whore: Is the thread where we let government use a tragedy to further limit the rights of responsible law-abiding citizens?

/ terrorists win
// including domestic terrorists


No, this is the thread where law abiding citizens who are sick of watching innocents die tell you enough is enough. Yes, guns are tools, and it's the user that makes them dangerous. However, so are lots of things we regulate. Nuclear material, drugs, porn, hell, there are more restrictions for internet gambling than for owning a handgun.
 
2012-12-15 11:12:45 PM
zenobia

Firstly, if we are going to talk about assault weapons, put a definition on it.

- Automatic only? Semi-automatic?
- Magazine capacity?
- Based on size of the rifle, or the rounds it uses?
- Features on the weapon?

It's easy to talk about assault weapons as one group, and it's a lot harder to define that group. This was part of the weakness of the AWB. So have at it.
 
2012-12-15 11:13:35 PM

violentsalvation: birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.

Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

People keep ignoring Chicago and other cities rife with gun violence and tight on guns like their numbers are meaningless. Straw purchasing in itself is illegal, but it's pretty much uncontrollable.


I mean, I certainly think that violence in Chicago is meaningful (otherwise my work would be nonsense), but there are lots of things that make Chicago an outlier when you're talking about strict gun laws and firearm homicides. I mean, all Chicago shows is that strict laws don't guarantee lower homicide rates.
 
2012-12-15 11:13:49 PM

keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.


We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?
 
2012-12-15 11:14:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese:
But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.

Yes, so, address the question: How do we get these radical conservatives world-wide to self-commit themselves to mental institutions?

By stop giving a pass to the radical liberals.


That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
 
2012-12-15 11:15:14 PM

chuckufarlie: Giltric: chuckufarlie: banning guns in DC when you can just go to Virginia and buy one almost anywhere, anytime.

As long as you are 21 and pass the background check....right?...hell even law enforcemnet has to jump through hoops when purchasing a non duty weapon.

something something facts something something sounds better.

Not in Virginia, The kid that shot up the college in Virginia had actually been diagnosed as mentally ill and he was still able to buy a gun.


So all we need is to link a persons past medical diagnosises's's' with the firearm background check system.

Okay.....someone get the lights we should be done here...problem solved.
 
2012-12-15 11:15:17 PM

JadedRaverLA: BravadoGT: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes; they'll bring acid, or build pipe bombs and car bombs. Point is--further restricting the tool isn't going to correct the underlying condition--it's nothing more that a band-aid when the body needs an antibiotic.

By this same logic, since the knowledge on how to build nuclear weapons is out there, we should just give some to Iran, right? I mean it's against the law to randomly nuke other countries, so there's absolutely no point in restricting access to the tools.


Iran couldn't pass the background check for a revolver, much less a nuke.
 
2012-12-15 11:15:23 PM

Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese: Doc Lee: tenpoundsofcheese:
But they are still number one number of people killed in a violent rampage.
They also are number one for number of kids killed in a violent rampage.

Yes, so, address the question: How do we get these radical conservatives world-wide to self-commit themselves to mental institutions?

By stop giving a pass to the radical liberals.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


Did you see the handle?
 
2012-12-15 11:16:08 PM

cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.

If it's the Alex Jones types vs. everyone else, it will be a very quick war.

And Alex Jones will not like how it ends.

Alex Jones is far more popular than the general population assumes. When it comes to independent talk radio, he is the king.


Please. He and his crackpot followers would be pulverized. Quickly.
 
2012-12-15 11:16:30 PM
chuckufarlie: "The kid that shot up the college in Virginia had actually been diagnosed as mentally ill and he was still able to buy a gun."

chuckufarlie: "I asked you for citations to prove that they were diagnosed prior to the shootings. ... Prove me wrong or admit that you are the liar. Actually, you have proven that you are the liar. You never back up your statements with sources."

LOL WUT
 
2012-12-15 11:16:32 PM

wademh: who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns.


Do you have a citation in regards to that?

For all we know he killed her then went rummaging around for a key to a safe.
 
2012-12-15 11:16:42 PM
Honestly this stuff will always happen.

Overall crime is going down in the US.

Due to other factors than gun ownership or gun control.

both sides are idiots.
 
2012-12-15 11:16:49 PM

rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?


the overview i cited says differently, although it doesn't say "laws" it says "more guns more homicide"

so, we are just arguing over how to limit access to guns, right?
 
2012-12-15 11:17:05 PM

rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?


Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.
 
2012-12-15 11:17:29 PM
We should totally base Federal policy on online polls.
 
2012-12-15 11:17:31 PM

cman: This isnt Clinton era hatred. This is Obama era hatred.

This is the worst kind of partisan hatred in the history of our nation since Lincoln.

People are very, VERY angry right now. Why they are angry does not matter; the fact that they are angry does. Further angering extremely angry people is always going to lead to disastrous results.


No it wont. You overestimate how many pissed off people there are.
 
2012-12-15 11:17:37 PM
Just a reminder, everyone.

We are still very emotional about this shiat. Insulting each other makes it much worse.

If thou hast nothing good to speak about thy fellow man, then hold thy tongue.
 
2012-12-15 11:17:48 PM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.

If it's the Alex Jones types vs. everyone else, it will be a very quick war.

And Alex Jones will not like how it ends.

Alex Jones is far more popular than the general population assumes. When it comes to independent talk radio, he is the king.

Please. He and his crackpot followers would be pulverized. Quickly.


Wait, Alex Jones has a radio show? I just thought he had some crazy blog.

Even the UFO guy on Coast to Coast AM gets more airtime.
 
2012-12-15 11:17:54 PM

badhatharry: Gun purchases require registration and background checks.


Not true. Most cities/states do not have gun registration. Background checks only occur when purchasing from a licensed FFL (federal firearms license). If you buy your gun from the guy down the street there's no background check.

/pro-gun, just gotta get facts straight
 
2012-12-15 11:18:01 PM
How do we get these radical conservatives world-wide to self-commit themselves to mental institutions?

By stop giving a pass to the radical liberals.


Dammit cheese. I thing he broke my brain. Ow.
 
2012-12-15 11:18:34 PM

keithgabryelski: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html


Debunked

Link

birdmanesq: See, this is a convenient out. The fact that a person purchased a firearm legally and then resold that firearm illegally means that it's the buyer's individual bad act, not the fact that we are unwilling to license and register firearms to individual owners--or otherwise regulate at the point of sale. All this demonstrates is the ease with which legal firearms become illegal firearms.


The gov't has a perfectly legal way of tracing a gun from manufacturer to FFL. The FFL can report who they sold the gun to. That person can then answer as to why they've sold several guns to a criminal within a short time frame of buying it.

These are the current tools available to the gov't.

Some in the gov't want more. They want every sale to go through an FFL and for all sales to be tracked and reported to the gov't regardless of crime involvement. This is the line that is being held because people who know the current gun laws know the request is bullshiat.
 
2012-12-15 11:19:00 PM

Farker Soze: I thing he broke my brain.


Yep, he broke my brain.
 
2012-12-15 11:19:17 PM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.

If it's the Alex Jones types vs. everyone else, it will be a very quick war.

And Alex Jones will not like how it ends.

Alex Jones is far more popular than the general population assumes. When it comes to independent talk radio, he is the king.

Please. He and his crackpot followers would be pulverized. Quickly.


I hope that I am wrong and that you are right.

I do worry about extremists. Maybe I am being overly paranoid about it. I dunno.
 
2012-12-15 11:19:56 PM

Giltric: wademh: who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns.

Do you have a citation in regards to that?

For all we know he killed her then went rummaging around for a key to a safe.


What did he shoot her with?
 
2012-12-15 11:20:17 PM
Is Obama finally coming for our guns like the moronic right has been crowing about for 8 years?
 
2012-12-15 11:20:37 PM

graggor: Honestly this stuff will always happen.

Overall crime is going down in the US.

Due to other factors than gun ownership or gun control.

both sides are idiots.


I think you have a point. I don't think a full out ban on guns is necessary, but we need to realize that more needs to be done to restrict who can get a gun.

I think you should still be able to get a gun, but you need to go through a background check, training, etc.

But we really need to start looking at how we treat mental healthcare in the US. And sadly, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
 
2012-12-15 11:20:40 PM

Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

And you're basing this on?"


Among other things, the complete lack of evidence that it ever has made such a situation worse, despite the torrential frequency with which that talking point is trotted out. (With the exception of, ironically, a number of police shootings.)

Is that like the complete lack of evidence that someone with a CCW managed to stop a mass shooting?"



No, not really.
 
2012-12-15 11:20:44 PM
Okay, derp on both sides aside, here's probably what's going to happen.

A renewal of the ineffectual, toothless 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, assuming anything happens and the Republicans in Congress don't sink it.

What that means in practicality is that everyone who currently has guns will stock up on pre-ban magazines. People who want an assault rifle will buy them before the ban goes into effect.

People who want guns will still be able to get ahold of them, but will be grumbling and distrustful and feeling oppressed, but anti-gun types can feel better about themselves because they banned "assault weapons".

Meanwhile nothing really changes.

Personally, It'll mean I'll finally have to shell out for that AR-15 I've been meaning to get, before it goes into effect, and stock up on a few full-size magazines, and buy some full size magazines for my pistols.
 
2012-12-15 11:21:56 PM

keithgabryelski: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

the overview i cited says differently, although it doesn't say "laws" it says "more guns more homicide"

so, we are just arguing over how to limit access to guns, right?


No, not at all. The overview you cited compared demographics of one group against demographics of another group. What we're proposing is a temporal shift over a static demographic. This is a very different thing. I'll repeat, restricted or more lax gun control laws over a static demographic have never, from what can be seen in the statistics, had an affect on homicide rates in America. But this is what you're proposing. Give our historical behavior, your suggestion doesn't even pass the smell test for making things better.
 
2012-12-15 11:22:54 PM

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

Debunked

Link


that was posted yesterday, and i read most of it, -- it doesn't do what you think it does.

[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury


they trying to muddy the waters with statements like this -- but do admit, in the end "more likely to kill the victim".

the debunking is really handwaving.
 
2012-12-15 11:23:23 PM

spmkk: Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Mrtraveler01: "spmkk: Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

And you're basing this on?"


Among other things, the complete lack of evidence that it ever has made such a situation worse, despite the torrential frequency with which that talking point is trotted out. (With the exception of, ironically, a number of police shootings.)

Is that like the complete lack of evidence that someone with a CCW managed to stop a mass shooting?"


No, not really.


Holy shiat! The guy who pulled his gun totally shot right next to that kid! that was a TERRIBLE idea!
 
2012-12-15 11:23:39 PM

BravadoGT: Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way. If they cant' get a hold of guns, they'll bring swords or machetes or axes


Yeah. You see 26 people killed in a school by AXE all the time.

Red Herring argument. That's all you have. You just CAN'T admit we are a country that glories gun violence, and we are a gun culture that has been cultivated for years to believe the gun is the answer.
 
2012-12-15 11:23:44 PM
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

And I am not even a gun nut by any means.

Gun ownership and gun control dont have much to do with falling crime rates in this country.

Better police, access to abortion, social welfare and health and medicine have far more to do with it than anything.
 
2012-12-15 11:23:53 PM
Listen, you libs just don't understand, the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of Patriots. 6-and-7-year-old Patriots, this time, but Patriots nonetheless. You want King George III messing with you, huh? Because if we have to sacrifice 20 children every once in a while, it's a small price to pay.

/fark King George III!
 
2012-12-15 11:23:56 PM

Publikwerks: uclear material, drugs, porn, hell, there are more restrictions for internet gambling than for owning a handgun.


Haha... no.

Gun rights are incumbent upon a person being a US citizen, not a felon, not crazy, and IIRC in every state at least 18. There's also a plethora of laws that define what can be imported and manufactured. To say there are more is to try and pick nits between two heavily regulated items. One of which isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.
 
2012-12-15 11:24:06 PM

Bennie Crabtree: BravadoGT: It's because Republicans already know that adding more laws won't stop the killing. Once someone decides to go kill a school full of children, they're going to find a way.

In your country, yes. But why?


We eat our own.
 
2012-12-15 11:24:16 PM

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

Debunked

Link

birdmanesq: See, this is a convenient out. The fact that a person purchased a firearm legally and then resold that firearm illegally means that it's the buyer's individual bad act, not the fact that we are unwilling to license and register firearms to individual owners--or otherwise regulate at the point of sale. All this demonstrates is the ease with which legal firearms become illegal firearms.

The gov't has a perfectly legal way of tracing a gun from manufacturer to FFL. The FFL can report who they sold the gun to. That person can then answer as to why they've sold several guns to a criminal within a short time frame of buying it.

These are the current tools available to the gov't.

Some in the gov't want more. They want every sale to go through an FFL and for all sales to be tracked and reported to the gov't regardless of crime involvement. This is the line that is being held because people who know the current gun laws know the request is bullshiat.


There's a great Gary Willis piece on that issue of the Tennessee Law Review. Of course, that revisionist history has now become Constitutional jurisprudence, so I guess that argument is over.

And that's kind of a grand view on the current regulatory environment. Honestly, it's not nearly coordinated enough to regulate like you suggest.
 
2012-12-15 11:25:37 PM
Also, something else to note.

Why do we never sit down and talk about why these crimes begin in the first place?

School shootings/active shooter incidents didn't happen much before the late 90's. What changed culturally?

It's obviously not access to guns. That was in the middle of the assault weapons ban. Decades earlier it was easier to get ahold of guns, including fully automatic weapons.

Nobody ran around in the 1960's or 1970's shooting up schools, when guns were easier to get ahold of.

Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?
 
2012-12-15 11:25:42 PM

rohar:
No, not at all. The overview you cited compared demographics of one group against demographics of another group. What we're proposing is a temporal shift over a static demographic. This is a very different thing. I'll repeat, restricted or more lax gun control laws over a static demographic have never, from what can be seen in the statistics, had an affect on homicide rates in America. But this is what you're proposing. Give our historical behavior, your suggestion doesn't even pass the smell test for making things better.


ok, so what you are saying is we don't have data for across america for the current era?

fine -- let's go with "gun control" and see how it works out.

/you aren't going to get the information you want, it doesn't exist -- you must extrapolate from best fit information. read the articles.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:08 PM

Mrbogey: Publikwerks: uclear material, drugs, porn, hell, there are more restrictions for internet gambling than for owning a handgun.

Haha... no.

Gun rights are incumbent upon a person being a US citizen, not a felon, not crazy, and IIRC in every state at least 18. There's also a plethora of laws that define what can be imported and manufactured. To say there are more is to try and pick nits between two heavily regulated items. One of which isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.


For newbs, Mrbogey is a lying sack of shiat who is one of those people you ca use to test if something stupid or not: if Mrbogey is for it, you can rest assured it's a stupid position.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:14 PM

nmemkha: Is Obama finally coming for our guns like the moronic right has been crowing about for 8 years?


Probably, but this close after an election cycle, he probably doesn't have the votes.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:42 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: Do more people die from these insane attacks in the US than say in a place like Norway?

yes

tenpoundsofcheese: And if you look on a per capita basis, isn't it a lot worse in Norway than the US?

no

You sure?
85 people died in Norway in an insane attack (going after kids too)

Per capita, they have about 1/80th of the number of people.

Care to try again.


You're a farking idiot

TaDA!
 
2012-12-15 11:26:49 PM
spmkk
"No, not really."

As Bennie said, that guy shooting next to the kid was a bit too close for comfort. But again, I raise the same point I've raised multiple times in this thread. If there is an asshole going all bang bang in the same building I'm in, I'd much rather have some citizens around me or myself carrying a CCW and take the chance of cross fire or collateral damage, than have the only gun in the room until the cops arrive be the one purposely aiming at the good guys. That simple. You take your chances with pissing yourselves in the corner hoping he shoots everyone else first, I'll take my chances with a good guy and another gun.
 
2012-12-15 11:26:51 PM

graggor: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

And I am not even a gun nut by any means.

Gun ownership and gun control dont have much to do with falling crime rates in this country.

Better police, access to abortion, social welfare and health and medicine have far more to do with it than anything.


Mass incarceration has also been helpful.
 
2012-12-15 11:27:16 PM

keithgabryelski: the debunking is really handwaving.


The debunking deals with the bulk of the charges you listed. It gets pragmatic on the actual evidence but it doesn't support the thrust of the assertions made by your link

It's like you saying that God is a pink unicorn and someone responds back how you just made it up and your research stinks though nobody can say for certain God isn't a pink unicorn.
 
2012-12-15 11:27:55 PM

trackstr777: spmkk
"No, not really."

As Bennie said, that guy shooting next to the kid was a bit too close for comfort. But again, I raise the same point I've raised multiple times in this thread. If there is an asshole going all bang bang in the same building I'm in, I'd much rather have some citizens around me or myself carrying a CCW and take the chance of cross fire or collateral damage, than have the only gun in the room until the cops arrive be the one purposely aiming at the good guys. That simple. You take your chances with pissing yourselves in the corner hoping he shoots everyone else first, I'll take my chances with a good guy and another gun.


You think seatbelts cost more lives than they save too, don't you?
 
2012-12-15 11:28:19 PM

Silverstaff: Also, something else to note.

Why do we never sit down and talk about why these crimes begin in the first place?

School shootings/active shooter incidents didn't happen much before the late 90's. What changed culturally?

It's obviously not access to guns. That was in the middle of the assault weapons ban. Decades earlier it was easier to get ahold of guns, including fully automatic weapons.

Nobody ran around in the 1960's or 1970's shooting up schools, when guns were easier to get ahold of.

Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


We didnt have 24/7 news channels in the 60s and 70s. There were massacres by guns. Now adays information is easy to access. Plus, there are those who want to be famous by any means necessary. For instance, Herostratus is a classical example of those who want fame and glory for the wrong reasons.
 
2012-12-15 11:28:34 PM

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: the debunking is really handwaving.

The debunking deals with the bulk of the charges you listed. It gets pragmatic on the actual evidence but it doesn't support the thrust of the assertions made by your link

It's like you saying that God is a pink unicorn and someone responds back how you just made it up and your research stinks though nobody can say for certain God isn't a pink unicorn.
DDDEEERRRPPPPPPP


FTFY
 
2012-12-15 11:29:15 PM

cman: I hope that I am wrong and that you are right.

I do worry about extremists. Maybe I am being overly paranoid about it. I dunno.


Let me be clear: it won't happen. Ever. People who rant and rave on the radio never do anything. They talk. That's all. They might go see a movie the host suggests, and they might by a product advertised on the show, and they might even base their votes on Radio Guy's endorsements. But they will not go to war. I guarantee it.

And, even if every single listener of AJ/infowars/whatever did grab their very biggest gun, all the rations they could carry, and mobilize as one, they would be torn the fark apart in short order.

Not a fraction of a doubt in my mind.
 
2012-12-15 11:29:32 PM

spmkk: Lsherm: "syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

Well, they might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes."


You know what else might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes? Someone else on location who has a gun, knows how to use it, and makes sure that the person doesn't get 10 minutes.

If we live in a place where it takes those with the right tools 10 farking minutes to finally resolve a situation where every second is critical -- which we clearly do -- then we need to make sure that more people have the right tools.

And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).


Yeah, we get it. You're still doing it wrong. 

Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.
 
2012-12-15 11:29:35 PM

birdmanesq: Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and - death/index.html

Debunked

Link

birdmanesq: See, this is a convenient out. The fact that a person purchased a firearm legally and then resold that firearm illegally means that it's the buyer's individual bad act, not the fact that we are unwilling to license and register firearms to individual owners--or otherwise regulate at the point of sale. All this demonstrates is the ease with which legal firearms become illegal firearms.

The gov't has a perfectly legal way of tracing a gun from manufacturer to FFL. The FFL can report who they sold the gun to. That person can then answer as to why they've sold several guns to a criminal within a short time frame of buying it.

These are the current tools available to the gov't.

Some in the gov't want more. They want every sale to go through an FFL and for all sales to be tracked and reported to the gov't regardless of crime involvement. This is the line that is being held because people who know the current gun laws know the request is bullshiat.

There's a great Gary Willis piece on that issue of the Tennessee Law Review. Of course, that revisionist history has now become Constitutional jurisprudence, so I guess that argument is over.

And that's kind of a grand view on the current regulatory environment. Honestly, it's not nearly coordinated enough to regulate like you suggest.


Ug, Wills. I have no idea why my phone insists on correcting 'Wills' to 'Willis.'

/Watchutalkinbout?
 
2012-12-15 11:29:41 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.


...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.
 
2012-12-15 11:31:19 PM

Mrbogey: keithgabryelski: the debunking is really handwaving.

The debunking deals with the bulk of the charges you listed. It gets pragmatic on the actual evidence but it doesn't support the thrust of the assertions made by your link

It's like you saying that God is a pink unicorn and someone responds back how you just made it up and your research stinks though nobody can say for certain God isn't a pink unicorn.


i dont even understand what you are talking about

can we just end this with "your blog sucks"?
 
2012-12-15 11:32:10 PM

CruiserTwelve: It comes down to this: We'll do the same thing we've done after the last 20 mass killings, which is nothing. Next week or next month there'll be another mass killing and we'll do the same. Mass killings are just a way of life in America now. Accept it and move on.


Population control
 
2012-12-15 11:32:20 PM
Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense (I've only used mine twice and only one was reported to police)
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.( after I drew my weapon one guy decided that he did not need nor want anything he was asking me for and started to run away very very fast, almost as if he was intimidated.... another guy decided that going prone eagle and waiting for the cops to arrive was a pretty good suggestion by the guy poiting his firearm at him)
Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense. (probably by the guy with the tear drop tat on his face listening to MC Ren in his six fo' Impala)
Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime( what like attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon?...you don't farking say)
Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens( well obviously anyone willing to stand up for themselves or their friends/family/stuff etc is not a decent law abiding citizen...)
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide
 
2012-12-15 11:32:52 PM

cman: For instance, Herostratus is a classical example of those who want fame and glory for the wrong reasons.


He's also a good example of how successful they can be.
 
2012-12-15 11:33:51 PM

keithgabryelski: rohar:
No, not at all. The overview you cited compared demographics of one group against demographics of another group. What we're proposing is a temporal shift over a static demographic. This is a very different thing. I'll repeat, restricted or more lax gun control laws over a static demographic have never, from what can be seen in the statistics, had an affect on homicide rates in America. But this is what you're proposing. Give our historical behavior, your suggestion doesn't even pass the smell test for making things better.

ok, so what you are saying is we don't have data for across america for the current era?

fine -- let's go with "gun control" and see how it works out.

/you aren't going to get the information you want, it doesn't exist -- you must extrapolate from best fit information. read the articles.


No, we do have data. We've change gun control laws both at the state level and nationally numerous times over the past 4 decades. Those changes had no significant change on crime/homicide rates.

Of course I'm not going to get the information I'm asking for. It doesn't exist. There's no data supporting the idea the more restrictive/less restrictive gun control affects crime/homicide rates. Them's the facts. Learn to deal with it.

You want to reduce crime/homicide rates? You're gonna have to look elsewhere.
 
2012-12-15 11:33:53 PM

Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.


Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.
 
2012-12-15 11:33:55 PM
ghare
"You think seatbelts cost more lives than they save too, don't you?"

Really? Are you another one of the people who thinks things will be all butterflies, candy canes, and lollipops if only we just banned those devilish guns? You can have a fun time in fantasy land, while I still live in reality, where some people are crazy/evil/bad, guns are never getting fully eradicated short of a police state, and I'd like to be able to defend myself.

Either you're living a fantasy where guns will disappear forever from every criminal's hands if only our federal government would make it happen ... or you realize that won't happen, in which case, you must think the cops are going to bust in and save the day before crazy dude puts 3 in your chest. Have fun with all that.
 
2012-12-15 11:34:25 PM

trackstr777: zenobia

Firstly, if we are going to talk about assault weapons, put a definition on it.

- Automatic only? Semi-automatic?
- Magazine capacity?
- Based on size of the rifle, or the rounds it uses?
- Features on the weapon?

It's easy to talk about assault weapons as one group, and it's a lot harder to define that group. This was part of the weakness of the AWB. So have at it.


You do it. I'm looking for yeses, not noes. Someone who knows guns needs to come up with a reasonable limit to how many bullets can be spewed in a minute. And explain why.

My starting point is: not even semi-automatics for personal use. But maybe there could be arcades where customers who pass certain tests could pay to play with big guns for fun.

I am willing to compromise in what I want done, but my tolerance is gone for the whackos who want whatever firepower they'll need to defeat the gubmint when it comes fer them.
 
2012-12-15 11:34:28 PM

Giltric: Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense (I've only used mine twice and only one was reported to police)
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.( after I drew my weapon one guy decided that he did not need nor want anything he was asking me for and started to run away very very fast, almost as if he was intimidated.... another guy decided that going prone eagle and waiting for the cops to arrive was a pretty good suggestion by the guy poiting his firearm at him)
Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense. (probably by the guy with the tear drop tat on his face listening to MC Ren in his six fo' Impala)
Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime( what like attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon?...you don't farking say)
Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens( well obviously anyone willing to stand up for themselves or their friends/family/stuff etc is not a decent law abiding citizen...)
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Across states, more guns = more homicide


I'm inclined to believe the "100,000 crimes per year are deterred by firearms" statistic.

Which is by no means insignificant.
 
2012-12-15 11:35:21 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: wademh: who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns.

Do you have a citation in regards to that?

For all we know he killed her then went rummaging around for a key to a safe.

What did he shoot her with?


No idea....do you?
 
2012-12-15 11:35:44 PM

rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.

...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.


Yes. I would trade the UK's firearm homicide rate for the US's.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:17 PM

trackstr777: ghare
"You think seatbelts cost more lives than they save too, don't you?"

Really? Are you another one of the people who thinks things will be all butterflies, candy canes, and lollipops if only we just banned those devilish guns? You can have a fun time in fantasy land, while I still live in reality, where some people are crazy/evil/bad, guns are never getting fully eradicated short of a police state, and I'd like to be able to defend myself.

Either you're living a fantasy where guns will disappear forever from every criminal's hands if only our federal government would make it happen ... or you realize that won't happen, in which case, you must think the cops are going to bust in and save the day before crazy dude puts 3 in your chest. Have fun with all that.


Yes yes, sweetie, your time spent playing Call of Duty makes you a big man. I'm just sure you'll be the one to save the day, if you can get the vaseline-and-cheetos paste off your hands quick enough to grab your mommy's gun.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:22 PM

ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.


I was right about the lesbian faking her attack, but you forget that, don't you?
 
2012-12-15 11:36:36 PM

wademh: The shooter's mother legally owned the murder weapons. She is a poster-child for typical NRA rhetoric about the right to bear-arms, except she was an idiot who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns. She and her son are the reason that our permissive gun laws feed these tragedies. If you think guns are nice things, they are the reason you can't have nice things, they and the millions just like them.


Is there a good reason why she would have secured her guns from her adult son in her own home? He wasn't a juvenile and he hadn't been adjudicated incompetent, so her weapons were as "secure" as anyone's guns are in a home with no children.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:39 PM

ghare: For newbs, Mrbogey is a lying sack of shiat who is one of those people you ca use to test if something stupid or not: if Mrbogey is for it, you can rest assured it's a stupid position.


Put some ice on it will you. I didn't hurt you that bad. Your butt had have healed by now.
 
2012-12-15 11:36:48 PM

birdmanesq: graggor: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

And I am not even a gun nut by any means.

Gun ownership and gun control dont have much to do with falling crime rates in this country.

Better police, access to abortion, social welfare and health and medicine have far more to do with it than anything.

Mass incarceration has also been helpful.



Well I agree incarceration has a lot to do with it quite often these numbers are inflated by certain factors. we count people on parole....this inflates the number a lot.

The number of people actually in prison is .7% of the country. Which is still a lot and many people are in jail for non violent reasons which maybe we will get to a point where we do not imprison these people as long.

Either way there are 300 million people out there to commit crime and 2 million in jail.
7 million on parole and in jail combined.

So it is what is. If we had even BETTER health care we could see this go lower.

But the US is a complicated country. Our demographics are so different from many of these monochromatic societies.
 
2012-12-15 11:37:07 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu:

AGREE -- Add mental health screening to application process

What does that mean exactly? Do we keep guns out of the hands of everyone with autism or ass burgers? Folks on Prozac or Ritalin? How is that going to work, exactly? Are we going to start giving folks Voight-Kampf tests ("Tell me only the good things that come into your mind about your mother." "I'll tell you about my mother!") before they buy a gun? Do you need to get a clean bill of health from a shrink before getting a gun? Is there some kind of quiz you can give that detects the presence of a Dark Passenger?

I keep hearing folks bring up the mental health thing, but in a world where having your kid on some kind of psych medication is trendy, where doctors hand out Prozac like Halloween candy, and a huge chunk of the population believes the President is a seekret muslin, if we start forbidding mentally defectives from having guns, there's not going to be a whole hell of a lot of people left qualified to own a gun. Fine with me, but I'm not sure that's the direction people are expecting to go.


THIS. This also might open the question of the efficacy of psychological diagnoses and whether or not someone is incorrectly diagnosed or if such a person's private healthcare information should be forked over to the NCIC database (Read: a database of "crazies"). I'm really sick of reading posts by pro-gun control advocates who advocate such a policy without pondering the effects of this.
 
2012-12-15 11:37:12 PM

Lsherm: ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.

I was right about the lesbian faking her attack, but you forget that, don't you?


Now you're just lying again.
 
2012-12-15 11:37:26 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.

...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.

Yes. I would trade the UK's firearm homicide rate for the US's.


But moving to GB isn't what anyone is suggesting. Passing the same laws they did is a suggestion. Since they passed their draconian gun laws, homicide by gun has over doubled. You sure you want to double ours?
 
2012-12-15 11:37:32 PM

Silverstaff:
Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


Answer: The systematic decimation of the social safety net.

The reptilian creeps in the GOP that have stoked the fire of gun fetishism in this country are the same bastards that have advocated 30 years worth of "Fu#k you, I got mine" politics which ensured virtually no access to psychological services for people who need it.

It's not hard to figure out.
 
2012-12-15 11:38:35 PM
If this tragedy doesn't result in an assault weapons ban then this country is farked.
 
2012-12-15 11:38:49 PM

ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.


Sorry, have you been right about anything? You don't seem to care about anything. You don't post, you don't care, and you don't effect change.

How are the sidelines? Are the seats comfortable?
 
2012-12-15 11:39:24 PM

graggor: birdmanesq: graggor: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This shouldnt be hard to figure out.

And I am not even a gun nut by any means.

Gun ownership and gun control dont have much to do with falling crime rates in this country.

Better police, access to abortion, social welfare and health and medicine have far more to do with it than anything.

Mass incarceration has also been helpful.


Well I agree incarceration has a lot to do with it quite often these numbers are inflated by certain factors. we count people on parole....this inflates the number a lot.

The number of people actually in prison is .7% of the country. Which is still a lot and many people are in jail for non violent reasons which maybe we will get to a point where we do not imprison these people as long.

Either way there are 300 million people out there to commit crime and 2 million in jail.
7 million on parole and in jail combined.

So it is what is. If we had even BETTER health care we could see this go lower.

But the US is a complicated country. Our demographics are so different from many of these monochromatic societies.


Don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you. And you're right, there are lots of balls in the air.
 
2012-12-15 11:39:47 PM

Mrbogey: ghare: For newbs, Mrbogey is a lying sack of shiat who is one of those people you ca use to test if something stupid or not: if Mrbogey is for it, you can rest assured it's a stupid position.

Put some ice on it will you. I didn't hurt you that bad. Your butt had have healed by now.


What is it with you and all your homo rape fantasies? You Republicans, all fans of rape and homo sex.
 
2012-12-15 11:40:26 PM
 
2012-12-15 11:41:00 PM

Lsherm: ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.

Sorry, have you been right about anything? You don't seem to care about anything. You don't post, you don't care, and you don't effect change.

How are the sidelines? Are the seats comfortable?


Some people are ashamed to be liars. They had good parents. But not you. You proudly lie and herp the derp. You getting ready for Romney's inauguration?
 
2012-12-15 11:41:18 PM

Silverstaff: What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


Lack of respect for eachother?

Just look at how smart people on either side of the political spectrum argue with eachother...you asshole.
 
2012-12-15 11:41:30 PM
Plus the crime in china is kind of crazy. they are a nation of a billion and claim to only imprison 1 million....hahaahah ok sure buddy.
 
2012-12-15 11:41:39 PM

Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: wademh: who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns.

Do you have a citation in regards to that?

For all we know he killed her then went rummaging around for a key to a safe.

What did he shoot her with?

No idea....do you?


Any reason to think it was anything other than one of her unsecured weapons?
 
2012-12-15 11:41:51 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.


BINGO!!!!
 
2012-12-15 11:42:06 PM

syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.


True, but guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.
 
2012-12-15 11:42:35 PM

rohar: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

BINGO!!!!


And letting the mentally ill and Republicans have guns. But I repeat myself.
 
2012-12-15 11:42:49 PM
Most gun violence is crimes of people who know one another.

our murder rates in this country are so much lower than they used to be.

its a fairly safe place to live. it could be safer but we do pretty well considering.
 
2012-12-15 11:42:53 PM

rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.

...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.

Yes. I would trade the UK's firearm homicide rate for the US's.

But moving to GB isn't what anyone is suggesting. Passing the same laws they did is a suggestion. Since they passed their draconian gun laws, homicide by gun has over doubled. You sure you want to double ours?


How many people died due to firearm violence in the UK? How about Japan? How about the US? It ain't alchemy. People don't get shot as much when there are few guns available.
 
2012-12-15 11:43:38 PM

ghare: Lsherm: ghare: Lsherm: ...Christ, you can't even troll correctly. You must not be very smart.

Hehehhe from you that's hilarious. Another one who has never been right about anything, ever. If you;re for it, it's a stupid idea. Based on your Fark history, if you said the sun will rise tomorrow, I'd be positive the end of the world was here.

Sorry, have you been right about anything? You don't seem to care about anything. You don't post, you don't care, and you don't effect change.

How are the sidelines? Are the seats comfortable?

Some people are ashamed to be liars. They had good parents. But not you. You proudly lie and herp the derp. You getting ready for Romney's inauguration?


Cute.

See ya. What's bizarre to me is that you had to switch accounts in the middle of the thread.
 
2012-12-15 11:45:32 PM

chuggernaught: syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

True, but guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.


Actually, murderers are more successful with fire and bombs in terms of numbers so let's ban matches, home depot and supermarkets.
 
2012-12-15 11:46:42 PM

ghare: rohar: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

BINGO!!!!

And letting the mentally ill and Republicans have guns. But I repeat myself.


Gun control in this country wont solve the spree problem. Because the spree thing will continue to persevere for all time. sorry its human nature.

bad things will happen and we can try to minimize it but its never going to go away.

I was cured all right!!!! some people asking for gun control will watch that movie and think its awesome yet completely miss the point....
 
2012-12-15 11:47:03 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.

...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.

Yes. I would trade the UK's firearm homicide rate for the US's.

But moving to GB isn't what anyone is suggesting. Passing the same laws they did is a suggestion. Since they passed their draconian gun laws, homicide by gun has over doubled. You sure you want to double ours?

How many people died due to firearm violence in the UK? How about Japan? How about the US? It ain't alchemy. People don't get shot as much when there are few guns available.


Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of statistics. The simple math proves you wrong.
 
2012-12-15 11:47:47 PM

chuggernaught: guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.


exactly. you can outrun a knife, but you can't outrun a bullet.
 
2012-12-15 11:48:13 PM
zenobia

"You do it. I'm looking for yeses, not noes. Someone who knows guns needs to come up with a reasonable limit to how many bullets can be spewed in a minute. And explain why.
My starting point is: not even semi-automatics for personal use. But maybe there could be arcades where customers who pass certain tests could pay to play with big guns for fun.
I am willing to compromise in what I want done, but my tolerance is gone for the whackos who want whatever firepower they'll need to defeat the gubmint when it comes fer them."

Well, I think your premise is wrong right from the get go. Here's a study of different bullet types, and the effectiveness of each, in a huge amount of historical data about gun fights in the last 10 years (1,785 incidents). Guess how many of those were attributable to rifle rounds? *Seven* percent (7%). So I disagree with your whole premise.

If we are talking about fully automatic or selective fire weapons, they are already ridiculously restricted, very expensive, very tracked, and have a multitude of laws around them that don't apply to just general firearms. Also, as someone else said, there are maybe 2-3 known examples of legally owned fully automatic weapons being used in crimes in the last few DECADES. They are not the problem.

And based on this evidence, rifles in general are not really the problem. This is why I quickly get into specifics, because ironically enough, the weapons that fire the fastest or look the most dangerous are typically the weapons that are least likely to be used for nefarious reasons.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
 
2012-12-15 11:48:41 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.


What percentage of gun crimes do you think are being committed by the mentally ill?
 
2012-12-15 11:49:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: chuggernaught: syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

True, but guns make it easier for cowards to do their dirty work.

Actually, murderers are more successful with fire and bombs in terms of numbers so let's ban matches, home depot and supermarkets.


Take this tired bullshiat back to the other thread you crapped all over.

What's the most popular murder weapon in the United States? (Hint: responsible for 68% of murders.)
 
2012-12-15 11:49:34 PM

Popcorn Johnny: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

What percentage of gun crimes do you think are being committed by the mentally ill?


I would suggest that murdering someone qualifies a person as mentally ill.
 
2012-12-15 11:50:32 PM

birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.

Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

People keep ignoring Chicago and other cities rife with gun violence and tight on guns like their numbers are meaningless. Straw purchasing in itself is illegal, but it's pretty much uncontrollable.

I mean, I certainly think that violence in Chicago is meaningful (otherwise my work would be nonsense), but there are lots of things that make Chicago an outlier when you're talking about strict gun laws and firearm homicides. I mean, all Chicago shows is that strict laws don't guarantee lower homicide rates.


I appreciate what you do, or are working toward with you studies? I don't exactly know what you do, but I read your posts. I assume most the gun violence in your city can be directly attributed to poverty, and I would rather see the poverty addressed than ignored and the murders continue. As I said in my Boobs I would like to see mental health spending increased and some HIPPA changes since I don't believe whatever form of gun control would be very effective against these spree killers.
 
2012-12-15 11:51:00 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: wademh: who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns.

Do you have a citation in regards to that?

For all we know he killed her then went rummaging around for a key to a safe.

What did he shoot her with?

No idea....do you?

Any reason to think it was anything other than one of her unsecured weapons?


If they were not secured did she have any reason to believe her son was going to kill her and that they should be locked up for that reason?

Do you live in fear of your children or spouse? How can you call that living?
 
2012-12-15 11:52:20 PM

rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: Uranus Is Huge!: rohar: keithgabryelski: rohar: fark, you don't understand the myriad of free variables that come with different demographics do you? I'm pretty sure I don't have the energy, this late at night, to explain it.

How 'bout you just continue on with your conclusion. You obviously chose that first and decided to rationalize it later. There's little I can do to help you think rationally. You seem to resist it at every turn.

you seem obtuse. please tell me and everyone how we are not reaching the goal posts.

We as a nation, with a specific demographic (different as a whole from Chicago, LA or MT) are dealing with a gun related crime issue. The suggested response seems to be federal gun ownership limitation.

Historically, limitations on gun ownership in any given demographic in this country have not reduced violent crime. No statistic shows otherwise. When we look at any demographic that passed gun control measures, gun related crime increases.

Given all of the repeated failures in other demographics, why on earth would it work in the demographic that is all of us?

Probably because we almost never hear about gun crimes in countries with very strict gun control laws.

...like Britain, who's homicide rate has doubled since they virtually outlawed guns.

Yes. I would trade the UK's firearm homicide rate for the US's.

But moving to GB isn't what anyone is suggesting. Passing the same laws they did is a suggestion. Since they passed their draconian gun laws, homicide by gun has over doubled. You sure you want to double ours?

How many people died due to firearm violence in the UK? How about Japan? How about the US? It ain't alchemy. People don't get shot as much when there are few guns available.

Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of stati ...


Yet their rate of gun crime is about 1/4 of ours in the United States.
 
2012-12-15 11:52:24 PM

Silverstaff: Okay, derp on both sides aside, here's probably what's going to happen.

A renewal of the ineffectual, toothless 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, assuming anything happens and the Republicans in Congress don't sink it.

What that means in practicality is that everyone who currently has guns will stock up on pre-ban magazines. People who want an assault rifle will buy them before the ban goes into effect.

People who want guns will still be able to get ahold of them, but will be grumbling and distrustful and feeling oppressed, but anti-gun types can feel better about themselves because they banned "assault weapons".

Meanwhile nothing really changes.

Personally, It'll mean I'll finally have to shell out for that AR-15 I've been meaning to get, before it goes into effect, and stock up on a few full-size magazines, and buy some full size magazines for my pistols.


Meanwhile, what's really needed is improved licensing and training. You need to undergo a test and at times a refresher test to drive a car. Good thing because misuse of cars is deadly. To own a gun you should have to undergo routine training and document that you have a safe place to keep your guns. Of course, this would be completely unacceptable to the paranoid folks who think they need their guns to protect themselves from the government.
 
2012-12-15 11:52:47 PM

Lionel Mandrake: kmmontandon: themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that


It doesn't matter how you finish this sentence, the Republican answer is "no."

The more erudite among them will say "No, because communism"


"Furthermore, socialism."
 
2012-12-15 11:53:30 PM

graggor: Most gun violence is crimes of people who know one another.

our murder rates in this country are so much lower than they used to be.

its a fairly safe place to live. it could be safer but we do pretty well considering.


I guess a room full of dead kindergardners is acceptable risk, because maybe some of them knew the mother of the killer.
 
2012-12-15 11:53:49 PM

cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.


So, the Great Gene Pool Chlorination Event of 2013?

Like I said in threads around the election, when the fringe right wing were screaming that it's time for "CW 2.0!!!111!", good. Do it. I hope they televise it too. It should be hilarious watching them get stepped on like insects.

I also like that idea about heavily taxing ownership of multiple firearms. Though I'd make it a percentage of your income, that way nobody can cry that the rich have an advantage there or the poor are unfairly penalized. 

/ I've heard the sponge migration event was pretty cool too...
 
2012-12-15 11:54:12 PM
Can we address mental health? On one hand you have dozens of kids dead in Connecticut. On the flip side you have 22 wounded, some in critical care, after a crazy dude did a knife attack at a school.

Gun control has the benefit of reducing lethality of the attacks, but it doesn't solve them. It just means the guy shows up with propane tanks rigged as bombs, a bow, a knife, a mail order sword, a rock, etc. I'd rather address mental health detection and treatment and allocation of our police force and how we fund it.

/for example with what we're spending in Afghanistan we could have fuzz in every school to give their DARE talks, enforce school zone speed limits, and be right there to respond to shootings
 
2012-12-15 11:54:17 PM
This country would be a better place if people like rohar spent less time trying to cover for the murder industry and more time volunteering for their fellow man.

Handguns murders, USA: 10,000/year
Handgun murders, rest of civilized countries: 0 - 200/year

Math is hard :(
 
2012-12-15 11:54:28 PM

rohar: Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of stati ...


i'm sure there is bullshiat in whomever came up with these statistics (i see reason magazine when I do a google search -- which we know cuts information in whatever way best fits their assertion).

the fact is that the UK has an incredibly low homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea th_rate)
and incredibly low gun violent rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)
and the studies I quoted earlier claim that across nations -- more guns = more homicide.
 
2012-12-15 11:55:03 PM

Silverstaff: Also, something else to note.

Why do we never sit down and talk about why these crimes begin in the first place?

School shootings/active shooter incidents didn't happen much before the late 90's. What changed culturally?

It's obviously not access to guns. That was in the middle of the assault weapons ban. Decades earlier it was easier to get ahold of guns, including fully automatic weapons.

Nobody ran around in the 1960's or 1970's shooting up schools, when guns were easier to get ahold of.

Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


We live in a culture of fear, hate and violence.

As a nation we were attacked and it impacted us in ways we still don't completely understand. Yes, call me crazy, but I think much of this stems from 9/11 and the ignorance fueled hyper-partisanship we live in.

Our nation thrives on violence, it's our countries number one export. We've developed a discourse that places anyone that thinks or looks different as your mortal enemy. We see the most sacred of our institutions run by greed and plagued by scandal, the whole system seems alive and working against the little guy.

You are right. Something has changed. More than one thing. Not only has the overall discourse and environment been tainted, there is also the aspect of why is this becoming a more preferred channel to cope with whatever the individuals problems are?

I think that may have to do with an escalation of emotions. The environment isn't just tainted, it's charged. Every single thing is a tragedy of national proportions. Every political act is the end of the world to someone. Every event overseas seems like it must somehow relate back to us and thus the American people. We are bombarded every day with it.

On top of that we socially network now. Feeding off narcissism and a constant connectivity to everything and everyone. Nothing is private, nothing is personal, no one unplugs.

The background noise has increased, I guess is a good way to say it.

We never go back to normal, we seem to lurch from one state of alert and attention to another. I'm no expert and I'm certainly not wording it the best way... but it is most certainly a product of the culture and I'm not seeing us moving in a better direction. I expect it to only get worse.
 
2012-12-15 11:56:35 PM

violentsalvation: birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: violentsalvation: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.

Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

People keep ignoring Chicago and other cities rife with gun violence and tight on guns like their numbers are meaningless. Straw purchasing in itself is illegal, but it's pretty much uncontrollable.

I mean, I certainly think that violence in Chicago is meaningful (otherwise my work would be nonsense), but there are lots of things that make Chicago an outlier when you're talking about strict gun laws and firearm homicides. I mean, all Chicago shows is that strict laws don't guarantee lower homicide rates.

I appreciate what you do, or are working toward with you studies? I don't exactly know what you do, but I read your posts. I assume most the gun violence in your city can be directly attributed to poverty, and I would rather see the poverty addressed than ignored and the murders continue. As I said in my Boobs I would like to see mental health spending increased and some HIPPA changes since I don't believe whatever form of gun control would be very effective against these spree killers.


I mean, I think that you and I would likely agree on a lot of stuff. I grew up shooting, and still handle a shotgun fairly well--though it's my wife's family who are the real hunters. I have no interest in taking anybody's guns--as long as they keep following the law.

But I do think that the counterfactuals on gun control don't really tell the whole story. Honestly, I think most of the evidence base on that is really crummy.
 
2012-12-15 11:57:00 PM

keithgabryelski: rohar: Uh, that was kinda the point of the law in GB. To limit access to guns. Strangely, the number of victims of gun crimes over doubled in a couple short decades. Your assertion flies in the face of stati ...

i'm sure there is bullshiat in whomever came up with these statistics (i see reason magazine when I do a google search -- which we know cuts information in whatever way best fits their assertion).

the fact is that the UK has an incredibly low homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_dea th_rate)
and incredibly low gun violent rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom)
and the studies I quoted earlier claim that across nations -- more guns = more homicide.


Yes, but it rised dramatically as gun control became more restrictive. The number of guns in the country was reduced and the gun based crime increased. Odd huh?

Maybe, just maybe, gun control wasn't what changed the metrics. I wonder what it could have been...
 
2012-12-15 11:57:15 PM
ghare
"Yes yes, sweetie, your time spent playing Call of Duty makes you a big man. I'm just sure you'll be the one to save the day, if you can get the vaseline-and-cheetos paste off your hands quick enough to grab your mommy's gun."

Once again, an idiot who thinks they know how every gun enthusiast is based on a few teenage armchair warriors typing on the internet.

I've done a lot of shooting, but haven't chosen what type of handgun I'm going to buy yet (leaning towards HK 45 or Sig Sauer P229 9mm). I also feel like I need to put a lot more time at the range, to get more proficient, both before I make a purchase, and especially before I pursue acquiring a CCW. This trend of playing things on the safe side, and while having a lot of interest in firearms, also having a lot of respect for their purpose, and the hope to never have to use them, is a common trend among almost everyone I've met during my range time.

Yet, unlike you, I'm not an idiot that pretends that the cops are going to show up quick enough to save me. In that situation, I tend to think my first choice is to try to escape the danger as quickly as possible. But once again, if push came to shove and there was no reasonable means of escape, I'd rather me or someone around me have a gun, than not. You paint me as some ITG, yet you're the one who continues to either be so foolish as to pretend the full eradication of firearms is possible, or cocky enough to pretend that when the shiat hits the fan, you'd absolutely be able to escape your attacker or subdue said threat without any firearm. Best of luck to you and your deadly supermarket banana, should that ever come to fruition.
 
2012-12-15 11:57:31 PM

ha-ha-guy: Can we address mental health?


Sure, as soon as we take care of the gun control issues.
 
2012-12-15 11:57:56 PM
danielwheeler.org
 
2012-12-15 11:58:59 PM

trackstr777: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866


That's all well and good if you want to obsess about that's your hobby. I don't want to interfere with responsible gun owners' enjoyment. I do want Joe Schmo off the street who has a bug up his ass to not be able to grab a weapon of mass destruction out of someone's gun closet and relieve his tensions. How about you and one of your buddies work on that study for a change?
 
2012-12-15 11:59:03 PM

pornopose: I used to be okay with the staus quo. No longer. Our leaders need to sit down and make some changes to gun ownership requirements in this country. When a class full of little kids gets shot up, something has to change. Period. I'm not saying go gun grabbing. I'm not saying get rid of the second amendment. But they HAVE to do SOMETHING. To do nothing would constitute the biggest failure of leadership at all levels of our government. This must not be ignored.


Nice emotional, knee-jerk reaction. Come back when you're less emotional and more rational.
 
2012-12-15 11:59:34 PM

Generation_D: graggor: Most gun violence is crimes of people who know one another.

our murder rates in this country are so much lower than they used to be.

its a fairly safe place to live. it could be safer but we do pretty well considering.

I guess a room full of dead kindergardners is acceptable risk, because maybe some of them knew the mother of the killer.


Wow. Thanks for cheapening their deaths there to make a non existent point.

IF he had bombed the school he would have killed even more people!!!!

It is a horrible tragedy but to argue one way gun control or the other more gun ownership is missing the point.

Abortion, welfare, health care, economy and better policeforces have far more to do with our lower crime rate than more people owning guns or people finding it harder to own guns.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Change this amendment and you can ban guns. I guess you can try to ban types of guns. I dont care if you try that but it still gets into some sticky territory....

(the comma in that sentence is really really important)
 
2012-12-16 12:00:37 AM

rohar: Yes, but it rised dramatically as gun control became more restrictive. The number of guns in the country was reduced and the gun based crime increased. Odd huh?

Maybe, just maybe, gun control wasn't what changed the metrics. I wonder what it could have been...


it sounds like bullshiat -- the information has been sliced in a dishonest way.

what we do know (reading the homicide rates from my wikipedia link above): if the nation has less guns that nation has less homicides.

I'm good with that as a starting point.