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 157
    More: Obvious, President Obama, unions, gun regulation, petitions  
•       •       •

3076 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-15 06:13:11 PM
14 votes:
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 06:15:21 PM
12 votes:
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 06:27:53 PM
11 votes:

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 06:06:16 PM
10 votes:
So there are more stupid people in the entire U.S. than there are stupid people in the state of Texas?
2012-12-15 06:03:49 PM
10 votes:
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 09:35:41 PM
8 votes:
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 07:15:21 PM
6 votes:
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 10:34:44 PM
5 votes:

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 10:13:29 PM
5 votes:
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 10:03:37 PM
5 votes:
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 09:14:24 PM
5 votes:

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 06:15:49 PM
5 votes:

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 09:51:43 PM
4 votes:
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 09:30:30 PM
4 votes:
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 09:29:44 PM
4 votes:

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 08:48:46 PM
4 votes:
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 06:29:31 PM
4 votes:
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 06:22:26 PM
4 votes:

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 06:04:50 PM
4 votes:
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 10:42:41 PM
3 votes:
My heart goes out to everyone harmed by this tragedy, their friends, and their families.

I would like to say that since 1991, American society appears to becoming less violent, though, rather than more so.

www.americanprogress.org

Arguments for increased gun control need to recognize that A) Connecticut actually has fairly strict gun laws compared to other states (it was ranked #5 according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), B) We survived the 90's, which had much higher rates of violence, and C) Pushing through laws based on shock and sadness gives us things like the Patriot Act and the TSA.

We do need measures to get mentally ill people the help they need, and ways to keep guns out of the hands of those likely to harm others. I just don't want to see expensive measures rammed through Congress that would have been useless to prevent the tragedy in Connecticut to begin with.
2012-12-15 09:55:15 PM
3 votes:
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 08:12:51 PM
3 votes:

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 06:36:50 PM
3 votes:
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 06:19:53 PM
3 votes:

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"
2012-12-16 02:37:10 PM
2 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Can you gun nuts even begin to make a valid point?


Can you gun grabbers even begin to make a valid point?

Gun grabbers keep talking about how we don't need guns, therefore we shouldn't have them. They talk about how many kids died, screaming "think of the children!", like we should surrender our liberties because somebody did something dumb.

Yeah, last time we started increasing security and taking away freedoms because people died, we ended up with the TSA.

I don't need to justify to you, or anybody else why I want an AR-15, why I want to have 30-round clips for it, or why I like to have a variety of handguns. The only justification I need is the Second Amendment, and since I'm a law abiding citizen, it's no damn business of yours or anybody elses.

Fear the people who fear your guns.
2012-12-16 12:03:53 PM
2 votes:

John Dewey: 3. Ban on sale of cop-killer ammunition


Does not exist. Hollow-points often get called cop killer bullets but they're the least effective at piercing armor. Most effective at piercing armor? Steel core... never used to kill a cop though

John Dewey: 4. Prison for gunsmiths and others converting weapons to auto fire


Already law. It's illegal to convert a weapon to FA.

This is kinda why gun owners come off as smug and pissy. When one side is proposing solutions but show such ignorance of the issues already... what do you expect?

the_vegetarian_cannibal: No, the Tea Party and the whole shiatfit conservatives threw about Obamacare over the last 3 years never happened. NEVER! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!!


In your wild anger, you should realize you made yourself look childish, ignorant, and just plain dumb. You've conflated several issues and put them under the same heading as shallow minds are want to do.

So, got a link to Tea Party/conservatives/Republicans saying we don't need an improved mental health system?
2012-12-16 06:09:51 AM
2 votes:

badhatharry: 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


Lots of guns, sure. Also much stricter gun and ammo laws than the US. "Well regulated militia" accurately describes Switzerland.
2012-12-16 02:39:59 AM
2 votes:
So out of 315 million people in the US, 1 takes a gun to kill 27. Therefore the other 314, 900,000+ should not be allowed to have guns. That makes sense.

Its a horrible situation but guns aren't the problem, people are.I'm so tired of listening to people blaming guns or video games. They're too self absorbed to realize that humans are the problem. And then try to fix the problem by jumping on their high horse and preaching their own misguided blather.
2012-12-16 02:12:41 AM
2 votes:

Jarhead_h: Also, something else no one seems to be talking about - on Friday morning not one single homeschooler took part in a fatal shooting in Newtown, CT.


Except one.
2012-12-16 12:28:26 AM
2 votes:

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.


I think this is the most understated point in this whole debate. These events are extraordinarily rare, yet incredibly high visibility, and it is a mistake to frame the whole of gun control around them.

For context, far less than 100 people die from spree killings in an average year. If you consider this risk to be distributed randomly among the entire population, this puts the risk at something like death by lightning strike (roughly 50 people per year in the USA), by falling icicles (roughly 100 per year in the USA), or by choking on a hot dog (roughly 100 per year in the USA). Just so we're clear on relative numbers, there are about 310,000,000 people living in the USA.

Looking at gun control in the context of spree killings is taking these extremely rare events and blowing them way out of proportion. According to the FBI, there were 12,664 reported homicides last year, and 8,583 of those involved a firearm (about 67%). Even assuming 100 people died from spree killings last year (which is high, but I don't know the true number), the number of spree homicides is a tiny fraction of the total number of gun homicides (about 1%).

Aside from spree killings, there are other firearms deaths that are not homicides that get a lot of play in the media: suicides and negligent firearms deaths. The primary cause of firearm death in America is suicide. There were 18,735 suicides in 2009 (60% of all firearms deaths that year, homicides only comprised 37%.) Death by negligent firearms discharge is also less than is commonly thought: in 2009 there were only 554 unintentional deaths due to firearms. Compare this to 118,021 total unintentional deaths recorded by the CDC that year and negligent discharges are only 0.4% of all accidental deaths. For comparison (and I really fail to find any good measuring stick for how many deaths can be mitigated, but for the sake of comparison I have to find something) in 2009 there were 418 influenza deaths among persons aged 15-24. We can't compare these two directly, but there are 43,000,000 Americans aged 15-24 and about 84,000,000 Americans who own guns, so a teenager is about twice as likely to die from the flu as a gun owner, family member, or friend is likely to die from a negligent discharge (on average.) I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's important to keep the *relative* risk in perspective.

You can also look at this the same way but with guns rather than deaths: there are roughly 310,000,000 non-military firearms in America. Let's try to estimate how many total crime guns there are in America, out of the total. The homicide rate in America is declining, so suppose for the sake of argument that there were 10,000 gun related homicides in America per year for the last 10 years. There were also about 250,000 counts of reported aggravated assaults and robberies with firearms last year, so extrapolate that for the last 10 years as well. That would be 100,000 gun homicides and 2,500,000 non-fatal violent gun crimes in America over the last ten years, for a total of 2,600,000 total offenses. Assume that each of these offenses is committed with a different gun for the sake of achieving an upper bound. Then, you get that of the 310,000,000 civilian firearms in America, at most 2,600,000 of them have been used for some kind of crime in the last 10 years, or about 0.8%. This is the worst possible case, and the likelihood is that the true number is much less than that (as a lot of these guns are going to be used more than once, or one event is recorded as multiple infractions by the FBI such as a count of both aggravated assault and burglary stemming from one break-in).

My only point is to say that gun control policy should be considered in light of ALL gun use in America, not just the incredibly rare and traumatic lightning rod events. The vast majority (literally the 99%) of gun users in America are not criminals and 99% of guns are not crime guns. In the context of all gun deaths in 2009 (31,347 total), the total of all spree killings still represents a very small portion of that (0.3%, assuming 100 spree killings.) These deaths are still an outlier when you're only considering gun homicides (8,583 in 2011, or 1.1% assuming 100 spree killings.)

This is really not a rant against gun control: there are lots of causes of death out there that kill more or less people that we also make a big deal about: in 2009 there were only 529 deaths due to tuberculosis and only 649 deaths due to meningitis, and we test/vaccinate large swathes of the population to keep those causes of death under control. Both numbers are far, far less than the total number of gun deaths in the US, and yet we still spend lots of time and effort to prevent those diseases.

We really need to keep hard facts in our heads when we start debating policy. You have to bear in mind that a lot of regulation (not just gun control) is inconveniencing the responsible 99% population to protect them from the reckless 1%, and you have really question whether it is worth it. Suppose your proposed regulation would cut the firearms death rate tenfold down to 1 firearms death per 100,000 people (extremely optimistic). You would still have 3,100 people dying each year from firearms (as opposed to 31,000) but you would have done major regulation of the people who own and use guns and you would have had to pay money for policing and enforcement, and even at such a level we would likely still see these kinds of spree killings, though they would only kill about 30 per year rather than 100. You would have saved 27,900 firearms deaths, though it's important to note that some of those deaths could still occur (such as suicides), and this is not addressing other questions such as what would the overall effect on violent crime actually be.

Sources:

FBI - Crime in the U.S. 2011

National Vital Statistics Reports - Deaths: Final Data for 2009

Congressional Research Service - Gun Control Legislation 

Gallup - Self-Reported Gun Ownership is Highest Since 1993
2012-12-16 12:09:45 AM
2 votes:
Popcorn Johnny
"Dimensio: Please describe a means of guaranteeing such a scenario.

Oh I dunno, how about metal detectors? They seem to work pretty well at courthouses, airports, sporting events, federal buildings, etc."


Metal detectors aren't what deters crime, it's the guys in uniform with their own guns working the metal detectors. Just having a metal detector is useless without the armed individual willing to ensure proper passage by unarmed individuals THROUGH said metal detector. In this example, say there was a metal detector at Sandy Hook Elementary. Without a cop working the metal detector, it justs give everyone inside a few seconds more warning before he starts his rampage. So unless you're proposing a metal detector in every single building in the country with equivalent armed individuals to man them, your solution is useless. And ironically enough, if you do propose the cops/guards to go with them, you've proposed a solution to the problem that involves a lot more firearms. Funny how that works, huh?
2012-12-15 11:54:12 PM
2 votes:
Can we address mental health? On one hand you have dozens of kids dead in Connecticut. On the flip side you have 22 wounded, some in critical care, after a crazy dude did a knife attack at a school.

Gun control has the benefit of reducing lethality of the attacks, but it doesn't solve them. It just means the guy shows up with propane tanks rigged as bombs, a bow, a knife, a mail order sword, a rock, etc. I'd rather address mental health detection and treatment and allocation of our police force and how we fund it.

/for example with what we're spending in Afghanistan we could have fuzz in every school to give their DARE talks, enforce school zone speed limits, and be right there to respond to shootings
2012-12-15 11:04:25 PM
2 votes:
I have a bit of advice for the pro gun crowd...

Quit acting so farking crazy and like guns are some kind of fetish and be willing to have some rational conversation about how to deal with gun deaths or you better believe its going to hurt. The nation is sick of it. Period. And you guys better find some sane mainstream voices then the NRA and Ted Nugent or all of your nightmares will come true. Preaching to the choir will not work.

Oh and leave the " Well if there were more guns then this would not have happened" Argument behind its not working

//And other thing the people who were posting Gun pictures like they were pin up picts yesterday were beyond revolting.
///Waited a day before saying what was on my mind.
2012-12-15 11:04:08 PM
2 votes:
Is the thread where we let government use a tragedy to further limit the rights of responsible law-abiding citizens?

/ terrorists win
// including domestic terrorists
2012-12-15 10:17:51 PM
2 votes:
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 10:09:06 PM
2 votes:

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 09:50:00 PM
2 votes:

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 09:47:45 PM
2 votes:
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 09:43:09 PM
2 votes:

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 09:37:16 PM
2 votes:

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 09:35:38 PM
2 votes:
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 09:30:17 PM
2 votes:
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 09:26:51 PM
2 votes:
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 09:23:28 PM
2 votes:

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 09:16:46 PM
2 votes:

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 08:40:28 PM
2 votes:

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 08:20:27 PM
2 votes:

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 07:22:47 PM
2 votes:
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 06:54:19 PM
2 votes:

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 06:25:39 PM
2 votes:
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 06:25:25 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-17 12:26:44 PM
1 votes:

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.


Gun control should be addressed. But it has nothing to do with what happened Friday.

But then again you want another Patriot act or worse. Lets keep pissing away what freedoms we have in the name of the all mighty bandaid and never address the real issues.
2012-12-16 06:04:24 PM
1 votes:

keithgabryelski: BraveNewCheneyWorld: How about if every state followed the model of one of the most strict gun control states to prevent this from happening. Oh, right CT already is one of the most strict gun control states

obviously they aren't strict enough.

shall we look at gun availability to homicides across countries?


What makes you assume gun control is the solution? It's never been proven to lessen violence. Are you open to finding the root cause and attacking that, or are you simply set in your opinion based beliefs? Everybody wants this to stop, but if we don't take a serious look at what actually causes massacres to happen, then we're doomed to hear of this happening again. Guns aren't the cause, they're a tool of choice used by most people who are already set on the path of murder by something else, we need to focus on the people, not what the choose to pick up first.
2012-12-16 03:12:45 PM
1 votes:
Summary of this entire debate:

"You gun nuts are all conservative baby-killers, why can't you have a reasonable discussion about compromise, nobody's trying to take your guns."

*reads calls for bans/confiscation, finds zero compromise from the anti-gun side

Sure is commonsense in here....
2012-12-16 02:38:43 PM
1 votes:

ivan: You need a licence to use one.


Actually this is popularly accepted but incorrect. Licenses are only required to operate a car on a public road.
2012-12-16 01:48:51 PM
1 votes:
i49.tinypic.com
2012-12-16 01:26:58 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," he said. "We had no takers."


no shiat. go on national tv to be vilified by the propaganda machine? i'd tell the press to go kick sand, too.
2012-12-16 12:54:38 PM
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Linux_Yes: i own a Glock 9mm.

Sorry about the small penis. You know you could just buy a cool car, right?



wow, you gave me the Queer Eye with that one. i wasn't even thinking about Penises, but you apparently were. sorry, but i'm straight.

either that, or you need to gallop that mule before you explode.
2012-12-16 12:33:54 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Here's a start from a poster to WashPost


the start of what? Totalitarianism?
2012-12-16 12:33:20 PM
1 votes:

John Dewey: Here's a start from a poster to WashPost


Console and then act.

1. Ban on sale of automatics, semi-automatics and conversion kits

2. Ban on sale of high capacity magazines

3. Ban on sale of cop-killer ammunition

4. Prison for gunsmiths and others converting weapons to auto fire

5. Insurance for guns owned as for pools

6. Ban on body armor except for law enforcement

7. Closure of gun show, private sales and other loosely regulated trading venues

8. Grandfather existing weapons but to remain on premises; high capacity magazines and cop-killer ammunition to be turned into police with 90 day grace period.

9. Internet notice of persons owning grandfathered banned weapons as per child predator safety notification

10. Annual recertification of gun owners with inventory

11. All weapons to be stored under lock and key


Semiautomatic guns aren't even banned in Canada.

There are no such thing as "cop killer bullets."

Gunsmiths aren't going around "changing guns to automatic fire."

You might be retarded.
2012-12-16 12:30:53 PM
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: Linux_Yes: no. they are sitting around waiting for someone like you to knock out a window at 3 a.m. or maybe waiting for the richest 2% and big business to exert even more control over their lives and their government.

It must suck living your life in such constant fear of the boogeyman.



i'm not afraid of the boogeyman because he does not exist. no evidence of his existance anyways. i do fear what is real, though. i fear the path that lies ahead if this Nation does not get its act together. if this Nation continues to allow the top 1 or 2% to determine its destiny.

you should fear some things in life. if you don't, you are either stupid or unaware.
2012-12-16 10:58:33 AM
1 votes:
the richest 2% of Americans who own this Nation and its Government (Obama is trying to reverse that trend and restore us to a real democratic system) would love strict gun control. hell, they'd love it if no one owned guns except them. it would give them even more control over the other 98%.

and control is addicting...........


besides, if the other 98% decided to take their Nation/Government back by force, they wouldn't have anything to do it with. and the Owners like that idea.........................wink wink.
2012-12-16 10:48:05 AM
1 votes:

mittromneysdog: Rather, it's favoring interpreting the 2nd Amendment correctly, to link private ownership of firearms to service in a well regulated militia.


"well regulated" does not mean what you think it means. There's your problem.
2012-12-16 10:37:19 AM
1 votes:

keithgabryelski: Linux_Yes: almost 50,000 Americans died in auto accidents last year (most from boozie drivers). i don't hear anyone talking about Car Control.

in your state, what is the legal alcohol blood level for drivers?

what was it 10 years ago?

what was it 20 years ago?



its 0.04% for commercial vehicle drivers. and there is no limit for drivers under 21.

but don't forget, some cars are just plain evil and will kill without warning.
2012-12-16 10:25:12 AM
1 votes:
The hypocrisy here is amazing. I see people saying "what makes gun owners think that registration will lead to confiscation?" followed by "let's take away all your guns". The only honest commie statists here are the ones openly admitting that they want to change the Constitution to take away our rights. Despite the evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons has actually reduced violent crime, people still say that the answer is to make us all more defenseless against psychos and gangs? Some people need to try thinking every now and then instead of just feeling.
2012-12-16 10:22:00 AM
1 votes:

Linux_Yes: MEXICO HAS VERY STRICT GUN LAWS. IT HAS CERTAINLY WORKED WELL FOR THEM............


never once have i seen a gun shoot someone on its own. the problem is our sick society and our value system, not guns. we live in a system that only values companies and cash and the wealthy, and then we wonder why someone goes off the deep end.
we're not a Nation of Citizens, we are a Nation of Capital. American Citizens are just something for Captial to exploit. like property. don't look at the guns, look into the mirror.

oh, and look into the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. it was put there for a reason.

almost 50,000 Americans died in auto accidents last year (most from boozie drivers). i don't hear anyone talking about Car Control.



correction: ~33,000 deaths due to auto accidents per year in America. that comes to about 93 deaths per day. we need to control those cars!! those dangerous cars!!
2012-12-16 10:15:44 AM
1 votes:
MEXICO HAS VERY STRICT GUN LAWS. IT HAS CERTAINLY WORKED WELL FOR THEM............


never once have i seen a gun shoot someone on its own. the problem is our sick society and our value system, not guns. we live in a system that only values companies and cash and the wealthy, and then we wonder why someone goes off the deep end.
we're not a Nation of Citizens, we are a Nation of Capital. American Citizens are just something for Captial to exploit. like property. don't look at the guns, look into the mirror.

oh, and look into the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. it was put there for a reason.

almost 50,000 Americans died in auto accidents last year (most from boozie drivers). i don't hear anyone talking about Car Control.
2012-12-16 09:34:18 AM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If he's dishonest, you should have provide a link showing such.


yes, there is evidence and I have cited it several times.

his increasing narrowing of needs for the cited data was unreasonable -- that is, they will never be possible to acquire exact demographic data before enacting restrictive legislation.

what that lead to is, from his, was this statement:
Changing gun control, either way, will have no affect on this situation. The statistics prove as much

which is a dishonest statement -- there is plenty of data for all nations (wiki link quoted above thread) and a paper written on high-income nations and a paper written across US states (havard public policy links) that show there is evidence that restricting guns in america would reduce homicides.

then he said this statement, which is also dishonest:
Can you find any change in gun control laws that had any affect on violent crime/homicide rates withing a limited demographic in the entire history of collected statics? I can't.

which -- well -- if you don't see that statement as just willful ignorance YOU are part of the problem.

The only solution is to get control of the mentally ill in our society which we have neglected since the 1960's. Our asylums have mutated into jails which means we have no preventative measures, only punitive. You are literally in favor of nothing more than punishing criminals after they have committed their crimes, we want them caught beforehand.

no, there are many solutions different solution to those that haven't closed their eyes to the facts on the ground.

The fact is, that gun control laws have been repeatedly shown to have no effect, or a detrimental effect on gun violence.

and this is a simple incorrect on all levels -- you are ignoring every piece of evidence that has been posted in this thread and pointed to again in this post.

It is time we had an honest and rational discussion of this country's relationship with guns and how they affect our society.
2012-12-16 06:24:51 AM
1 votes:

enochianwolf: second try

Jorn the Younger: Guns should not, cannot, must not be banned. Firearms are a vital part of the system in this nation. The 2nd Amendment is the final line of defense against tyranny.

How many times has it been necessary for the 2nd amendment to protect our freedom? Do other industrialized nations require this same "vital part"? How many people have been saved by our current gun ownership laws compared to how many people have been killed?


Every time there's been a free election in this country.

We've got a pretty good streak going- over 200 years now.

Yes, other industrialized nations require this same vital part, but unfortunately many of them don't have it.

Again, to remove the option of violent uprising is inviting tyrants to grab for power. America was built and designed to be impervious to tyranny. It is in the very roots of this place. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

The people who don't like guns and so want to ban them strike me as the same type of people who hear speech they don't like and want to censor it.
2012-12-16 06:06:33 AM
1 votes:
Banning guns or implementing European-level gun control laws has a staggeringly low chance of ever even making it out of the proposal stages, and even if it did it would still accomplish nothing because there are enough weapons already floating around the U.S. to supply a black market for CENTURIES. It's like discussing which planet we should blow up with our nonexistent death star. It's a discussion that is wholly divorced from any aspect of reality.

"Adding more guns to a country already bristling with them" is an empty argument. It's like complaining that water is still pouring into a bucket that is already full. Weapons are not being forced on a populace (and pedantic arguments about "but in a way they are because safety blah blah" are pointless). There is no law that requires firearm possession for American citizens. There is already nearly one civilian firearm for every inhabitant of America. These crimes have nothing to do with "there are more weapons today than there were yesterday" and everything to do with mental health and people who do not properly lock their weapons in a gun safe/room/whatever. "Well more weapons surely doesn't improve the problem". And it certainly isn't even remotely address the root cause or major contributing factor, which makes rabid, spittle-flecked shrieking about gun control in the immediate aftermath of these tragedies that practically turn the killers into legends, look even more f*cking retarded to people who live in countries that actually HAVE strict gun control laws.

But if they didn't have the ability to obtain firearms less people would be killed No f*cking shiat. No sane person can dispute that. The problem arises when you try to actually suggest America go about trying to achieve that level of gun control/availability. Then you're just pissing into the wind.

And I'm sure someone is already typing out a "just what I'd expect a callous gun lover blah blah to say blah blah". I don't own any firearms. I do not plan on it. I have absolutely nothing against people who legally obtain the weapons for whatever legal purpose. What I don't support is a pathetic lack of mental health programs/facilities, a pathetic health care system, and the glorification and immortalization of mass murderers. Why not focus on the victims, on what great kids these were. Glorify the life of the victims, don't deify a crazy person.

These nutjobs steal the weapons from family and relatives who do not properly store them. They are not even buying the weapons themselves. Germany has extremely strict gun laws and the wacko who shot up a school in Winnenden years ago stole them from his father who then lost a lawsuit for improper storage of his weapons.

The issue is about recognizing and making readily available access to mental health programs a high priority, and reducing media coverage of the killers to zero. Can you actually name a single victim from Columbine? Winnenden? No, I thought so. Yet the killers are immortalized by American's insane ADHD news cycle that feeds this shiat constantly. They've already lit the spark in the mind of the next wacko who wants to do this by showing how important he'll be and how much attention will be paid to him.

It's why moronic comments like this:

Fark the shooter.

POS low life little man. Little little little man.

Poor little loser. Mad at his mommy or picked on or what the fark ever. I don't care.

Murdered corralled children. Wow. Impressive.

Burn in Hell Loser.


Only serve to bolster kids that do these mass killings. They want attention, they want recognition. Even seeing comments like that simply embolden them to try harder, to kill more people, to cause more carnage. "That'll show him/her/them" is the only thing on these people's minds. Hardly anyone seems to realize this. Countries with infinitely stricter gun control laws than yours have had the same school shooting problems. It's a question about access to mental health care and the media's overblown reporting and elevation of the killers that feeds into itself.

"But banning handguns will certainly help", is entertaining flights of fancy. How the flying holy f*ck do you expect to collect the millions and millions and millions of hanguns already on the market/street? It is the very goddamn definition of an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court already struck down a handgun ban in DC. How the holy hell do you expect to implement a nationwide ban on handguns in a country that has more handguns than hamburger joints?

And I say this as someone who doesn't give a shiat if they ban handguns. I've never owned one and don't plan to. But at some point people have to agree on what the fark reality is, which is that there is no remotely plausible way to enforce a handgun ban in the United States.

Registration requirement for any firearm and munition sale in the United States? Good luck, there's over 300 million civilian firearms already out there. The black market would be larger than the real market and they have enough supply to last them generations.

Ban all handguns? You'll never collect the millions and millions out there. Ever. That is an impossible task. It will make drug enforcement look like a resounding success

Any of the firearm restriction policies proposed are simply "feel good so I can sleep better at night because I'm paranoid" actions. Just the same as the people who hoard 50 firearms because they're paranoid "the government is going to get me". It's two sides of the same crazy coin. It won't stop wackos from gaining access to weapons. The genie is out of the bottle, off the planet, out of the solar system and out of the goddamn galaxy at this point. So stop the vapid shrieking about impossible tasks and start talking about how to implement broad and cheap/free access to mental health treatment and plausible methods to increase firearm registration.
2012-12-16 05:49:48 AM
1 votes:
second try

Jorn the Younger: Guns should not, cannot, must not be banned. Firearms are a vital part of the system in this nation. The 2nd Amendment is the final line of defense against tyranny.


How many times has it been necessary for the 2nd amendment to protect our freedom? Do other industrialized nations require this same "vital part"? How many people have been saved by our current gun ownership laws compared to how many people have been killed?
2012-12-16 05:43:56 AM
1 votes:

Dimensio: enochianwolf: Dimensio: I have already suggested that improved requirements for firearm storage may have prevented the incident.

How would these supposed storage requirements be enforced upon gun owners?

Your question is fair, and I admit that I have not considered enforcement.


There is no way to enforce any such requirements, unless we throw away the bill of rights.

In the end, if you want to keep the second amendment intact as you understand it, then the people who most cherish it must be the first to police everyone who bears arms. Not feds, not the state, YOU. It is up to you to figure out how to keep this crap from happening. Because from our perspective, from the perspective of people who don't have a hardon about owning a personal arsenal, from our perspective we don't give a rat's ass whether or not you get to keep your farking lethal toys. IT IS UP TO farkING YOU TO JUSTIFY THIS PRETTY MUCH IMBECILIC GUN CULTURE. So, TCB, baby, Cull the crazies from your midst.

You have no idea how disgusted people are about this.
2012-12-16 04:38:49 AM
1 votes:

wademh: Your inability to address the provided logic is noted. I will further note that two of the recent mass murderers, the "batman" shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter would never have been institutionalized


You're proving my point. Many acquaintances knew they were ill but had no mechanism to commit them. That's the problem.
2012-12-16 04:21:27 AM
1 votes:

tony41454: Say what you will about taking prayer and God out of schools


If you insist.

It was a good move, the right move, and has f*ck-all to do with these shootings, and people who think otherwise are goddam morans.

...since you asked...
2012-12-16 03:39:19 AM
1 votes:
Harold Beanbag: This is the price we as Americans pay for easy gun access. Freedom ain't cheap. To bad we can't have a rational discussion on the subject, it's a price I don't want to pay. More guns = more deaths.

Dimensio Please explain why 5000 fewer total homicides were committed in 2011 than in 1973 despite more total firearms being owned. Please explain why rates of violent crime, including homicides committed with use of a firearm, have been decreasing relatively consistently since 1992.


I'm just looking for discussion on the matter. I'm from Pittsburgh, and am a hunter. I go out most years, don't pull the trigger most years. I fall mostly in favor of guns. We in the US have the highest gun ownership per capita in 1st world nations. We have the highest rate of gun deaths in the 1st world. It's not really close in either instance.

A couple of reasons why the homicide rate is trending downward may be: A larger percentage of our population is in prison now. Row vs. Wade was instituted in 1973 thus allowing the lower social-economical class access to abortion, which also happens to be the segment of society most likely to commit violent crime. Those kids would have been 19-20ish in 1992, an age which is most likely to commit violent crime. We have a better welfare system today. We are more likely to find and treat mental illness today.

Also, I wasn't talking just homicides: I just said deaths. You're more likely to commit suicide if you are a male and have access to a gun (I know it's not the only way, but it's one of the easiest). Every accidental death by gun is one that would not have happened if there wasn't a gun in the situation.

Some potential solutions: mandatory training, better registration, banning of multiple round weapons, requiring proper gun storage. I can't say for sure which if any of these options will work, but it should be open to discussion.
2012-12-16 03:15:45 AM
1 votes:

Dimensio: common sense is an oxymoron: Dimensio: 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?

Wait he had Asperger's and attempted to buy at least one gun before the shooting. There goes that talking point.

I would like to know exactly why he was unable to purchase a firearm on his own.


He refused both the waiting period and the background check.

Do you have a reference?



Link
2012-12-16 03:07:23 AM
1 votes:

trackstr777: Lots about personal citizens, not just militias...


Militias are formed of citizens. Otherwise I frankly love your posts.
2012-12-16 02:59:09 AM
1 votes:

Emposter: Countries like the UK, France, Norway, etc. have stricter gun control laws and much more thorough pre-purchase checks and registration requirements than the US.

As a result, they have far lower gun ownership than the US.Gun deaths, and homicides in general, in these countries are orders of magnitude lower than in the US, far, FAR, FAAAAAAAAAAAR out of proportion with the difference in population size.


I am certain, then, that you will be able to demonstrate that the homicide rates of these nations were similar to (or greater than) that of the United States prior to their imposing of stringent firearm regulations.
2012-12-16 02:58:18 AM
1 votes:
This is where I got it. VIOLENT crime, not MURDER.

"FBI Statistical Conclusions: 87.3% of very serious rape, robbery and assault during this ten year period had NOTHING whatsoever to do with firearms. If there were NO FIREARMS available to criminals, common sense tells us that most of the 12.7% that does involve firearms would shift over to knives or other non-firearm weapons with no real change in the number of victims. Common sense and real world experience also tells us that if criminals never had to worry about their intended victims being armed because of firearms bans, the rates of rape, robbery and assault would be much higher, as they are in gun-ban cities. Copyright 2002 © P.G.R.A"
2012-12-16 02:44:58 AM
1 votes:

tony41454: Fubini

tony41454: According to the FBI, the #1 weapon used in violent crimes . . . is a baseball bat. Why is there no outcry to restrict baseball bat ownership? (Maybe because so many law-abiding citizens enjoy them safely for sport?

Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific citation for that? It's a very interesting factiod.

Actually, I might have been wrong on that. I was quoting someone else and when I followed their links, it didn't quite seem to add up.

Link


Statistics regarding murder weapons provide no information regarding common weapons used in all violent crimes.
2012-12-16 02:35:08 AM
1 votes:

Insatiable Jesus: Dimensio: Insatiable Jesus: Your right to keep and bear arms exists in your right to belong to the military, state guard and state or local police.

Your assertion is demonstrably false.


Pray demonstrate...


Two Supreme Court of the United States rulings contradict your claim. Those rulings are law. Your claim, therefore, is contrary to established law and thus it is false.
2012-12-16 01:50:23 AM
1 votes:

birdmanesq: cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.

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


Okay, how's this, 1994, Clinton assault weapons ban goes into effect as crime stats are already starting to drop. 2004(?) Ban sunshines, crime rates continue to fall. Basic deduction, when you do two diametrically opposed actions and get the same result then what you're doing probably doesn't matter either way.

Second, in the next few days the odds are way more than likely that we're going to find out the CT shooter was on some type of psychotropic medication- known side effects to include violent outbursts, suicidal tendencies, lowered inhibitions, etc. - which is in keeping with pretty much every other mass shooting since Columbine.

If you want to get into a numbers game, even the FBI will tell you firearms stop more crimes than they are used to commit, especially in mere deterence - in other words if the predator is too scared to make a victim then nobody has to get shot at all. That's what firearms ownership is - mutally assured destruction on the micro scale.

As for as banning only certain action types, let me be clear - I can kill you with a single shot .22lr just as easily as I can with a barrett M82A1 .50bmg, the difference is how close I have to be. You'll be just as dead either way. A .22lr from a rifle will penetrate a 1/2in pine board at 400+ yards if you can hit the board. The .50bmg will do the same feat at several miles. Bottom line, a gun is a gun is a gun is a gun - there's no point in banning one if you aren't going to ban them all. Case in point, the Holocost museumm shooter used a bolt action .22lr.

Last year in America there were enough firearms sold to outfit every man in every army arouond the world with a sidearm and long arm - that's one frakking year. It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue, there is no way to control guns in the United States. The logistics simply don't exist.
2012-12-16 01:20:02 AM
1 votes:

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.

The funny thing is I'm older than you are. But thank you for the fallacy none the less. You're the reverse side of the coin to the gun nuts BTW.

Probably. Best part is, my ex is a cop and avid hunter. We always had guns in the house. They're tools like anything else and I've never been afraid of them. I'm a terrible shot btw.

That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun. But I live in Canada. We're sedated with maple syrup or something.


Of the four firearms that I own, only one is intended for "protection" and I readily recognize that the probability that it will ever be used for that purpose is extremely low. The other three firearms are exclusively for recreational use.
2012-12-16 01:17:28 AM
1 votes:

Methadone Girls: Fart_Machine: Methadone Girls: Whatever kiddo. Keep burying your kids.

The funny thing is I'm older than you are. But thank you for the fallacy none the less. You're the reverse side of the coin to the gun nuts BTW.

Probably. Best part is, my ex is a cop and avid hunter. We always had guns in the house. They're tools like anything else and I've never been afraid of them. I'm a terrible shot btw.

That said, a regular person buying them for personal protect smacks of paranoia. Who the fark are you protecting yourself from with 3 guns in the house? That's not protection. That's crazy. I've made it to my 40's without having to "protect" myself from anyone with a gun. But I live in Canada. We're sedated with maple syrup or something.


I dont own a gun and never have. But I know it is my 2nd amendment right to own one.

Doesnt bother me.
2012-12-16 01:12:26 AM
1 votes:

trackstr777: Dimensio: Popcorn Johnny: Dimensio: Mr. Loughner may have been subdued after firing fewer shots. Alternatively, he may not have dropped a lighter and less cumbersome magazine, and he may not have been subdued as easily.

He was tackled when he stopped to reload. I wonder who'd be alive today had that been after 6 rounds instead of 31? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Are you certain that Mr. Loughner would not have altered his tactics had he been restricted to a smaller magazine capacity?

Are you unwilling to address the fact that I am not entirely opposed to limiting handgun magazine capacity, and that I only object to the unnecessarily low limit of five rounds?

I agree. Five is too low, but I also don't think thirty is necessary. I wouldn't have a problem with restricting capacity to a size that is flush with the grip of the firearm (5-15 rounds for most firearms, for those unfamiliar)


Some compact and subcompact firearm models offer (or even include) magazines that extend the grip of the firearm. I would prefer that a magazine capacity limitation accommodate such design; failing to do so would produce a meaningless limitation, because any individual could purchase the full-size variant of the same firearm and use a magazine of the same capacity.

Additionally, I am not open to limiting rifle magazine capacity, until evidence is provided that such a limitation would serve a benefit. Substantial data will be needed to convince me otherwise, due to the relative rarity of crime committed with any model of rifle.
2012-12-16 01:09:51 AM
1 votes:
Link
thepublicintellectual.org

anyway at times in the 50s the murder rate was higher than today.

it wasnt some golden time. also many murders of black people went unreported and uncounted for in the south.

it was actually even higher.
2012-12-16 01:05:23 AM
1 votes:

zarberg: Methadone Girls:
But Australia did it. They managed to get 1/5th of the guns out of public hands with the buy back campaign. But then we get the "herp derp, they'll just grab a knife/axe/bomb/plane".

Some guy in China yesterday proved a knife attack is a teensy bit less deadly than a gun attack.


And some guy with a CCW in a Clakamas mall got a shooter so out of his comfort zone that the shooter immediately killed himself rather than be shot by the CCW holders drawn weapon....

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."


Maybe the answer is more CCW.......Imagine the number of children who have to die before the pro gun control crowd realizes that.
2012-12-16 12:58:31 AM
1 votes:
Remember everyone, it's just a coincidence that countries with strict gun control laws have a much lower murder rate due to guns. It's all those crazy people running around the USA that are the real problem.
2012-12-16 12:48:57 AM
1 votes:
Guns don't kill people, crazy people kill people.
2012-12-16 12:39:45 AM
1 votes:
Most deaths by handguns in America are suicides. 2 of 3 actually.

Mental health is the biggest issue at hand.

Also the homicide rate in this country has been dropping steadily for the past 21 years.
2012-12-16 12:37:26 AM
1 votes:
Methadone Girls

"Explain why 5 rounds is sub standard.
This should be fun"

Sticking with my car argument, explain why anyone should be allowed to own a car capable of exceeding 80 mph or say...150 horsepower? Eighty miles per hour should be sufficient to reach the speed limit on every road in the United States, and 150 horsepower should be more than enough to get up to cruising speed in a reasonable time period, and to accelerate to avoid dangers if needed.

This should be fun,
2012-12-16 12:05:50 AM
1 votes:
zenobia

"That's all well and good if you want to obsess about that's your hobby. I don't want to interfere with responsible gun owners' enjoyment. I do want Joe Schmo off the street who has a bug up his ass to not be able to grab a weapon of mass destruction out of someone's gun closet and relieve his tensions. How about you and one of your buddies work on that study for a change?"


I want to stop it too, but I also want to do it while logically looking at things, rather than rushing into new laws without considering the negative effects. This brash decision making is what gave us the clusterfark of an agency called the TSA, the shiat sandwich called the Patriot Act, and the general travesty that was the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

As I said in previous posts, if we wanted to cut down on lots of crime, and particularly child porn, we could just make an agency that has thousands of people to read and listen to every form of electronic communication ever sent over the wires and air in this country. We could cut all forms of crime down considerably overnight! Why don't we do it? Because the positive effect of less crime has to be weighed against the harm to our civil liberties, the general breaking of our Constitutional rights, and because it's not as simple as "we need to fight a problem...make ANY laws that might help!"

But just like the child porn problem, as soon as stuff happens to innocent children perfectly rational people start to abandon all logic and rational thought in favor of an immediate solution, without any consideration of repercussions. Any yet if any gun enthusiasts point this out, WE are the ones labeled as uncompromising, and nutcases. That is the gist of my problem here.
2012-12-16 12:01:18 AM
1 votes:
You guys can argue all night long. You're not going to do anything of value to prevent this from happening again. You're too in love with your guns and too afraid of provide appropriate health care to your population. You'll get over it.
2012-12-15 11:49:34 PM
1 votes:

Popcorn Johnny: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

What percentage of gun crimes do you think are being committed by the mentally ill?


I would suggest that murdering someone qualifies a person as mentally ill.
2012-12-15 11:48:41 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.


What percentage of gun crimes do you think are being committed by the mentally ill?
2012-12-15 11:42:35 PM
1 votes:

rohar: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.

BINGO!!!!


And letting the mentally ill and Republicans have guns. But I repeat myself.
2012-12-15 11:41:51 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Guns are not our problem, it's our lack of treatment for the mentally ill.


BINGO!!!!
2012-12-15 11:40:26 PM
1 votes:
2012-12-15 11:37:32 PM
1 votes:

Silverstaff:
Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


Answer: The systematic decimation of the social safety net.

The reptilian creeps in the GOP that have stoked the fire of gun fetishism in this country are the same bastards that have advocated 30 years worth of "Fu#k you, I got mine" politics which ensured virtually no access to psychological services for people who need it.

It's not hard to figure out.
2012-12-15 11:29:15 PM
1 votes:

cman: I hope that I am wrong and that you are right.

I do worry about extremists. Maybe I am being overly paranoid about it. I dunno.


Let me be clear: it won't happen. Ever. People who rant and rave on the radio never do anything. They talk. That's all. They might go see a movie the host suggests, and they might by a product advertised on the show, and they might even base their votes on Radio Guy's endorsements. But they will not go to war. I guarantee it.

And, even if every single listener of AJ/infowars/whatever did grab their very biggest gun, all the rations they could carry, and mobilize as one, they would be torn the fark apart in short order.

Not a fraction of a doubt in my mind.
2012-12-15 11:28:19 PM
1 votes:

Silverstaff: Also, something else to note.

Why do we never sit down and talk about why these crimes begin in the first place?

School shootings/active shooter incidents didn't happen much before the late 90's. What changed culturally?

It's obviously not access to guns. That was in the middle of the assault weapons ban. Decades earlier it was easier to get ahold of guns, including fully automatic weapons.

Nobody ran around in the 1960's or 1970's shooting up schools, when guns were easier to get ahold of.

Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?


We didnt have 24/7 news channels in the 60s and 70s. There were massacres by guns. Now adays information is easy to access. Plus, there are those who want to be famous by any means necessary. For instance, Herostratus is a classical example of those who want fame and glory for the wrong reasons.
2012-12-15 11:26:08 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: Publikwerks: uclear material, drugs, porn, hell, there are more restrictions for internet gambling than for owning a handgun.

Haha... no.

Gun rights are incumbent upon a person being a US citizen, not a felon, not crazy, and IIRC in every state at least 18. There's also a plethora of laws that define what can be imported and manufactured. To say there are more is to try and pick nits between two heavily regulated items. One of which isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.


For newbs, Mrbogey is a lying sack of shiat who is one of those people you ca use to test if something stupid or not: if Mrbogey is for it, you can rest assured it's a stupid position.
2012-12-15 11:25:37 PM
1 votes:
Also, something else to note.

Why do we never sit down and talk about why these crimes begin in the first place?

School shootings/active shooter incidents didn't happen much before the late 90's. What changed culturally?

It's obviously not access to guns. That was in the middle of the assault weapons ban. Decades earlier it was easier to get ahold of guns, including fully automatic weapons.

Nobody ran around in the 1960's or 1970's shooting up schools, when guns were easier to get ahold of.

Something has changed culturally, something bad. It's rare, only happens to one in several million people, but something goes horribly wrong, and they see this as the answer.

What is it? How can we fix the underlying problem?
2012-12-15 11:23:53 PM
1 votes:
Listen, you libs just don't understand, the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of Patriots. 6-and-7-year-old Patriots, this time, but Patriots nonetheless. You want King George III messing with you, huh? Because if we have to sacrifice 20 children every once in a while, it's a small price to pay.

/fark King George III!
2012-12-15 11:20:37 PM
1 votes:

graggor: Honestly this stuff will always happen.

Overall crime is going down in the US.

Due to other factors than gun ownership or gun control.

both sides are idiots.


I think you have a point. I don't think a full out ban on guns is necessary, but we need to realize that more needs to be done to restrict who can get a gun.

I think you should still be able to get a gun, but you need to go through a background check, training, etc.

But we really need to start looking at how we treat mental healthcare in the US. And sadly, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
2012-12-15 11:19:56 PM
1 votes:

Giltric: wademh: who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns.

Do you have a citation in regards to that?

For all we know he killed her then went rummaging around for a key to a safe.


What did he shoot her with?
2012-12-15 11:17:37 PM
1 votes:
Just a reminder, everyone.

We are still very emotional about this shiat. Insulting each other makes it much worse.

If thou hast nothing good to speak about thy fellow man, then hold thy tongue.
2012-12-15 11:12:20 PM
1 votes:

MBA Whore: Is the thread where we let government use a tragedy to further limit the rights of responsible law-abiding citizens?

/ terrorists win
// including domestic terrorists


No, this is the thread where law abiding citizens who are sick of watching innocents die tell you enough is enough. Yes, guns are tools, and it's the user that makes them dangerous. However, so are lots of things we regulate. Nuclear material, drugs, porn, hell, there are more restrictions for internet gambling than for owning a handgun.
2012-12-15 11:07:09 PM
1 votes:

cman: Those folks who went out and bought all those guns when Obama was elected and reelected didnt just buy them to put above the fireplace.

If he tries to tackle this there will be blowback from extremists. Alex Jones types will see any tinee-tiny bit of gun control as an attempt to take away all guns and we have civil war.

This is not something that can be negotiated. We are farked.

Welcome to America in 2013, the beginning of the second civil war.


If it's the Alex Jones types vs. everyone else, it will be a very quick war.

And Alex Jones will not like how it ends.
2012-12-15 11:05:29 PM
1 votes:
Old enough to know better
"Why is it whenever someone suggests trying to control guns, Conservatives automatically assume we want to take theirs away?"

MayoSlather: "Banning the sale of all firearms both new and used that can fire more than 2 shots"
tolallorti: "My solution: ban all sales and manufacture of semiautomatic firearms to civilians"
Popcorn Johnny: "Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and military, Ban all assault weapons, Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacity"
Paleorific: " I now support a total ban of handguns and guns that most would consider to be semi-automatic, automatic assault rifles."

Yea...where'd we get THAT crazy idea?
2012-12-15 11:01:13 PM
1 votes:

Old enough to know better: Why is it whenever someone suggests trying to control guns, Conservatives automatically assume we want to take theirs away?


Because it is an easy strawman to beat up.
2012-12-15 10:57:24 PM
1 votes:
Publikwerks

Secanrio 3: No one has a gun. No one gets shot

While I've agreed that logically, this makes more sense than the partial bans people are proposing, from a practicality standpoint, all I say is good luck. Reasons why:

1) When you do start trying to take them all away, how exactly are you going to accomplish that? Firstly, 2nd amendment. Secondly, still a conservative SCOTUS. The outcry over this tragedy is heavy, but I don't think it's heavy enough for that kind of change.
2) Millions and millions of firearms in the USA. How are you going to get them all?
3) Even if you develop a plan to get them all, what about the people holding them who really want to keep their constitutional right to do so?
4) Even if you combat all those people or change their minds and get ALL those guns...black market, anyone? Heroin, crack, and meth, all illegal substances. Hell some drugs have been illegal for the better part of the last century. Yet I don't use them nor have any friends who do, and I'm sure living in a downtown area and knowing people who know people, I could probably find any of them with a few phone calls or some driving to a bad area of town. Now say I'm motivated enough to take my own life, and want to take a bunch of people with me. You think some gang banger asshole living in the ghetto is going to properly vet me before he sells me some Saturday Night Special?
2012-12-15 10:54:01 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

I think the question we need to ask is how much more regulation "pro-civil rights gun folks" would be willing to accept?


Mandatory 10 week military boot camp for anyone who wants a gun. The Amendment was supposed to apply to citizen militias, after all. A militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, should be well trained.
2012-12-15 10:47:36 PM
1 votes:

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

Yeah, dammit. WHY DON'T KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS PACK HEAT!!!

You're goddamn right. Why didn't the principal, in his duties to protect and direct students to a wealth of knowledge, have ZERO security at the school? Schools are PERFECT TARGETS because they're "GUN-FREE" which means perps can take their time, like this gentleman did.

Nobody wonders why this happened out in the middle of nowhere in New England, nobody wonders why Holmes got away with multiple murders in a Colorado movie theatre -- NOBODY ELSE HAS F*CKING WEAPONS YOU F*CKING DIPshiatS

/unarmed = always the victim, never the hero


Rock on, bro! I do believe this KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS SHOULD PACK HEAT argument is a winning one for gun rights advocates. I think you should make it in as many public forums as possible. That's it. Shout it at the top of your lungs. Write to the editor of your newspaper. Do everything in your power to get this message out to as many people as possible.
2012-12-15 10:43:41 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: bulldg4life: Therefore there is no need for gun laws.

A sensible person would discern that current gun laws are good enough.


With the ability of mentally disturbed people purchasing multiple guns, someone that feels current gun laws are sufficient should be deemed a goddamn idiot
2012-12-15 10:37:23 PM
1 votes:
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 10:34:43 PM
1 votes:

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 10:33:40 PM
1 votes:
Knee jerk responses to national tragedies never had poor consequences.
www.newsrealblog.com
2012-12-15 10:32:23 PM
1 votes:

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 10:30:00 PM
1 votes:

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 10:28:45 PM
1 votes:

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 10:24:02 PM
1 votes:

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 10:22:40 PM
1 votes:

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 10:19:23 PM
1 votes:

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 10:18:47 PM
1 votes:

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


Just in this thread.
2012-12-15 10:16:44 PM
1 votes:

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 10:13:49 PM
1 votes:

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 10:12:04 PM
1 votes:

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 10:00:10 PM
1 votes:
Old 'n busted: "LIBS! LIBS! LIBS!"

New hotness: "Gun grabbers."
2012-12-15 09:38:57 PM
1 votes:

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 09:37:27 PM
1 votes:

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 09:36:25 PM
1 votes:
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 09:35:50 PM
1 votes:

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 09:34:43 PM
1 votes:

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 09:33:52 PM
1 votes:

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 09:32:06 PM
1 votes:

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 09:30:09 PM
1 votes:

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 09:28:58 PM
1 votes:
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 09:22:21 PM
1 votes:
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 09:19:32 PM
1 votes:
In the spirit of compromise, can't we do both?
2012-12-15 09:13:40 PM
1 votes:
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 09:09:33 PM
1 votes:
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 08:56:46 PM
1 votes:

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 08:50:39 PM
1 votes:
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 08:48:27 PM
1 votes:

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


Those are the only kind that kill people?
2012-12-15 08:29:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:26:46 PM
1 votes:

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 07:32:04 PM
1 votes:

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 07:30:41 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.


The tipping point is located where the Mason-Dixon Line intersects the Mississippi River.
2012-12-15 07:24:46 PM
1 votes:

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 07:18:49 PM
1 votes:

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 07:05:16 PM
1 votes:
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 06:39:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:34:17 PM
1 votes:

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 06:33:46 PM
1 votes:

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 06:29:05 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Tipping point.


It would be nice to have an evidence-based conversation about this.
2012-12-15 06:13:34 PM
1 votes:
Tipping point.
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report