Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(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
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3089 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1048 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
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