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

(Think Progress)   In one day, more people have signed a petition asking Obama to address gun control than Texans wanting to secede from the Union   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 1045
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3079 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Dec 2012 at 8:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1045 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 1045 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report