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.

(Huffington Post)   "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," ... "We had no takers"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 102
    More: Sad, congresses, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Louie Gohmert, assault weapons, Michael Bloomberg, senate democrats, Mayor of New York City, Fox News Sunday  
•       •       •

4954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Dec 2012 at 5:17 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
2012-12-16 04:08:11 PM  
9 votes:

Pokey.Clyde: Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.


Yeah, it really sucks when people who don't own guns tell people who do own guns not to shoot a bunch of kindergartners.
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-12-16 01:14:21 PM  
7 votes:
Folks who go through life feeling they NEED to have guns 24/7 are cowards? Who would have guessed?
2012-12-16 02:59:19 PM  
6 votes:

BravadoGT: Really? None of them wanted to spend their Sunday morning getting triple-teamed and shouted down by Gregory, Feinstein and Bloomberg?

That IS strange...


Only a pussy backs down from such a fear. If they hold strong to their convictions, and have a convincing argument, they should be prepared to debate their side on any given Sunday.

Let me guess... mourning period, right? Don't want to bring up the victims whilst their bodies are still fresh and bloody. Wait until they are buried and forgotten. Then we can have a fruitless screaming match that will accomplish nothing.

They're still a gigantic pack of pussies.
2012-12-16 05:32:54 PM  
5 votes:
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.

"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.


Why doesn't he wish to god that the murdering psychopath didn't have a gun?
2012-12-16 03:54:27 PM  
4 votes:

BravadoGT: None of them wanted to spend their Sunday morning getting triple-teamed and shouted down by Gregory, Feinstein and Bloomberg?


U.S. Senators get paid to research, defend and legislate controversial policy positions. They are salaried and they are often called upon to be on the Sunday political talk shows. They better goddamn show up of asked on any given Sunday, pussyass weaklings. Its the people who don't show up to defend themselves who will take every opportunity to grandstand by talking bravado and wrapping themselves in the flag. I know any number of authentic actual true believing citizens on that ideological side who would happily show up to take on Feinstein and Bloomberg any day. They are the ones that ought to be the most angry at this obvious cowardice.
2012-12-16 01:07:27 PM  
4 votes:
One exception? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.

"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.


Louie, you are the Prince of Derptown.
2012-12-16 06:15:36 PM  
3 votes:
thinkprogress.org
2012-12-16 05:36:39 PM  
3 votes:
So umm... glad that Adam Lanza's gun enthusiast mother with the dozen or so guns stopped that killing spree that day!
2012-12-16 05:24:50 PM  
3 votes:

BravadoGT: Really? None of them wanted to spend their Sunday morning getting triple-teamed and shouted down by Gregory, Feinstein and Bloomberg?

That IS strange...


2nd Amendment: Sacred.

1st Amendment: Profane.
2012-12-16 05:17:00 PM  
3 votes:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants defenseless children.
2012-12-16 04:14:52 PM  
3 votes:

Pokey.Clyde: Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.


The nerve of some people! Expressing opinions while unarmed!
2012-12-16 02:55:57 PM  
3 votes:

BravadoGT: Really? None of them wanted to spend their Sunday morning getting triple-teamed and shouted down by Gregory, Feinstein and Bloomberg?

That IS strange...


Not to mention defending the indefensible.
2012-12-16 02:13:44 PM  
3 votes:

MisterTweak: I realize absolutely nothing is going to change on gun laws


Democrats remember what happened to them after they passed the assault weapons ban. They took a heavy beating. As long as the Republicans control the House, they know they can propose a new Assault Weapons Ban, but that it will never have enough votes to pass. So, I'm assuming that is what they will try. Hell, the Republicans might even find a way to let it pass by voting present or something and allow the Democrats to lose all the purple areas. They could play it like: "This is what the Democrat Party gave you America. They took your guns. Do you trust them to protect your children?"

I'm sure that it will be highly political and not at all focused on how to reduce these kinds of horrific events.
2012-12-16 01:21:54 PM  
3 votes:

jbc: Folks who go through life feeling they NEED to have guns 24/7 are cowards? Who would have guessed?


Took more guts to say no rather than use the kids bodies as a platform to advance you ready made agenda. Also did you know Senator Fienstien has a Coveted California CCW? Showing SHE is the one needing a gun 24/7 even with the taxpayer protection She recieves
2012-12-16 01:10:26 PM  
3 votes:
You mean the same group who shiat all over Bob Dole last week, but didn't have the balls to cast their votes out loud and then refused to discuss it? Astonishing!
2012-12-16 08:31:29 PM  
2 votes:
I'm a lifelong gun owner, and I have ZERO problem with more restrictions and regulation. That's because I'm not some doomsday militia moron who thinks his p-shooter collection is going to fight-off zombies or a government armed with nukes and SEAL Team 6. I have pepper spray, a revolver that holds 5 rounds, and a shotgun that holds 3. That's all anyone needs for personal defense.

INTELLIGENT gun owners realize that this psycho should have never had access to guns. It hurts all of us. His $#@% mother, who I have zero sympathy for, knew she had a deeply troubled kid with serious, lifelong behavioral issues -- so serious that the schools couldn't handle him anymore and she'd had to home-school him. In her infinite f*cking wisdom, she decided to give her little pyscho target practice and access to a high-powered arsenal. And a bunch of little kids are dead as a direct result, and any @sshole who tries to blame it on people not believing in the "right" religion, or on video games, can seriously suck a bag of d!cks. "Crazy got a gun" is the sole reason this happened.

Regulation is coming. We gun owners can either be a part of the conversation and have a sane approach to it, or we can be totally irrational and have way worse restrictions put on us, via much more poorly-written laws. People are pissed about our insane gun culture, and they farking should be.
2012-12-16 07:49:29 PM  
2 votes:
Alright, from another thread, with a couple of inclusions spurred by input:

Expand the NFA to include all NEW semi-autos (all, period), and all existing semi-autos above a threshold caliber. The threshold calibers would be .380ACP for Pistols, .30 Carbine for rifles (.223 Remington/5.56 NATO is more powerful and thus included, for all you trolls trying to go that route), 4-10 for shotguns. The reason for the threshold calibers on existing semi-autos is because it would be so expensive and practically impossible to account for every single gun out there as to be pointless. The 250 Million+ firearms number that people hear about the total number of guns in this country only accounts what can be tracked. Serial numbers were not required on guns nor was record keeping on their manufacture required until the 60's. That 250 Million plus number is just the ones we have the capability to track. People have to remember that it was common place for even department stores like Sears to manufacture little plinking rifles and pistols and sell them. Getting them all would be, well, to try would be silly. With the threshold calibers set, we'll get most everything that is considered even capable of easily killing.

Set the Tax stamp for the incoming semi-autos at $20. Use these funds to establish a more thorough NICS database AND reporting system. Those reported as mentally unstable or otherwise unfit get a friendly visit from BATFE and if the BATFE agent concurs, possession is revoked until an evaluation is performed and permanence of that status decided. Also establish offices for BATFE, just like the DMV, where people can come in and get their license issues resolved same day. Keep the current mail in system for those out in the boonies. Repeal the Hughes amendment (which did literally nothing, NFA weapons already weren't being used in crimes), and treat suppressors (KEEPING THE TAX STAMP, just switching it to $20 instead of $200) as safety equipment. All paid for with revenues from the tax stamps. Easily. Hell there'd be a huge surplus in revenue from it, use that to help repair the mental health system, I insist.

This accomplishes several things, registration, licensing (you have to be approved for the stamp), and if you really want to, do the CCW thing and require basic classes be completed. The important thing is to streamline everything so that it's at least as functional as the DMV.
2012-12-16 05:54:26 PM  
2 votes:

cchris_39: skullkrusher: AverageJoe77: WTF Indeed: It's good to see that Americans from both sides of the gun issue are standing up to do nothing about making sure the mentally unstable are properly diagnosed and treated so that they don't act on the urge to murder children. oh wait...

That would require spending money on the unwashed masses. We can't have that!

How do you propose the mentally unstable are diagnosed and treated? Forced mental health checks?

You just don't get it do you. If something bad happens, more government control and more government spending can fix it. Duh.


Ah, the old "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas." game. Here's tip from a pro-gun lib: If the gun lobby starts talking about mental health, then you change the subject from gun control and it's a win-win. You get to keep all your guns, and you can blame the government for not helping these people more.
2012-12-16 05:37:02 PM  
2 votes:

Rann Xerox: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.
"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.
I wish to god Louie Gohmert's mother had swallowed nine months before his birth.


Did he also mention that the teacher who had guns to protect herself was killed by them, and so were a bunch of other people?
2012-12-16 04:48:58 PM  
2 votes:

dickfreckle: As you know, a Republican is typically incapable of actually owning his mistakes like the rest of us do.


The Party Of Personally, Responsibly Blaming Minorities and/or A Secret Cabal For All Of Their Failings.

Truly, they are an impressively pathetic bunch of weenies.
2012-12-16 04:44:01 PM  
2 votes:

NewportBarGuy: They're still a gigantic pack of pussies.


Nearly all neocons are pussies when the rubber meets the road. Remember the immutable rule of life - the louder the guy is, the bigger the sissy he is when it's time back up his BS.

I'm not really speaking about this specific incident (there could have been logistical reasons why no one showed up, for all I know). But in general, a Republican will do his finest John Wayne impersonation and in the next breath cry that he's persecuted by some poorly-defined dark forces aligned against him. As you know, a Republican is typically incapable of actually owning his mistakes like the rest of us do.

But yeah, I would like to see dicks like Gohmert demonstrate how an armed and terrified elementary school teacher would have prevented or at least mitigated the tragedy. Go ahead, big man, demonstrate how badass everyone in the world could be if they were only more in line with your cheap rhetoric. When you're done, don't forget to call a mean ole' lib for picking on you. Pussy.

/why yes, yes I am angry today
2012-12-16 04:20:07 PM  
2 votes:

Pokey.Clyde: Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.


I don't know enough about guns to really even suggest what to limit, restrict, or change.

Where would you start? Would you change it at all? How will we measure success? Only one mass shooting a year?
2012-12-16 03:54:45 PM  
2 votes:

Elvis_Bogart: What? They didn't volunteer to step into an obvious trap? The bastards!


The GOP and NRA have never been afraid to engage in a gun control debate because until now, they've always held the high ground. The fact that they are sitting this round out is very telling.
2012-12-16 01:18:03 PM  
2 votes:
What? They didn't volunteer to step into an obvious trap? The bastards!
2012-12-17 02:00:31 PM  
1 votes:

Pincy: If you want to use the car analogy, we do the same thing with cars, they have to be "street legal" before you can drive them on the roads. Of course the general public isn't going to write these laws, the politicians and lobbying groups are. That's why the NRA should sit down and be willing to compromise now or they will find themselves left out of the discussion altogether.


Ok, but your car only has to be "street legal" if you want to drive it on the street i.e. public roads. You can have whatever features on your car you want if you use it to race on the track or just want a museum piece to sit in your garage.

Again, why should those not committing a crime have to compromise because of what this guy did?

If you want to restrict and regulate what guns can be carried in public, like those with a CCW permit I'm totally fine with that, and that would be analogous to the car being "street legal."
2012-12-17 01:29:55 PM  
1 votes:

manimal2878: I think this starts to look like the same failings as the 90s AWB ban; Restricting things that seem scary.


Exactly. It's just another gun grabber wet dream, incrementally stripping people of the right to keep and bear arms, with no basis in reality or any objective or scientific rationale behind their proposal.

ZOMG scary guns. Make them go away, daddy. They frighten me.
2012-12-17 12:07:44 PM  
1 votes:

GF named my left testicle thundercles: do 5 year olds have the ability to resist in any way against a 180lb man with a club or machete? i feel that it would be just as easy to kill a 5 yearold with a club as it is with a rifle


It's not. The rifle only takes you a moment to squeeze the trigger. The club requires a swing, which takes a bit longer. You'd also have to club them multiple times just to make sure they are dead. But that first kid might not be that different club versus gun, so we'll agree they're equal for argument's sake. What about the second kid? I imagine the second victim didn't stand still. With the club you have to chase them down. Sure maybe you lock the door so they're stuck in the room but you still gotta catch them. Not with the gun. You can just stand there and keep squeezin.

That's the point. Your gun made it easier to increase the death toll. If this killer didn't have a gun, he would have still killed kids with a knife. But he wouldn't have gotten such a high score.

What a sick conversation this is.
2012-12-17 12:00:46 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Gun control will not prevent these kind of tragedies. this is why.

when i was 20 years old, i was 6 foot 3 and was benching 220 lbs. i imagine that is well over twice or three times the strength of the average woman teaching kindergarden classes, and i dont even consider myself to be a particularly strong man. what that means is that i could walk into a kindergarden class and easily kill the woman teaching with my bare hands. i could even bring a baseball bat or a knife to make it easier. it is possible that those weapons would be more effective because they are relatively quiet.

You're right, if you walked into an elementary school with just your bare hands, it makes total sense you could kill 27 people before they stopped you. It's not like killing with your hands is any slower and hey, if you're willing to shoot someone clearly you're equally willing to kill them with your bare hands or stab them to death. It's not like having to look directly into their eyes while you are actually grabbing/touching them and watching them die is any worse than being able to shoot at them from far away. Further, because when you were 20 you could bench 220 pounds, this 20 year old scraggly lookin kid could as well.

You make a well reasoned difficult to counter argument there friend.

GF named my left testicle thundercles: guns are not the problem, they are the method by which the problem occurs. the real problem is that a young man is so disgusted or discouraged about life that he wants to indescriminately kill other people and then himself.

Exactly. This is why I'm for allowing free access to nuclear weapons. Nukes are not the problem, they are the method by which the problem occurs. If this kid had a nuke, sure he would have blown up all of Connecticut and killed millions of people, but whatever, nukes are not the problem, just the method.

Man you're stupid. By all means, make an argument to secure your gun rights. But you're j ...


do 5 year olds have the ability to resist in any way against a 180lb man with a club or machete? i feel that it would be just as easy to kill a 5 yearold with a club as it is with a rifle. once the teacher is down, they really arent even able to run away. also it might be a good idea to leave the ad hominem out of the discussion.
2012-12-17 11:34:53 AM  
1 votes:

manimal2878: What about people that have a couple guns and some ammo in case there is another hurricane like in new orleans and they are afraid of looters and break ins when the power goes out? Does that scare you? Because that is, in a microcosmic sort of way the collapse of society too, and to me, a very reasonable thing to be prepared for.


I agree. But how many guns and what types do you need to reasonably be prepared? I'll start - I think a single handgun with a magazine holding 12 bullets will suffice. The reason is because odds are you won't even need to fire a shot but merely show your gun and people will go away. Perhaps a warning shot would be in order as well. But I'll also accept the worst case scenario. In the worst case scenario, how many looters will be attacking your house? 4? Great, three bullets each.

What exactly was this guy reasonably preparing for?

Becker allegedly had 36 firearms, including an UZI, an AK-47 and a Colt assault weapon popularly used by the U.S. military. None of them were currently licensed and the assault weapons are banned in Massachusetts. Police also said they found a crate of ammunition with more than 8,000 rounds in it - 2,000 more rounds than Holmes allegedly had. Becker's court-appointed lawyer refused to comment.

Link
2012-12-17 11:23:15 AM  
1 votes:

manimal2878: CPennypacker: manimal2878: CPennypacker: manimal2878:
All that said none of those would have prevented this specific attack since the guns were stolen from somebody that legally owned them and presumably if those things were the law would have followed them. Are you ok with that?

The person who legally owned them seems like they were unstable too. Somehow I doubt anyone paranoid enough to be a doomsday prepper would pass stringent mental health screenings we would want to have in place for owning firearms.

Is wanting to own guns in itself a sign of mental instability? If so that is pretty circular and would make it impossible for anyone to own a gun. I don't know if you are saying that or not, but it could be read that way.

I'm not really familiar with the Doomsday prepper thing.

Mother of Sandy Hook school gunman Adam Lanza was a 'prepper' survivalist preparing for economic and social collapse, say reports

I don't see anything there that makes me think she is a wacko. Lots of groups have a "prepper" mentality, it's bulit into the Mormon religion for one.

It does seem the mom was starting to suspect her son was a wacko though. Have any of the stories mentioned if she had the guns in safe? Did he know the combination or anything like that?


If you're so paranoid that you think you need to stockpile weapons and ammunition for the collapse of society and/or the end of the world, I don't think you should have a gun. It scares the bajeezus out of me.
2012-12-17 11:14:34 AM  
1 votes:

lennavan: CPennypacker: The problem is two fold. The medical/mental health problem needs to be addressed, but so does the weaponry access. People keep saying these people can go on a rampage with some other weapon. Fine. Address the mental health issue to reduce people going crazy, address the gun issue to reduce rampages and the severity of them by people who still do.

I think you're missing the most important aspect - the media attention.


The mental health issue is a misnomer too. There is no indication that the shooter had any mental health issues other than "mild autism". Plus, the guns were legally owned by his mother, who had no known mental health issues (and was the first victim).

Plus, you can't ban "media attention".

I hate to be Debbie Downer, but this could not have been prevented. It is not politically possible nor practical nor constitutional nor even a good idea to pass laws draconian enough to prevent this type of rampage. You aren't going to ban guns; you aren't going to lock up everybody with "mild autism", you aren't going to ban the press from reporting on things like this when it happens.

Sometimes shiat happens that simply can't be prevented; people need to just deal with this fact.
2012-12-17 10:51:40 AM  
1 votes:

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Gun control will not prevent these kind of tragedies. this is why.

when i was 20 years old, i was 6 foot 3 and was benching 220 lbs. i imagine that is well over twice or three times the strength of the average woman teaching kindergarden classes, and i dont even consider myself to be a particularly strong man. what that means is that i could walk into a kindergarden class and easily kill the woman teaching with my bare hands. i could even bring a baseball bat or a knife to make it easier. it is possible that those weapons would be more effective because they are relatively quiet.



You're right, if you walked into an elementary school with just your bare hands, it makes total sense you could kill 27 people before they stopped you. It's not like killing with your hands is any slower and hey, if you're willing to shoot someone clearly you're equally willing to kill them with your bare hands or stab them to death. It's not like having to look directly into their eyes while you are actually grabbing/touching them and watching them die is any worse than being able to shoot at them from far away. Further, because when you were 20 you could bench 220 pounds, this 20 year old scraggly lookin kid could as well.

You make a well reasoned difficult to counter argument there friend.

GF named my left testicle thundercles: guns are not the problem, they are the method by which the problem occurs. the real problem is that a young man is so disgusted or discouraged about life that he wants to indescriminately kill other people and then himself.


Exactly. This is why I'm for allowing free access to nuclear weapons. Nukes are not the problem, they are the method by which the problem occurs. If this kid had a nuke, sure he would have blown up all of Connecticut and killed millions of people, but whatever, nukes are not the problem, just the method.

Man you're stupid. By all means, make an argument to secure your gun rights. But you're just spewin made up shiat you didn't bother to think through because you think it's totally persuasive. If this 20 year old kid didn't have an assault rifle, you're right, he would have used a handgun and killed a bunch of people anyway. But instead of 27 dead there would only be 20 dead. If he had to kill with his bare hands, he probably would only have gotten one or two because it takes a lot longer to kill. Also I'm no tough guy, if I see a dude with an assault rifle going on a rampage, I probably run and hide. If I see a dude strangling people to death, I'm a teenie bit more likely to intervene.

If we ban assault rifles, the number of events like this will not change. However the death tolls will go down. If we ban guns entirely, the number of events like this will not hit zero because people will obtain guns illegally. However the number of events and the overall deaths will significantly decrease. This is reality. I get it, you still want to keep your guns. Fine. But you have to argue using reality, otherwise the rest of us just think you're a nutball who leaves all reason behind in defense of his guns. A gun nut if you will.
2012-12-17 09:27:40 AM  
1 votes:
Gun control will not prevent these kind of tragedies. this is why.

when i was 20 years old, i was 6 foot 3 and was benching 220 lbs. i imagine that is well over twice or three times the strength of the average woman teaching kindergarden classes, and i dont even consider myself to be a particularly strong man. what that means is that i could walk into a kindergarden class and easily kill the woman teaching with my bare hands. i could even bring a baseball bat or a knife to make it easier. it is possible that those weapons would be more effective because they are relatively quiet.

guns are not the problem, they are the method by which the problem occurs. the real problem is that a young man is so disgusted or discouraged about life that he wants to indescriminately kill other people and then himself.
2012-12-17 09:24:03 AM  
1 votes:

EyeballKid: I wonder how many of these newly-minted mental health experts we now have here on Fark were against affordable health care for everybody? Oh, so now that seems like a good idea?! And all it took was 4 shootings in a week that killed more than 20 children? Great hindsight, guys, really, your wisdom knows no bounds. (slow clap)


Who's against affordable healthcare? I'm against paying for someone else's healthcare (any more than I do now).
2012-12-17 08:25:00 AM  
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: I didn't say the CDC was random shiat, the bath tub/pool line is. You can take anything in there, twist it around and pretend it means something but it doesn't. No one takes a bath tub somewhere to kill people. Bath tubs are not designed for that purpose. Pretending accidents are the same to intentional acts is not a solid debate position. However, I'm sure you've won over many people with insults


I think it's completely valid. You are saying guns are dangerous and should be banned. And the fact that 20 kids were killed here is making this banning seem suddenly urgent to you and many like you.

But this is a complete and total emotional reaction. There are many things more likely to kill your kid than a gun. If your argument was logical and based on rational facts, you would indeed be thinking about finding a way to ban the backyard pool.
2012-12-17 03:13:50 AM  
1 votes:

jjmartin: Having a gun on your person can go bad lots of ways


Pretty much just the ones you mentioned - lack of testicular fortitude and common sense.

Don't carry a gun unless you're mentally prepared to take a life and face the consequences that entails (IE a guaranteed ride to the cop shop in shiny bracelets, regardless of how justified the shooting was). Plain and simple. If you haven't served in the military, get some comparable training to help develop the proper combat mindset. Being an armed citizen is not for the feint of heart.
2012-12-17 02:35:46 AM  
1 votes:

GhostFish: And if you ignore that and dismiss it then you're just going to piss people off and they're going to stop listening to you. Right or wrong, you'll be shooting yourself in the foot and they will march off and do what they think needs to be done without your input.


Sorry, I'm going to continue to be the voice of reason opposing the angry unthinking mob.

Hasty, ill-conceived, illogical solutions to extremely uncommon problems are not in anyone's best interest. That kind of mob thinking is what gave us the USA-PATRIOT act, the TSA, and a bunch of other harmful legislation.
2012-12-17 02:14:37 AM  
1 votes:

Tea_tempest_Cup: I am concerned that non-criminals are getting shot by crazy people with weapons that seem to be readily available to anyone.


In other words, "ZOMG scary guns!!! Make them go away, daddy".

The problem is entirely YOUR perception of the facts and your insistence on blaming an inanimate object for human behavior.

Let's see: according to this source, there were 16 mass shootings, with a total of 84 victims (not counting the shooters).

84 innocent people dead in a year. Sounds like a lot. But compared to lots of other things, it's inconsequential.

Stuck by lightning: 50/year. Less, but not by much. "Struck by lighting" is practically synonymous with "unlikely". The odds are literally about the same as getting struck by lighting. Think about that for a while.

Drowning in the bathtub: 341/year. 4 times more likely.

Inhalation of gastric contents: 382/year. You're 4.5 times as likely to choke to death on your own puke as you are to get killed in a mass shooting.

Tripping and falling on level ground: 565/year. 6.7 times more likely.

Accidential poisoning: 12,757. That's 152 times more likely.

Motor vehicle accident: 46,749. That's 557 times more likely. The thing that's most likely to kill you is probably the thing you are LEAST concerned about.

Bottom line: people suck at risk assessment, and the news media isn't doing anything to help.

Yes, it is a tragedy, but YOU ARE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL.
2012-12-17 02:00:11 AM  
1 votes:

LargeCanine: I'd agree with that. We had an issue with abuse in our mental health institutions, now it it TOO hard to commit somone who is obviously a threat. These mass murderers were known to be dangerous - Virginia Tech, Arizona, and now Sandy Hook were all done by crazy people who were pretty obviously dangerously insane to even casual observers. Its not just mass murders, but cops have to deal with dangerous crazies all the time - and then get blamed for having to shoot someone who was "just mentally ill".


The solution isn't necessarily just to commit them. If mental health issues are stigmatized and seeking help is associated with being committed then fewer people on the edge will actually seek help. We need to make everyone feel that they have options and that they are not weak or shameful or dangerous. Asking for help with your mental health needs to be as acceptable as asking for help with your physical health. Because they really are the same thing.
2012-12-17 01:41:28 AM  
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: The US is not the only country that has people with mental health issues.


The US does a comparatively shiatty-ass job of dealing with the mental health issue, just as we've done with other health issues.
2012-12-17 01:35:17 AM  
1 votes:
Why on earth would they? They'll be using factual discussion against emotional appeal just days after a tragic event.
2012-12-17 01:34:29 AM  
1 votes:

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting m5urdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000

How many inner city gang members does Canada have vs the US?

Best estimates are that between 60% and 80% of all murders and attempted murders in the US are gang-related or committed by a criminal associate. Do the math and the murder rate for non-gangbangers and non-criminals is about the same as the murder rate in Canada or Europe.

Don't want to get murdered? Don't associate with criminals.


I don't buy this argument line either. The US is not the only country with disaffected youth. The US is not the only country that has people with mental health issues. But the US is one of the only countries that has these issues, along with readily available and loosely controlled guns (in what most would consider the first world). And this probably doesn't account for all the accidental deaths and shootings. It simply can't be denied. The US has a major gun problem, those that continue to deny it are only living in denial
2012-12-17 01:23:21 AM  
1 votes:

Rockstone: You probably must of also supported the patriot act with open arms then, considering 9/11 caused the deaths of 2800 citizens..


That's an interesting logical leap. But let's apply your logic to 9/11.

"There will always be terrorists and we can never stop terrorist attacks so we should just accept that 3000 dead Americans every few years is the price we pay for our freedom."

Once again, that's not freedom.
2012-12-17 01:11:41 AM  
1 votes:

Rockstone: Again, considering that the chances of this happening to you are almost 0, you don't have to live in that fear.


I don't live in fear because I don't accept that we have to sacrifice 20 kindergartners in order to secure our freedoms. You do believe that. And that's not freedom.
2012-12-17 01:00:30 AM  
1 votes:

clyph: iq_in_binary: Do you even know what the NFA does? As outlined in my proposal, the gun control effects would be similar to the laws in, say Austria.

Does Austria have an inner-city gang problem and a highly profitable, prohibition-fueled black market? Does Austria have an economically repressed underclass for gangs to recruit from? No? Then what works in Austria won't work here.

Simple-minded solutions do not solve complex social problems.

Treating the symptom does not cure the underlying disease.

Banning inanimate objects / substances does not change human behavior.

Passing harsher laws does not deter people who don't fear going to prison.


I keep telling people that the US culture is different than the rest of the world. People just ignore it.

/ it's also why Sweeden's ultra-relaxed jail sentencing system would not work here.
2012-12-17 12:58:04 AM  
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: COMALite J: At least mittromneysdog isn′t one of those gun-grabbers who tries to claim that the Second Amendment doesn′t really say nor mean what it clearly and plainly says and means.

The second Amendment is NOT clear and plain.


The Supreme Court would like a word with you.

Citation.
2012-12-17 12:56:06 AM  
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: It may as well be the same

Okay, your opinion is that a guy knowing martial arts is just as deadly as this kid with the gun he had. Have a good evening, let's talk when you've had some time to reconsider this postion


How would you quantify "just as deadly"?
And if we're quantifying it, does that mean it does have something to do with the numbers?
Because before you were implying that the numbers are irrelevant and that the intent is what mattered.
2012-12-17 12:41:42 AM  
1 votes:

Rockstone: Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society.


No. I refuse to accept that 20 dead kindergartners is the price we must pay for freedom. Yes, bad things happen, but we don't have to just blindly accept it. For some reason, the conservative response to everything is "We can't find a perfect solution so we shouldn't bother with any solution at all". No. I refuse to be Athens fearfully sacrificing 14 youth a year to the Minotaur so that they can remain at peace. That's not what America is about. There are solutions to this problem. We can fix this.
2012-12-17 12:32:08 AM  
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: Farker Soze: Peter von Nostrand: Ugh. Not the let's pull random shiat out of our ass and make an equivalency to gun deaths line of reasoning

It's a legitimate gripe. Sort of like the disparity of breast cancer research gets all the attention when other forms of cancer kill far more people.

I won't argue on the cancer research but I disagree with the swimming pool/bath tub line of thought. It's BS. Absolute BS. If a bath tub was an efficient killing machine, designed solely for that purpose and that purpose alone, he would have dragged a claw foot tub in that school and went to town. Like it or not, guns are in their own category. Attempts to pit them against random objects is pure deflection


I'm not a fan of guns, but I can still recognize that it's entirely possible to see them as a tool to be used only in self defense and not only as "efficient killing machines". A person highly trained in lethal martial arts isn't necessarily learning those skills just to be an efficient killing machine. Those skills have defensive applications, just as weapons do.

Should we start putting severe restrictions on martial arts training just because such training can be abused?
2012-12-17 12:29:56 AM  
1 votes:

Rockstone: I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.


There is no logic behind it. It's purely an irrational, emotional response, and no exposure to facts will change their minds. Gun-grabbers are just like creationists - they have a deeply held ideology / mythology that they've committed themselves to (typically via early childhood indoctrination), and it's easier for them to discredit or ignore any facts that contradict their ideology than it is for them to admit that they are wrong. Same mental pathology, different ideology.

There's been a lot of interesting research done recently on why people get so entrenched in mistaken beliefs and why they are so resistant to factual information.
2012-12-17 12:17:58 AM  
1 votes:

justtray: You want to keep the status quo for entirely selfish reasons, and I find that horribly disgusting.


And you want to take a shiat on the constitution for entirely selfish and non-sensical (not to mention statistically incorrect) reasons.

Gun control is demonstrably not effective in preventing crime, for the simple reason that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. The most violent cities are uniformly the ones with the most strict gun control laws.

Drugs are illegal, yet they are incredibly easy to buy. What makes you think that gun running is any more difficult than drug running, or that banning them would be any more effective than banning drugs? It wouldn't.

If you want to address gun crime, go after the gangs. Legalizing drugs would be a good start as it would help deprive them of both the means and the motive for killing each other. A national make-work jobs program like the old Civilian Conservation Corps wouldn't be a bad idea either.

As for tragedies like this, the solution is crazy person control, not gun control. What's the common element between this shooting, the VT shooting, the Columbine shooting, and the Aurora shooting? A CRAZY PERSON who had shown clear warning signs, and an escalating pattern of erratic behavior that was ignored by their friends and family members.
2012-12-17 12:17:11 AM  
1 votes:

Rockstone: I'm not trying to incite anything, I just really want to know the logic behind it.


It's a matter of values and perceived risk versus perceived reward.

In general, the guys on the left see gun ownership as a stupid risk that provides no significant rewards. And the guys on the right see giving up gun ownership as a stupid risk that provides no significant rewards.

As you pointed out, the numbers are practically non-existent in regards to the actual risk versus reward. So it becomes a debate about values and not realities.
2012-12-17 12:13:29 AM  
1 votes:

Rockstone: Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society.


How many mass shootings would there have to be in order to change your mind? Don't pussyfoot around. Give me a figure.
2012-12-17 12:03:04 AM  
1 votes:

The Why Not Guy: edmo: I would love to hear some serious proposals from them on how to deal with this stuff. Or the deficit. Or the national debt. Or the debt ceiling. At least the NFL, NBA,and PGA are still non-profit organizations exempt from taxes. Yay Senate.

Good luck. I know Facebook isn't a scientific data collection method, but here's how it breaks down among my friends:

Liberal Friends: some are calling for stronger gun control. Some are calling for stronger ammunition control. Some are calling for increased investment in mental health services.

Conservative Friends: Posting pictures of candles and talking about how 20 new angels are spending Christmas with Jesus.


Holy hell that's exactly what my conservative facebook friends are doing. They almost seem to enjoy it. At least more than dealing with the issue. I think they think everyone is going too say "awwwww", shed a tear and forget about it.
2012-12-17 12:02:11 AM  
1 votes:

Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.


And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Statistically, your odds of getting shot and killed are virtually nil unless you're a black male with a criminal record who's involved in the drug trade and/or a gang member. The vast majority of murders are criminals killing other criminals - according to CDC the top two risk factors for being the victim of a murder or an attempted murder are having a criminal record and gang affiliation.

Freak occurrences like this are just that - freak occurrences. They are tragic, but they are rare - which is what makes them newsworthy. There are a lot of other dangers that are much more real that you don't hear about on the news precisely because they are so commonplace. You are several times more likely to drown in your own home, or have a heart attack while doing yard work, or get run over crossing the street than you are to be a murder victim. You are getting yourself all worked up over a threat that is FAR less common than the real threats you blithely ignore every day

20 dead kids is a tragedy, no doubt. But, to put it in perspective, an average of around 60 kids die in accidental drownings EVERY MONTH (Source: CDC - average of 10 accidental drownings/day, 20% children). Where's the cry for swimming pool and bathtub control? Those kill LOTS more kids than guns. Mandatory water safety classes would save a lot more lives than any gun control law that you can think up.
2012-12-16 11:20:19 PM  
1 votes:

jmadisonbiii: Wonder how many muslim congressmen they "reached out to...to invite them on the program" on September 12, 2001.


None. Because there were none in Congress at that time. Try another analogy
2012-12-16 11:16:24 PM  
1 votes:

clyph: demaL-demaL-yeH: GUN THREAD != ABORTION THREAD

The derp in both is about equal.

The anti-gun crowd is as resistant to facts as the anti-abortion crowd is. Both groups of anti-'s buy their party line without question, repeat the same long-discredited lies, and generally act in a completely irrational matter on the subject

I am pro-RTKBA for the same reason I am pro-choice, and pro-marriage rights.

Against guns? Don't get a gun.
Against abortions? Don't get an abortion.
Against gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Logical consistency on personal rights is not hard if you try. Don't do things you don't like, and don't try to force other people to stop doing things you don't like.


The different is if someone gets an abortion or gay married, I'm not increasing my chances of getting killed.

If someone gets a gun, that's another gun that can be used to kill the owner or another person.

No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.
2012-12-16 11:13:22 PM  
1 votes:

clyph: demaL-demaL-yeH: GUN THREAD != ABORTION THREAD

The derp in both is about equal.

The anti-gun crowd is as resistant to facts as the anti-abortion crowd is. Both groups of anti-'s buy their party line without question, repeat the same long-discredited lies, and generally act in a completely irrational matter on the subject

I am pro-RTKBA for the same reason I am pro-choice, and pro-marriage rights.

Against guns? Don't get a gun.
Against abortions? Don't get an abortion.
Against gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Logical consistency on personal rights is not hard if you try. Don't do things you don't like, and don't try to force other people to stop doing things you don't like.


what do you say to the people who don't want to get shot? Don't they have rights? Is your right to own a gun better than my right to live?
2012-12-16 08:57:44 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: GoldSpider: Weaver95: look - they HAVE to know they're going to get raked over the coals for their pro-gun stance

Trying to reason with the torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mob is seldom time well-spent.

no, it's a question of choosing your best possible venue. for the GOP, any response to this tragedy is going to have to be carefully coordinated and released in a controlled environment. just jumping out there blind is going to end up with the GOP getting their livers ripped out and their ideology destroyed.


They will probably choose... Time.

Fact is that the more distant this tragedy becomes, the less emotional sting it has. In three months the idea of using gun control to deal with outlier incidents will be about as laughable as the idea of using the TSA to fight terrorism.

The people who want to stand on this soap box intend to do it sooner rather than later. Failing that, they'll use it to score cheap points.

If the politicians ever intend to have the real conversation about mental health that we need, it will happen well out of earshot of the public. Because it involves both the republicans backing down on health care and the democrats accepting that gun control isn't a solution.

The only debate that happens else wise is just a meeting held to try and legitimize one sides forgone conclusion... And the other side will avoid it, as they probably should.
2012-12-16 08:19:07 PM  
1 votes:
it's really odd to see people who I *know* hate/despise Obamacare suddenly switch around and start talking about 'improving the mental health care system'...but only when it looks like their guns might be threatened.

this is one of the MANY things that needed to be addressed with health care reform. But the GOP fought tooth and claw to prevent it from happening. In fact, they're still fighting against it. the Republican view is that helping sick people (yes, even the mentally ill) is socialism. so which is it guys? are you now in favor of Obamacare? Or do you still want to see it repealed?
2012-12-16 08:18:40 PM  
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: vygramul: chuckufarlie: vygramul: Flying Lasagna Monster: If the assault weapons ban were allowed to still be in force, those 20 innocent children would still be alive. Hope you're all proud of yourselves, gun nuts.

That's completely false.

no, that is pretty much provable.

It's provably false. Just what do you think was unavailable during the ban?

then by all means, scooter, go ahead and prove it false.


The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

And it wasn't hard to get. You could still buy an AR-15, it just came wihout a bayonet lug and folding stock and then buy high-cap mags.

QED
2012-12-16 08:09:31 PM  
1 votes:

skullkrusher: IlGreven: Of course not. They're too busy hyperventilating over a duck stamp that magically appeared on Election Day.

/It was invisible when the Democrat introduced the act containing it months ago.

duck stamp?


RABBIT STAMP
2012-12-16 08:04:58 PM  
1 votes:

coeyagi:

I will make it very clear, Allen West guy: have your rights, just know that you can have your rights and also be interested in improving society. Most people here who are gun nuts don't want to have the conversation. They are paranoid dicks who care only about themselves and will block rational discussion at all costs.


the conversation seems to go like this:

NRA: I have 2nd amendment rights.
voters: 'yeah, but we're getting tired of people murdering kids and shooting up places of worship. plus, ya know, street crime'.
NRA: I...have SECOND AMENDMENT...rights.
voters: 'yes, we understand that but...we're trying to find a way to make sense of this tragedy. maybe gun control is part of that, maybe not. we're just tired of seeing piles of dead kindergarten children paraded around on the evening news. you're part of this discussion too ya know. any suggestions?
NRA: I have second amendment rights. you can't have them! they're MINE! DISCUSSION OVER!' [slams door]. [runs away screaming]
voters: WTF just happened...?
2012-12-16 07:52:39 PM  
1 votes:

toomuchwhargarbl: America likes it's guns.


We like our first-graders too.
2012-12-16 07:01:09 PM  
1 votes:
And another thing pissing me off right now is the evening news, milking this tragedy for all it's worth, right now running a list of the dead, with sad pictures and sad music. Jeez, don't these assholes realize the crazies are watching, and thinking, "Wow, what an AWESOME way of making myself notorious! Look at all the attention I could get!"
2012-12-16 06:34:26 PM  
1 votes:
s20.postimage.org
2012-12-16 06:09:20 PM  
1 votes:
I demand the right to carry a bazooka onto a plane.

Farking watered down rights.

Arms include bazookas. Does constitution say firearms? No. IT SAYS ARMS. Does constitution mention planes? No. IT SAYS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Sick of weasally constitution-violating NRA.

Bazookas on planes. MY RIGHT. MY RIGHT. MY RIGHT.
2012-12-16 06:08:27 PM  
1 votes:
The guns are perfectly safe, meticulously engineered and manufactured to impeccable standards of quality and reliability unmatched in the field of consumer products.

It's the humans that are unsafe. So we need to find a means of producing better humans and weeding out the ones with safety issues and correcting them before they explode and take out bystanders.
2012-12-16 06:01:15 PM  
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: cchris_39: skullkrusher: AverageJoe77: WTF Indeed: It's good to see that Americans from both sides of the gun issue are standing up to do nothing about making sure the mentally unstable are properly diagnosed and treated so that they don't act on the urge to murder children. oh wait...

That would require spending money on the unwashed masses. We can't have that!

How do you propose the mentally unstable are diagnosed and treated? Forced mental health checks?

You just don't get it do you. If something bad happens, more government control and more government spending can fix it. Duh.

Ah, the old "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas." game. Here's tip from a pro-gun lib: If the gun lobby starts talking about mental health, then you change the subject from gun control and it's a win-win. You get to keep all your guns, and you can blame the government for not helping these people more.


you haven't suggested any concrete ideas. White kid, affluent family - how are we to ensure he gets diagnosed and treated? Maybe a neighbor can report him for suspicion of insanity?
2012-12-16 05:58:51 PM  
1 votes:

Pokey.Clyde: Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.


Didn't you just run away crying from the other gun thread?
2012-12-16 05:55:54 PM  
1 votes:

12349876: NewportBarGuy: One exception? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.

"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.

Louie, you are the Prince of Derptown.

The stupid thing about that quote is one of three things has to happen.

1) The gun is on the adult's body at all times liable to be taken via sucker punch esp. if it's know they have gun
2) The gun is locked up enough to not matter for a sudden break in to a small room, though admittedly someone in a nearby room could prepare
3) The gun is accessible enough for someone to steal and shoot


The principal wasn't in her office; she was meeting with a parent in another room near the classrooms with the vice-principal and a psychologist. Had there been a military rifle in the office, she would have had to leave the meeting room, assess the situation, run to the office (past the gunman, btw), get the key, unlock the storage area, unlock where the ammo is kept, load the weapon, and then confront the gunman. I kind of doubt he would have patiently waited for her to accomplish all that before shooting anyone.

The principal and psychologist died trying to stop the gunman. The vice-principal was injured and got to the office, where he activated the PA system. In this real life situation, who gets out the gun? The secretary? Or is the principal supposed to carry the rifle and ammo with her at all times? Gohmert is an idiot and a fool, basically just another one of those "more guns will make us safe" NRA shills who are too brain-dead to do their own thinking. The Wild West was a society as he described; everyone was armed, and no, it was NOT safer for everyone like that. In fact, the first thing that happened when law enforcement officers moved into an area like that was to ban weapons from towns, bars and saloons, anywhere where the chance for violent outbursts were common.

I don't blame the GOP for not going on TV today to debate gun control laws. I give them intelligence enough to realize they couldn't defend the indefensible. I also don't expect them to change one iota off their pro-gun, anti-responsibility message they've been pushing about guns for decades now either.
2012-12-16 05:55:37 PM  
1 votes:
I love it when assholes suggest that more guns are the answer.

Guns! Guns everywhere!

You know what more guns brings? More gun related accidental shootings. Try as you may to teach safety and responsibility, accidents happen. And eventually, the number of accidents will meet or overtake the number of violent gun deaths that you were hoping to stop.

farking brilliant strategy there. I guess at least we're killing ourselves rather than letting someone else do it.
2012-12-16 05:53:25 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: skullkrusher: AverageJoe77: WTF Indeed: It's good to see that Americans from both sides of the gun issue are standing up to do nothing about making sure the mentally unstable are properly diagnosed and treated so that they don't act on the urge to murder children. oh wait...

That would require spending money on the unwashed masses. We can't have that!

How do you propose the mentally unstable are diagnosed and treated? Forced mental health checks?

You just don't get it do you. If something bad happens, more government control and more government spending can fix it. Duh.


So if all these recent tragedies are just the result of mentally ill people then how do you propose prevent further such incidents? Or are you saying that this is just a part of life we have to learn to live with?
2012-12-16 05:52:40 PM  
1 votes:
Raving lunatic gun-owners* and NRA bribery recipients are a bunch of f*cking cowards? Who. Woulda. Thunkit.

(*to be distinguished from good gun owners such as normal hunters)

Never met a CCW who wasn't a huge pussy, concerned about almost-nonexistent crime, "blacks" and "Mexicans" and constantly running through ridiculous hero-fantasy daydream bullshiat scenarios

Real men fight with their fists and words
2012-12-16 05:50:19 PM  
1 votes:

UConnOIFVeteran: I'm all for this debate; I want to see how Obama plans to make stealing guns from law abiding people, taking them to a place where guns aren't allowed, and using them to commit murder illegal. Oh wait... FYI, I live in CT and my sister is a teacher, and I would feel a lot better about her safety if teachers were allowed to receive training and keep guns secured in their desks than I would if another law were to be made for the lawless.


You know what it usually means when teachers have to keep guns in their desks?

It means they're in Somalia and they should probably get the fark out of there.
2012-12-16 05:47:35 PM  
1 votes:

UConnOIFVeteran: I would feel a lot better


Well, that's the important thing.
2012-12-16 05:47:14 PM  
1 votes:

UConnOIFVeteran: and keep guns secured in their desks


Because there is no way a student would ever be able to get access to a gun secured in their desk. Everyone knows that desks are impenetrable.
2012-12-16 05:45:40 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: On the off chance that somebody might actually believe that headline.......you're being lied to.


Thank you, Senator.

/cuz that's the ONLY way you could make that statement.
2012-12-16 05:41:52 PM  
1 votes:
You know what? I'm glad they didn't take up any offers to discuss such an important issue, because they never bring anything productive to the table anyway.

The fewer people we have on national television bleating out NRA talking points, the better. If we on the pro-gun control side can shame them into keeping their mouths shut, then maybe eventually we can get some actual legislation going.
2012-12-16 05:41:00 PM  
1 votes:
I'm all for this debate; I want to see how Obama plans to make stealing guns from law abiding people, taking them to a place where guns aren't allowed, and using them to commit murder illegal. Oh wait... FYI, I live in CT and my sister is a teacher, and I would feel a lot better about her safety if teachers were allowed to receive training and keep guns secured in their desks than I would if another law were to be made for the lawless.
2012-12-16 05:36:44 PM  
1 votes:

blueknight: no weaver, they will be on FOX monday i will say. they will get softball questions and fake how tore up they are over someone with a mental illness. the guns wont be mentioned


And then they will follow that up with a tirade against Obamacare and how we shouldn't have to be forced to pay for other people's problems.
2012-12-16 05:36:38 PM  
1 votes:

AverageJoe77: thismomentinblackhistory: Pokey.Clyde: Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.

I don't know enough about guns to really even suggest what to limit, restrict, or change.

Where would you start? Would you change it at all? How will we measure success? Only one mass shooting a year?

I'm what you would call a liberal. I realize banning certain guns would only keep law abiding citizens from having those guns. I also know we could spend obscene amounts of money on mental health and things like this would still happen. What bothers me the most is neither side of this argument will approach or debate it in honest or realistic manner


unless a gun control advocate is suggesting an outright ban on semi-automatic handgun ownership, there's really nothing to talk about.
These were legally owned an registered guns that the psycho son of the owner got his hands on. What can we do? Put her corpse in prison?
2012-12-16 05:36:18 PM  
1 votes:

tentonsofderp: dems are all about appealing to emotion instead of logic, so that won't work.


www.nuthousepunks.com
2012-12-16 05:35:19 PM  
1 votes:
It's good to see that Americans from both sides of the gun issue are standing up to do nothing about making sure the mentally unstable are properly diagnosed and treated so that they don't act on the urge to murder children. oh wait...
2012-12-16 05:34:58 PM  
1 votes:
Some numbers for you:

In 1992 Gun laws were stricter throughout the nation than they are now, many states had no CCW at all. In fact only 9 did. That year there were about 25,000 firearms related murders. In the last 20 years more than 40 states now have CCW, gun ownership is up from approximately 50 million to 80 million and the number of gun related murders is now down below 9,000.

For all of those of you who say 'more guns is safer is just derp' those are the factual numbers. Historically crime increases in bad economies, however the trend for firearms related deaths is simple: The more people that have guns, the less likely there is to be a gun related murder.

While I do oppose teachers carrying guns, which has been promoted by a few RWNJs, here is another startling fact for you: In Israel they had similar issues, teachers were issued guns, school shootings went away.

In Switzerland 1/2 the population owns guns, they have the lowest gun crime rate in the world.

In nations that ban guns, the trend is simple: More crime, more violence, more murder, more assault, and more rape.

Sources(not linked because I am too lazy on this my 3rd day of discussions) : FBI UCR; CDC; and Various UK, Australian; NZ, and other European law enforcement sites, WHO, and UN sites all confirm what I have just said, don't believe me go look it up yourself. ( I know one of you is going to point out the decline in murders in every nation in the world as proof I am wrong, here in the US murder is on the decline too clearly shown in the FBI UCR and CDC websites.
2012-12-16 05:33:38 PM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: One exception? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.

"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.

Louie, you are the Prince of Derptown.


The stupid thing about that quote is one of three things has to happen.

1) The gun is on the adult's body at all times liable to be taken via sucker punch esp. if it's know they have gun
2) The gun is locked up enough to not matter for a sudden break in to a small room, though admittedly someone in a nearby room could prepare
3) The gun is accessible enough for someone to steal and shoot
2012-12-16 05:33:00 PM  
1 votes:

thismomentinblackhistory: Pokey.Clyde: Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.

I don't know enough about guns to really even suggest what to limit, restrict, or change.

Where would you start? Would you change it at all? How will we measure success? Only one mass shooting a year?


I'm what you would call a liberal. I realize banning certain guns would only keep law abiding citizens from having those guns. I also know we could spend obscene amounts of money on mental health and things like this would still happen. What bothers me the most is neither side of this argument will approach or debate it in honest or realistic manner
2012-12-16 05:26:17 PM  
1 votes:

d23: I'm an idealist, I guess. I think the country should be safe enough that a kindergarten teacher and a principal can be educational experts and leave the weapons expertise to someone else.

I must be completely and totally naive.


Nope, everyone in this country must be expert marksmen and carry a firearm wherever you go. If you aren't then you are not a true American.
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-12-16 05:20:11 PM  
1 votes:
I'm an idealist, I guess. I think the country should be safe enough that a kindergarten teacher and a principal can be educational experts and leave the weapons expertise to someone else.

I must be completely and totally naive.
2012-12-16 04:12:02 PM  
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: propasaurus: Clearly, this is not the time to have a conversation about guns. It's too soon. Wait until this all blows over then we can discuss it rationally without emotion.

dems are all about appealing to emotion instead of logic, so that won't work.


lol
2012-12-16 04:10:53 PM  
1 votes:
"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."

can you blame them? if they step up and push a pro-gun agenda right now they'd get slaughtered. these guys aren't stupid...they know when/where and how to pick their venues. in terms of practical strategy, standing up in front of a crowd and pushing a pro gun agenda is only going to hurt their cause and they know it.

If I had to guess, I'd say they're going to be real quiet for a while. they might offer some meaningless concessions, pretend apologies and/or do some sort of emotional gesture or whatnot. they could even go as far as to eventually offer some kind of toothless legislation meant to 'address the concerns' of various voter groups. But that's about as far as it'll go.
2012-12-16 04:06:56 PM  
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: They're still waiting on the talking points from the NRA.

Apparently, this requires something more than the usual retarded derp from those assholes.


They're still trying to feel things out. Huckabee's "If we had God in school this wouldn't have happened" didn't work, and no sane parent wants armed teachers watching over their kindergartners.
2012-12-16 04:06:40 PM  
1 votes:
Oh, look. Yet another gun thread filled with people who know little to nothing about guns telling the rest of us what we can and can't do with our legal, constitutionally protected firearms.
2012-12-16 03:45:21 PM  
1 votes:
Clearly, this is not the time to have a conversation about guns. It's too soon. Wait until this all blows over then we can discuss it rationally without emotion.
2012-12-16 03:40:38 PM  
1 votes:

Elvis_Bogart: What? They didn't volunteer to step into an obvious trap? The bastards!


The "obvious trap" being "defending their positions in a public forum"?

Dear god, the horroorrrrrr
2012-12-16 03:36:42 PM  
1 votes:

One Bad Apple: This About That: Isn't "Met The Press" supposed to be a reasoned, fair, non-biased news program? Do you actually believe your audience is unable to detected the cynicism in the phrase "we reached out". Just say "we invited" and stop it with the cleverness.

For all intensive purposes those mean the same thing. Your being pendantic.


I think I see what you did there.
2012-12-16 03:09:39 PM  
1 votes:

This About That: Isn't "Met The Press" supposed to be a reasoned, fair, non-biased news program? Do you actually believe your audience is unable to detected the cynicism in the phrase "we reached out". Just say "we invited" and stop it with the cleverness.


For all intensive purposes those mean the same thing. Your being pendantic.
2012-12-16 02:25:02 PM  
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: You could join the Army and get paid to fire full auto weapons.


The guy next to me firing the 240B tried to take out a 747 and wound up popping off a few rounds hear my face and setting the grass on fire in front of us with a tracer.

Yeah, I would not recommend that.
2012-12-16 01:54:13 PM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: One exception? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.

"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.

Louie, you are the Prince of Derptown.


I realize absolutely nothing is going to change on gun laws. With 300 million of them already out there, it's just a little late. It's like trying to make possession of a used buttplug illegal; nobody really cares, and with one cop per 11,000 citizens, who the f**k, exactly, is going to even manage the inventory of confiscated guns? The cast of Storage Wars?

Gohmert knows this, too, and really, couldn't he take a single f**king day off his teacher-bashing crusade? Just one lousy day?
2012-12-16 01:40:41 PM  
1 votes:

jbc: cowards


Or thugs.
2012-12-16 01:34:11 PM  
1 votes:
A kindergarten teacher with an M4 would have prevented all of this.
2012-12-16 01:31:57 PM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: One exception? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.

"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.

Louie, you are the Prince of Derptown.


...that would be the M4 that is nearly impossible for civilians to obtain due to its burst-fire capability, and being categorized as a short-barreled rifle.

/pedant
 
Displayed 102 of 102 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report