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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1049 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