Bf+: Guns don't kill people.  Criminals kill people!
Well... them and the gun store owners who legally sell the guns to criminals without any threat of retribution.

You do realize that gun store owners are required to submit all purchasers to a background check with purchase by law, right?

Bf+: Guns don't kill people.  Criminals kill people!
Well... them and the gun store owners who legally sell the guns to criminals without any threat of retribution.

Stop posting.

udhq: Even waiting periods significantly cut into gun suicides.

I'm going to need a source on that.  I know for homicides and gun crime that waiting periods have been shown to have zero effect.

DNRTFA, how many people died?

vrax: Poll taxes have already been addressed, right? Right.

Smart person, yes they have, but hey if it works for the 2A then we can reapply it voting for the "good of the people"

Many seem to forget that no Constitutional right is more important than another Constitutional right

HAMMERTOE: If guns are sooo ineffective for defense and protection, why do police carry them rather than knives?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

Publikwerks: andrewskdr: Publikwerks: Listen, you can try and make this out to be an Obama joke, or try and make out knives to be more dangerous than a gun somehow, but the fact of the matter is that this is what Sandy Hook would  have been like had we had no second amendment and all firearms were banned or highly regulated.

Kepp making your jokes. Obviously, it's not too high a price.

6 year old children would have been able to defend themselves against a knife wielding adult as well as adult-age college students are able to defend themselves?  yeah sure

No, but they might have lived.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/the_chinese_lanza_had_a_knife_all_22 _s choolkids_survived/

Probably depends on how you use the knife.... someone randomly stabbing people.... depending on where stabbed, decent to good probability of survival.    Someone (properly) slashing throats... probably not.

But, in general I agree..... this headline with a gun is much more likely "At least 14 dead" and not "At least 14 hurt".   Regardless of whether any specific "gun control" measures will really work or not, you cannot deny that fact.

How many people died?

That man is an innovator. If he had used lawyers instead of a knife, he'd be on the cover of Business Week.

justtray: lostcat: justtray: MassAsster: Honestly - it's just proof that banning crap doesn't work

Because this wacko couldn't , or didn't get a hold of a gun, he found another weapon to use..  Crazy is crazy, doesn't matter what you ban or restrict, how about fixing the god damn crazy...

Not sure if stupid or retarded...

Bravo Two: WTF Indeed: It's a good thing gun control advocates have been pushing a massive mental health overhaul instead of banning weapons rarely used in gun crimes.

I know!

We're waiting for that massive mental health overhaul plan. Lay it on us whenever you think we're ready for it. Be sure to explain where the funding comes from as well, can't wait to hear your response on that.

Come on...The Replublican-controlled congress is clearly motivated to increase funding for programs that would aid those with mental health issues. Haven't they made that clear by all of their historic votes?

I just love how exactly 0 of the people who make the better mental health argument have proposed even a single mental health solution. Biggest deflection ever.

      fine..you want it, you got it....Bring back the psychiatric hospitals that used to be a safe haven for those who seek to do harm to themselves and others.  It is practically impossible to institutionalize someone in the modern day America.  So what happens?...well, the mentally ill are forced to live on the street and try to scrape by on begging or prostitution and are often preyed upon by others.  Those caught committing crimes are tossed into a already overburdened department of corrections system are are preyed upon by fellow inmates.  Psychiatric hospitals currently now are used to house the criminally insane "forensic studies" inmates and most are basically ultra max prisons. In Illinois, we used to have about 10 psychiatric hospitals and now I believe only 2 or 3 are open and those are at greatly reduced capacity.
        The benefit of psych hospitals threefold.  Patients are safer, they receive the care they require and are supervised, and honestly, its ALOT cheaper.  The average cost of an inmate in the DOC is 38,000.  The cost of a patient in the psych hospitals is about 7,000.  Psych halfway houses are even cheaper than that (patients are mostly functional and are supervised in a safe environment).
       The downside of these facilities are that there is alot of stigmas about mental health in this country and not too many people are informed enough on the subject ( or too cowardly to face the negative press) to see this system be re-invisioned.   Most people still hear the word "asylum" when you say mental hospital, and think of Nurse Ratchett from "one flew over the cuckoo's nest".  While I sadly am sure that abuse happens in facilities, with proper supervision and surveillance this could be kept to a minimum, and has to be a safer environment than prison or the streets.
       So why did we get away from the psych hospital system in general?  Well...the ACLU says that "an individual has a significant constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs" and the supreme court in the early 80's and again in the 00's backed them.  And yes, you are legally and constitutionally allowed to say and think that there are listening devices in your cheerios, its probably not a statement of great mental health.  If this condition is allowed to fester and grow, it usually manifests into something tragic.

Tomahawk513: I have no source for it, but it absolutely follows known deterrents for suicidal behavior, which is to say, the more obstacles you put in the way, the less likely the person is to commit suicide since suicide is an impulsive behavior rather than a detailed plan.

Actually committing the act is the impulse, most planning is long term and is part of the depression that they are suffering from that is why we can save many who are suicidal, they mention it and someone convinces them to get help.

My Uncle committed Suicide, drove out to the desert one day and did it. A few weeks later his work gave my aunt a diary they found in his desk, he had been planning it for over a year he even bought the hose and duct tape for the exhaust pipe a couple of weeks before he did it. Studies show that this is the norm,

Infernalist: How many people died?

Shhh. We aren't allowed to talk about the fact that a mass knife attack didn't kill anyone. That line of discussion would damage the gun nuts narrative that mass killings can be accomplished with anything, so singling out guns is just unfair.

Azlefty: vrax: Poll taxes have already been addressed, right? Right.

Smart person, yes they have, but hey if it works for the 2A then we can reapply it voting for the "good of the people"

Many seem to forget that no Constitutional right is more important than another Constitutional right

Are you trolling or just a moron?

You think the right to not quarter soldiers in peacetime is of equal importance to the 1st? or 2nd?

So if they are equal, you're clearly not opposed to registering all weapons, just like you have to register to vote then right?

Idiot.

udhq: You're referring to a TINY minority of suicides that are consciously committed to alleviate suffering.

While I agree that this right should be protected in cases of terminal disease, most suicides are not "chosen" by the victim. They are the final, fatal expression of a kind of cancer of the mind that hijacks the behavior of it's host body.

And no, someone who "wants" to commit suicide because of depression (the vast majority) will generally only do it if it is convenient and the means are immediately available. The fact is that committing suicide is extremely physically difficult, especially for people suffering from depression. That's why the first few weeks on antidepressants are generally so dangerous. Even those who want to die have a strong, involuntary aversion to pain or bodily harm, and the average household contains very few chemicals that can reach toxic concentrations without inducing vomiting. A gun is instantaneous, painless, and requires no effort. Even waiting periods significantly cut into gun suicides.

Okay, so, we find a way to make it inconvenient enough for suicides to get guns, but not so inconvenient as to outright ban firearms from legal owners who have done nothing wrong.

There's still a point at which we have to change the behavior or all we do is simply mask it by making it more difficult, and I'd rather we helped the people rather than simply making them still have shiat for options, just less means of quick suicide.

Also, if you look at suicide attempts by firearms, it's often times neither quick nor painless. Even with perfect shot placement, gunshot wounds are rarely instantly fatal, leaving the subject who tries to use the firearm to bleed with serious wounds for a period of time, and in a great deal of pain.

Very few people understand this, and THINK firearms are the way to go. You really have to hit the brain stem or use a type of firearm that causes enough trauma to the brain to cause cessation of all neurological function for it to not make a difference to the physical body.