Are we ever going to get tired enough of school shootings that we actually do something about them?

[dsc]

I mean really. There is no first world nation, not a one, where there are nearly as many school shootings (per capita not raw numbers) as we have here. Not Canada, not Australia, not the UK, not France, not Switzerland, not Germany, not Japan, not South Korea, not Ireland, not Italy, not New Zealand, not Austria, and I could go on and on. We run logical circles trying to blame everything but guns for this horrible state of affairs. We blame mental health, though there is literally no evidence whatsoever that the people of the US are more prone to mental illness than those of the other nations I mentioned. We blame our multicultural citizenry despite the fact that Canada, the UK and Australia are also multicultural and have vastly lower rates of school shootings. We blame bullying, despite the fact that both Japan and South Korea have problems will bullying that make our schools look like mirvanas in comparison. In short, there is one, and only one, way in which our country is unique relative to the countries on that list. We are the only one that allows pretty much anyone who wants a gun to have a gun. And lo and behold, we have shooting after shooting after shooting after shooting after shooting. I said at the time of Newtown we needed those parents to have the courage to do what the Tills did when Emmit was murdered. We needed to see pictures of what our gun policy had wrought. We needed our tv screens to be flooded with the blood of those innocents. I have no earthly idea what short of that will get our populace to actually wake up and make the politicians listen. Until it happens the next shooting, and every one after that is on us. We know what it would take to make these stop. Australia did it after one. The UK did it after one. We have had well over a hundred and we have done nothing, not a god damned thing.

[Marrah_G]

1. No- our politicians are cowards, quaking at the feet of the NRA

Nothing will be done.

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. Please allow me to add....'

"Ummmm......no"

Thank you for your kind attention,

We now return you to your regularly scheduled 'I'm afraid of something'"

[Marrah_G]

11. land of the free, home of the brave....

[A HERETIC I AM]

17. Home of the used to be

[Marrah_G]

19. yup

Now they are all scared of everything.

[A HERETIC I AM]

20. I love my country, but it embarrasses the shit out of me these days. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Sadly, sounds about right. nt

[shenmue]

2. We'll try, but the NRA will stop us.

I'm considering moving to England. They don't put up with this crap.

[spartan61]

3. This is the 87th shooting

since Newtown. How many more will it take before the bought and paid for politicians finally realize that they have to stop taking their orders from the NRA? We need sensible gun control and background checks. Parents, you need to lock your guns in a way that your children can't get to them and take them to school and shoot their schoolmates. There is no Ebola epidemic but there is certainly a gun shooting epidemic and it is way past time to do something about it.

[ManiacJoe]

25. Well, you do understand part of the problem.

Parents, you need to lock your guns in a way that your children can't get to them

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. Nah...they would rather turn the schools for the "poor kids" into prison camps

and homeschool their own "precious angels" anyway!

[Jackpine Radical]

178. Or at least send the little monsters to private schools

where they don't have to bother with them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

179. the poor ones already refuse to allow their angels to ride the school buses with the

African American children.....The school I went to high school at .the parking lots are now are full of White parents picking up their White children to keep them from riding the school buses with the Black children....I was asked by my friend to ride to pick up her high schooler.....and was shocked to see what was once OUR parking lot....has descended into this bigoted performance....

[Jenoch]

5. What should be done to reduce the numbers of school shootings?

[ZombieHorde]

7. In my opinion,

we should address the students. The US should pay a bunch of child psychiatrists and sociologists to research the subject and make recommendations. I think our policies should be based in science.

[Jenoch]

8. I think a national UBC law could help,

as long as it does not contain other stuff that makes it impossible to pass. I rhink a safe storage law could help, but there are 4th Amendment implications with the enforcement of such a law. I will be intersted to know the details about the Seattle shooting. When I was a kid, my dad had guns hanging on the wall and a handgun in a drawer. We were told to not touch the guns unless he was present. We did not touch the guns. We also had to stop our friends from touching them. These days, all six of my guns, and my brother's guns, are locked up. I use trigger locks, my brother's have safes.

[lunasun]

48. The news here said he was given the gun for his last birthday. Hard to lock up a gift you gave your

Kid . He seemed to own other guns besides the handgun too . An Instagram shows him with a new rifle too not sure of date but he was currently age 15

[ileus]

78. My son has several guns he's got for gifts....all locked up.

Along with all mine are locked up unless they're on my person (CC ECD) it only comes natural with the number of pillheads we have to live around.

[DustyJoe]

80. tribes

Plus, as a member of the Tulalip Indian tribe. If he lived on the reservation then local, state, federal laws and any enforcing of them are in a legal conundrum since indian reservations are seen as countries inside a country. Living over 40 years by a reservation and watching the legal writhing that occurs with tribal members criminal elements gives me a little exposure to the problem.

[mythology]

128. But that's largely irrelevant

The overwhelming majority of these school shootings aren't committed by native Americans living on tribal land. So just because it wouldn't have been enforceable in this case, doesn't mean it's not a good idea overall.

[NaturalHigh]

63. UBC law? I'm not familiar with that term.

[Jenoch]

66. Universal Background Check

[NaturalHigh]

67. Ah, got it. Thank you.

[dsc]

10. we don't need any more science

the last few decades has served as one giant experiment. Clearly our gun laws have led to us having a horrible rate of gun deaths.

[ZombieHorde]

14. That is a pretty dark view point, in my opinion.

Guns or not, our society is producing children that kill their classmates. In my view, that is problem. We need to heal our children.

[dsc]

16. Unless your theory is that our children are somehow worse than those of every single solitary

first world nation's children, which I just don't think is true, then it is quite likely the guns.

[ZombieHorde]

21. Canada has lots of guns, but they have very few mass shootings in comparison to the US.

If you want to restrict gun access, that is fine. We can debate different gun control legislation as they arise. However, we still have a society that produces children that are willing to kill their teachers and classmates. To me, that is the big issue with school shootings.

[dsc]

23. they don't have anything like the gun laws we do

they do not permit their citizens to have semi automatic rifles, they do require that all gun buyers register guns and submit to a backround check.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Sure, but do you really think laws like that would have stopped any school shootings in the US?

Canada has had very few school shootings in comparison to the US. Less dangerous weapons obviously would be preferable. I am not arguing that. However, that doesn't change the fact that our culture produces children that want to kill other children, many of whom they don't even really know.

[dsc]

38. yes I do

the simple fact is one, and only one, country has our gun laws and one, and only one country has the school shootings. The trappings of our culture are in every country. OUr movies, our video games are as popular in Canada, Europe and Japan as they are here. Yet only we have the shootings. At some point it becomes transparent, it is the guns.

[sarisataka]

50. Small correcton

Yet only we have the shootings

It not true. The U.S. leads in number of shooting but we are not at all unique. Most shootings in other countries get little or no media time here
Wikipedia lists some notable school shootings in other countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

[ZombieHorde]

58. The guns are a symptom, as opposed to the disease.

The US lets our own children go hungry.
The US refuses medical care to its own citizens.
The US imprisons the most people.
The US has capital punishment.
The US spends the most on the military.
The US has private militias harassing people on the southern border.
The US outlaws being homeless in many places.
and
The US has the most relaxed gun laws.

In my mind, all of these things go together.

OUr movies, our video games are as popular in Canada, Europe and Japan as they are here.

There is significantly more to culture than entertainment media. The guns are a symptom. The disease is something much deeper and less tangible than guns and video games.

[Recursion]

223. Granting that, do you think laws can significantly reduce the number of guns out there?

Or would it just be a repeat of how we tried that with pot?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. The 'our culture' that is producing these children

is that of the parents who don't have to register guns, etc, etc.

You can't say 'it's a problem with our culture' and then ignore the fact that our 'relationship with guns' is a major part of the culture that shapes how children relate to using guns to perpetrate violence.

[lunasun]

54. His father gave him a gun for his birthday.not sure if it was registered or not but registering

It imo is not the whole answer
I don't think would have prevented the killings in this case. I agree with the fact relationships with guns in our culture influence the children

[ManiacJoe]

194. There is no gun registration in WA state.

In fact very few places in the country have gun registration.

[ZombieHorde]

59. It's not just guns though.

We have the highest prisoner rates, capital punishment, hungry children, outlawing homelessness, refusing medical care for the poor, highest military budget, we fucking torture people, etc., etc., etc. Guns are just one part of our violent culture. We are outright depraved.

We think showing people being torn apart on cable TV is ok, but we would freak the fuck out if a penis was shown on cable TV.


Disclaimer: the use of the word "we" is meant to be general, and obviously doesn't apply the good and wise people who read this post.

[laundry_queen]

90. I agree that it's not JUST the guns

although it is significantly more difficult to get guns here in Canada (even my SIL who is a cop had several steps to go through before she could buy her personal handgun), you can still get them. I've lived in small towns where kids go hunting with their parents, own their own guns, etc. I do think a big difference is we have laws on how you can transport guns, and you can't just carry a gun around. But another big difference is we don't have a 'gun culture'. We don't see owning guns as a RIGHT, we see it as a privilege.

Also, culturally you are right, there are major differences. Even our history here in Canada plays into it - in school we are taught to be proud of our non-violent history, how we became a country without having to fight a war, how we have never had a civil war, how we are (well, we were before Harper) seen as peacekeepers around the world etc. The US, with a violent history, is just more likely to be violent because of 'violence begets violence'. There is a lot of teaching about multiculturalism in Canada, about inclusiveness. And we have a strong social safety net. IMO, just having health care for every person makes a person feel like part of something larger, that their life does matter to the government and others. The US is more like 'every man for himself' while in Canada we have this 'we are all in this together' feeling.

I think American exceptionalism plays into it too. People in the US expect a certain type of life simply because they are American. That they DESERVE happiness (even at the expense of others). Canadian culture is more about a collective happiness. I think it might be as simple as "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" versus "peace, order and good government."

Anyway. Those are my thoughts on the issue. I still think access to guns plays a significant role, but no doubt culture has a heavy influence on school shootings as well.

[ZombieHorde]

119. Then we have very similliar views on this subject.

The guns are a big factor, but there are many factors in play here.

[calimary]

186. Your post has LOTS of sensible ideas and observations, laundry_queen.

So many, I hardly know which to pick, to praise. But this one is probably the best of all:

"But another big difference is we don't have a 'gun culture'. We don't see owning guns as a RIGHT, we see it as a privilege."

Especially the last part. Wish we shared that view in this country.

This one's great, too, and rather foundational:

"The US is more like 'every man for himself' while in Canada we have this 'we are all in this together' feeling."

But I've gotta say - THIS one is STILL the best: "We don't see owning guns as a RIGHT, we see it as a privilege."

[laundry_queen]

195. Thank you calimary

When I took several sociology and psych course last spring (as electives), as well as some poli sci courses, the differences between the 2 countries on this matter became very clear to me. It still astounds me that people will fight for 'gun rights', but don't give a shit if people have food or shelter.

[calimary]

201. Yeah, no kidding.

Last edited Sat Oct 25, 2014, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Astounds me, too. The "priorities" in this country - many of them are just ALL WRONG. I don't believe ANYONE has a "right" to shoot whom they don't like. Whether it's some veiled fantasy mean ol' gumnnt (or "revenoo-ers" as it used to be called), or some kid whose music you think is too loud so you shoot at will into an SUV full of them and say you felt threatened (that "stand your ground" crap), the too-easy solution has been to take the law into one's own hands. "Second amendment remedies" as sharron angle used to refer to it. You'll shoot if you don't get your way? Gee, I'm so impressed about your "rights".

Well, I HAVE RIGHTS, TOO. And I am not afraid to assert them. Including MY RIGHT, and MY FREEDOM - NOT to be harassed or bullied or menaced by goons prancing around with guns in my face. Or guns in my coffee bar. Or guns in my grocery store. Or even guns in my Walmart (if I shopped there, which I don't). Gunners insisting THEIR rights trump MINE. FUCK THAT! They DON'T. I DO NOT want guns around me. PERIOD. You add guns into the mix and it's a recipe for trouble. PERIOD.

If I had my way, and of course, I don't - don't have the power, don't have the authority, don't have the magic wand that would just wave it all away - there would be no further gun violence or gun threats or menacings or guns paraded around and shown off in public or gun shows where you can bend the rules like pretzels and people can cheat and sneak and and lie and cut corners and find ways to buy guns in the parking lot from what we used to joke about in college as the "Trunk of a Blue Chevy" store. There'd simply be no guns at all. Not here, not there, not ANYWHERE ACROSS THE GLOBE. That'd kick the stuffings out of the war machinery, too, maybe.

I've gotta go find this other post I undoubtedly annoyed a few people with...

Found it. Here: so those folks here who have clearly been disturbed and angered by what I wrote - regarding my utter hatred for guns, and why, if I could, I WOULD just ban them ALL - can see why I feel the way I do. I would banish ALL guns from the face of Planet Earth, impractical and unobtainable as that dream is. Even those purported to be experts, well-trained, well-situated, licensed, legal, blah-blah-blah - can't guarantee us that guns even in the "right" hands are a good thing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5703957

I look on it kinda as a mom, overseeing a bunch of kids who can't play nice with their toys. Okay then, NONE OF YOU GETS THEM. I'm TAKING THEM AWAY FROM ALL OF YOU!!!!! DO WITHOUT!!!!!

See? NOBODY wants ME to be President. EVER!!!!! LOL

[NutmegYankee]

202. There is no right to shoot anyone.

There is a right to own firearms and use them for lawful purposes. Shooting or threatening a person is a crime, and is not covered. But I'm sure you knew that already.

[calimary]

204. Indeed. But let's look at that statement from the viewpoint of the assholes who've used

"Stand Your Ground" and gotten away with doing exactly that. george zimmerman, anyone? michael dunn anyone? Amazingly enough, michael dunn actually had to pay for it. Which, considering earlier situations, came as a pleasant surprise to me.

[laundry_queen]

203. I agree with everything you wrote

in this post and the one you linked to. Everything.

[branford]

205. You're right, I wouldn't want you as president.

With all due respect, if you think government should act like everyone's mother, your problems extend well beyond guns.

I'm liberal and believe that the government can be a force for good, but I don't need nor want it looking over my shoulder and determining what's best for me. It's this "nanny state" mentality that drives voters to the Republicans come election time.

More importantly, there are many firearm restrictions that are permissible under the Second Amendment. You simply need to convince your fellow Americans to support your ideas and positions.

[Ampersand Unicode]

214. Fuck the Second Amendment

I don't care about respecting that tribal-warfare shit. When it comes to "MY GUNS MY GUNS MY GUNS!!!11!," Americans are a bunch of primitive troglodytes with castration fears, who freak out at the thought of big gummint taking away their prosthetic penis. If I could put the Constitution into a Word document, I'd do a "Track changes" and cross out the Second Amendment once and for all. No one, nowhere, no how, should have the "right" to have possession of a dangerous object for which the sole purpose is to maim and/or kill another living creature (yes, that includes animals).

If I were queen for a day, I would ban all forms of hunting and make animals a protected class. I would also have a mandatory buyback program that melts down the weapons supply, and completely dismantle the factories and bankrupt the manufacturers. Guns themselves may not come to life and kill people, but they aren't used for much of anything else. People who say "cars kill people" miss the point: cars weren't designed for that purpose. They were designed as a method of transportation. Guns are designed to cause harm and kill.

[GGJohn]

216. So glad you will NEVER have the chance to shred the BoR.

What other rights do you want to cross out?

[Jenoch]

218. Do you have any idea how your 'ideas' would damage the U.S. economy?

[X_Digger]

222. So, someone kills your meat for you, right? You hire it out, rather than get your hands dirty?

Ban hunting?

Lol, then watch the federal funding to maintain national forests, state parks and preserves, wetland reclamation and reforestation- all that money that hunters pumped into the economy- pissed away.

$2,000,000,000 -- that's two BILLION from hunters have been spent on keeping our wild spaces wild.

Checked your sofa cushions lately? You'd have to make up for that *somehow*.

(And that's not even discussing the issue of population control, overpopulation, disease, starvation, erosion (due to overgrazing), car accidents, animal attacks... )

LOL, I sure hope this is sarcasm, cause if it isn't... oh man, you've got a lot to learn about a lot of subjects.

[ozone82]

76. You Would Be Suprised At What You Can Own..

In Canada [link:https://www.canadaammo.com/| AR15, SKS, 30 mags....

[Jenoch]

143. A Canadian can own a semi-automatc rifle.

They are restricted, there are licenses and regristration, there are background checks, but it is legal to own both semi-auto rifles and semi-auto handguns in Canada.

[hack89]

26. Those gun laws have cut our gun murder rate in half in the last few decades

And there is no reason to believe those declines won't continue in the future.

[dsc]

39. No better medicine combined with an older population has been almost wholly responsible for that

Yes, we are likely to see continued declines in the murder rate as we have fewer young people, who do most of the killing and being killed, relative to our population as a whole and as shooting victims don't die as often from being shot, but that doesn't make our gun laws responsible. My dog will wake up tomorrow, the sun will rise tomorrow, that doesn't mean my dog made the sun rise.

[hack89]

46. So what laws do you want? Nt

[dsc]

69. an outright ban on

weapons that are semi automatic. Registration of all other guns. Backround checks on all sales with no exceptions. Mandatory gun safes or trigger locks. Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns. Strict financial liability for gun store owners and gun manufacturers that help people break laws. A strict forbidding of stores selling more than one gun to a person a month.

[GGJohn]

72. None of which is going to happen.

A ban on the most popular handguna and rifle? How do you propose that to happen? What about the those that are already out there? Confiscation? Buyback? How about those in criminals hands? What do you do about those? How do you get such a ban past the SCOTUS, much less the Congress?

Registration of firearms? NO. AFAIC, the govt has no business knowing what firearms I own.

Universal background checks is doable as long as riders aren't attached, like what Sen. Feinstein tried to do the last time around.

Mandatory gun safes or trigger locks? I'm in favor, however, how do you enforce such laws without running afoul of the 4th Amendment?

Strict financial liability for gun owners and gun manufacturers? I'm open to it, but realize this, the biggest seller of that insurance would be the NRA.

A strict forbidding of stores from selling more than one gun to a person per month? That's a no go for me.

All this is moot, if the Congress couldn't pass any legislation after Sandy Hook, then nothing will happen this time around either.

[dsc]

99. when I was a kid, for that matter a young adult

the idea of marriage equality was considered insane.

[GGJohn]

101. Not even comparable.

Marriage equality is, IMO, a civil right, as is the RKBA, but your free to try to petition the Congress, we've seen how far that goes.

[hack89]

79. The first two will never happen

Some of the others are possible. I certainly support the UBCs and storage laws. There are already laws in place to prevent stores and manufacturers helping people break laws - what is needed is a major increase in the ATF budget so the can enforce the laws and crack down on illegal gun sales. Limiting sales to one a month is ok.

[etherealtruth]

96. Without doubt

Unfortunately, there is so much resistance to studying and implementing controls that may work.

i am sick of hearing "enforce the laws we have" ..... which appears to mean enforce after illegal acts (which often means enforce after someone is maimed or killed).

[NutmegYankee]

132. In many cases retroactive enforcement is the only option.

For instance, Connecticut makes it a law to keep guns away from children (proper storage) unless they are supervised. If a child does get a gun and shoots someone, the owner/parent will be prosecuted. But there is no way to enforce the law before hand. Even if a state passed very strict laws on what kind of storage to buy, it would still not be enforceable. Police cannot enter a home to perform a compliance check under the 4th Amendment.

[lastlib]

6. To the NRA & gun makers, this is free product promotion.

The politicians don't care as long as the gun-humpers keep ponying up the $$$.

[JI7]

12. i think people are just supposed to be happy that it wasn't ISIS or Ebola that kills them

[malaise]

13. Ebola Ebola Ebola

Remember stay on meme of the moment.
Forget that guns kill way more than Ebola will kill.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. Sadly no, not until the NRA is denounced as a terrorist organization and banned from existence.

[GGJohn]

73. Which ain't never going to happen because tha NRA isn't a terrorist organization.

[etherealtruth]

97. No, just a right wing "nut job" group

[GGJohn]

102. True, but that doesn't make it a terrorist organization.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

209. Sure it does. The NRA promotes the use of unsafe firearms that are used to commit terrorist acts. That makes it a terrorist organization.

[branford]

210. Huh?

How does the NRA promote the use of "unsafe firearms?"

Are you actually alleging that all firearms are inherently "unsafe," and therefore anyone or any group that supports legal gun ownership or use are terrorists? If so, and with all due respect, you badly need a refresher course on the First and Second Amendments, as well as the laws determining whether a product is safe?

Moreover, just because a legal product is used by terrorists, it does not make the manufacturers, owners or proponents of such products, terrorists. For instance, terrorists use email, Facebook and Twitter to recruit, plan and carry out attacks. Do you think we need to ban virtually every major American technology and media company?

Just because an individual or group supports something you find highly offensive, they do not lose their First Amendment rights, and it does not make them terrorists. Such ridiculous hyperbole and inaccuracy does nothing but embarrass gun control proponents, and make passing even minor good-faith restrictions all the more difficult.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

213. So you think AR-15's, for example, that can deliver multiple shots per sec using clips w/ dozens of rounds is a safe weapon protected under the 1st Amendmt?

If so, you are only embarrassing yourself. I don't believe for a second that those weapons are safe and know for certain that they are NOT entitled to protection under the 1st Amendment. I believe I am in very good company of those advocating that these dangerous weapons should be banned.

There is little wonder why the AR-15 is one of the preferred weapons of terrorists, like so many of the school shooters and other madmen terrorizing the country these days. These are terrorist acts, designed to instill fear, and the NRA's protection of these heinous weapons makes it an accomplice to these crimes and, yes, a terrorist organization in its own right. You can coddle the NRA if you like - I refuse.

And, btw, I didn't say ALL firearms are unsafe and should be banned under the 1st Amendment, so your putting words in my mouth only highlights your lack of a valid argument. And your comparison of inherently dangerous firearms to Facebook and Twitter, LOL, talk about hyperbole! I'm embarrassed for you with such juvenile arguments.

You might want to.think things through next time before you spew such ridiculous nonsense.

[GGJohn]

217. 1st Amendment?

What do firearms have to do with the 1A?

[Duckhunter935]

226. What utter bull pucky

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle and its fires at the same rate as any semi-automatic rifle. One pull of the trigger fires one round.
Is this rifle unsafe also?

The AR is not at all "unsafe" and has been sold for over 50+ years. It has been used but so have handguns, shotguns and bolt action rifles in these shootings. So just what makes the AR unsafe and not these other types of weapons?

1st amendment, what are you talking about?

[branford]

230. Huh, again?

First, simply you do not understand the First or Second Amendments, and certainly know very little about firearms.

Even assuming certain firearms are "unsafe" and used by "terrorists," the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, and Congress banned them (which will not happen), groups like the NRA would still be free to advocate for them. Groups and individuals in the USA advance messages far more offensive and dangerous than guns, and its completely legal (e.g., KKK, NAMBLA, general support for groups like ISIS, etc.). There is no "scary rifle" exception to either the First (or Second) Amendment.

Moreover, whether you, and some like you, believe rifles like the AR-15 platform are unsafe, is entirely immaterial. There are various common law and regulatory hurdles to determine the consumer safety of a product, and the AR-15 rifle is perfectly safe, otherwise it wouldn't be one of the most popular rifles in America, including with law enforcement, and its fully automatic and burst fire cousin, the M16, would not be the rifle used by our armed forces. Ironically, the AR-15 is actually not as potentially destructive and lethal as many other hunting rifles in larger, more powerful calibers, and it is virtually identically lethal to common antique rifles in existence for over a century.

You objection is not really that any particular gun is unsafe, but that they actually work well as designed and intended. You wish to essentially ban all semiautomatic guns with removable magazines (and probably most others), firearms that comprise the vast majority of privately owned and carried guns in the USA for many, many decades. Even without the Second Amendment, which only sets a cap on the what firearms the government can restrict, there is nowhere near anything close to a majority interested in banning or severely restricting such weapons, no matter how much you wish Americans believed differently.

Lastly, your contention that the AR-15 is the preferred weapon of "terrorists" is ludicrous. In the USA, all rifles account for tiny fraction of gun crime and injury, and even the small number percentage of highly-publicized mass shootings occur with a variety of different handguns, rifles, shotguns. Handguns account for the overwhelming majority of weapons used in crimes. More importantly (and accurately), actual terrorists worldwide, like those of ISIS, prefer the Russian designed AK-47, and its knock-offs, which is a different caliber and design than the AR-15.

As to who is "spewing ridiculous nonsense," which one of us has described the actual state of firearm and First Amendment jurisprudence and the political reality of firearms and the NRA in this country as they exist today, and for many decades before? Angrily demanding that the NRA and the vast majority of all guns should be banned is your shibboleth, not mine.

[GGJohn]

212. Balderdash!!!!!

Show us where the NRA promotes the use of firearms that are used to commit terrorist acts?

[Rex]

18. We told Congress and they just ignored us.

[99Forever]

22. Precisely.

The people who COULD do something have already showed us they don't give a damn about us, our schools, our children or anything besides fattening their wallets.

[Jamastiene]

228. Exactly.

Congress ignores us on pretty much everything at this point.

[Cleita]

24. Nothing will get done as long as there is an NRA.

I'm all for condemning them as a subversive and anti-American organization and doing what it takes to make them illegal and therefore unable to influence our policies anymore.

[hack89]

27. And I am sure the RW would love to do the same for planned parenthood and the ACLU

Do you plan to show them how it is done?

[Cleita]

31. No. That's up to the lawyers and politicians to figure out.

You bring up a point though that the religious right wing seem to get their agenda through so there is a precedent. Isn't it time we should be doing our own pro-life policies?

[hack89]

32. It is not going to be done by trampling over the first amendment

If we can't win in the court of public opinion then we don't deserve to win.

[Cleita]

35. Fuck that and the second Ammendment excuses.

We need real leaders who can solve this problem. We need real Constitutional interpretations, like what the founding fathers intended, not what a bunch of gun nuts think is their rights. Our children and other unarmed civilians have Constitutional rights too to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's time their rights to be safe are recognized too.

[hack89]

43. Have you read the Democratic Party platform?

The part that says the 2A protects an individual right? Have you read President Obama saying exactly the same thing?

Yes we need UBCs and a crack down on illegal gun sales.

[Cleita]

49. And a crackdown on the NRA, whatever it takes, to defang them. n/t

[hack89]

51. How? What law can you write that won't be used against liberal groups?

In a government evenly split between Dems and Repubs, how is what you want remotely possible?

[Cleita]

53. I'm not a lawyer. It's up to our politicians to figure it out and it's up to us

to let them know we want action.

[hack89]

56. Half those politicians are republican

Are you sure you want them figuring out how to silence groups they don't like? Don't you understand that Dems are not in absolute control? They can't pass laws without republican support?

[GGJohn]

74. So you want to trample on the 1st Amendment because of your hatred of the NRA?

What's to keep the RW from doing the same thing to Planned Parenthood? The ACLU? Or any organization they deem to be subversive?

How long do you think it would take for the SCOTUS to rule what you want as unconstitutional?

[Cleita]

83. The first Ammendment is about freedom of speech not freedom to kill.

I don't know what our rogue SCOTUS will do since they said corporations are people.

[GGJohn]

84. And you would be violating the NRA's freedom of speech.

And you didn't answer the question.
What would keep the RW from doing to Planned Parenthood, the ALCU, other progressive organizations what you want done to the NRA?

[Cleita]

86. I can't answer your question because I'm not the right wing.

Maybe you can enlighten me since you seem to be so familiar with them.

[GGJohn]

87. Nice attempt at a smear, too bad it failed.

Judging from the past history of RW pols, they would do the same exact thing as you propose.
Be careful what you wish for, it could come back to bite you on the ass.

I'm always very suspicious of people that want to curb a right just because they don't like the message.

[Cleita]

93. So by your logic subversive organizations like ISIS and Al Queda have

First Ammendnent rights even though their purpose is to kill us. The NRA is no different. they do everything they can to block legislation so that the common unarmed citizen and our children are highly in danger of being killed. They even want our teachers to have guns. What could go wrong? I can remember one of my teachers becoming unhinged because the class had her so frustrated, she started flinging erasers, books and anything she could get her hands on. Imagine if she had a gun.

[GGJohn]

94. You're comparing the NRA to Al Queda and ISIL?

If you can't see the difference or how utterly stupid that comparison is, then we're done here.

[Cleita]

95. Good. You are a waste of time. eom

[GGJohn]

100. I'm not the one wanting to curb a civil right just because I don't like the message.

[Cleita]

106. This isn't about message. It's about actions that undermine

the ability of our legislators to control gun use and possession to insure the safety of unarmed civilians and our children, especially our children.

[GGJohn]

109. No, this is about your wanting to shut down an organization that you disagree with.

The NRA is doing what every other organization in DC is doing, mainly lobbying for their members.
Just because you don't agree with the message doesn't mean they should be muzzled.

[dsc]

136. the difference is that the NRA is vastly more effective at killing Americans

than either of the other two.

[GGJohn]

137. Who has the NRA killed?

Or for that matter, the GOA, or the LGC, or the myriad of other gun rights organizations out there?

Are you opposed to this gun rights organization also?

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

[branford]

145. The NRA has killed the spirit and resolve of gun control proponents and politicians.

Interestingly, some of the biggest legal wins for gun rights supporters, such as the Heller and McDonald decisions, were the result of organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, not the NRA.

Ironically, the NRA is also the largest gun safety and training organization in the USA

[dsc]

153. In fairness a better analogy is to the tobacco companies

just like them the gun manufacturers, who fund the NRA, built a product they knew was dangerous, peddled that product to whomever had a buck, and sat back and watched death and mayhem ensue. At least the overwhelming majority of victims of tobacco were smokers that can't be said of guns.

[GGJohn]

158. But that's not true.

How many innocent victims have passed away because of second hand smoke?
And a firearm is only as dangerous as the person using it, if it sits in a safe for years, it's harmless, it only becomes a dangerous weapon if used by someone reckless, negligent, or criminal.

[dsc]

161. in comparison to smokers I would bet at most 1 in 10 of the deaths

no way firearms are in that league. And the NRA lobbies for laws that make it not just more likely but absolutely certain that many, many guns will be used by people who are reckless, negligent, and/or criminal. They have their own version of Joe Camel.

[calimary]

141. With you, Cleita!

I want a crackdown on the NRA, too. WHATEVER IT TAKES to defang them and declaw them and dis-arm them. How many more innocents have to die in our streets, and in our SCHOOLS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!? WTF, America??????????

[NutmegYankee]

148. You realize you are calling for censorship and oppression by the Government?

You can hate an organization and can work against it, but calling for censorship is flat out undemocratic and is not a liberal/progressive value.

[Duckhunter935]

152. very true

they will be the first one screaming if it affected them

[calimary]

163. And I hope you've been making that point to the NRA, too.

Censoring people's right to speak - when it comes to allowing doctors to talk about gun violence as a health issue to their patients or in public? That's what the NRA does, and aggressively supports. Blocking the nomination of a surgeon general because he spoke out and said truth about the NRA? I guess THAT'S okay, correct?

And frankly, you trigger something else in me, with this. I find that a sense is starting to develop within me - whenever anyone steps up and starts yammering about "oppression by the Government" - yeah, take it to the next teabagger meeting. Oh the gummnt! The gumnt! Bring on the black helicopters! Oooooh, be afraid!!!!! Well, I think we oughta start standing up to THAT, too. ENOUGH with the perpetuating of the old reagan canard that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is a bad thing. ENOUGH with the old bullshit about how government is automatically bad and oppressive. If government had been allowed to work, and to be fully funded, instead of the thinking that's been allowed to metastasize and is described in the link below, perhaps we'd have an Ebola vaccine developed, tested, and ready to use - in large quantities of availability now when we need it.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult

Those who advocate how horrible and oppressive The Government is (and I'm not suggesting here that you are actually one of those, mind you) don't realize what they're really wanting. Those who don't want any over-arching entity telling them what to do really are advocating for total anarchy. What they want is The Disunited States of Somalia - which includes no government, millions of hungry, homeless, disenfranchised, powerless and silenced, a few superrich lawless big shots and pirates and warlords in control of everything, and of course all the guns and ammo you can eat, unrestricted and unrestrained. Like it or not, civilization is about how you actually DON'T always get your way and get to do any ol' damn thing you feel like - when it poses a threat or danger or menace to those around you. Civilization is about being able to live together in an organized and regulated collective - WITH rules to follow that should cover everybody and work for the betterment of everybody. Rules are not just always something to bristle against and dismantled. Sometimes they're a good idea. And a life-saving one.

[NutmegYankee]

166. Wow, that was the biggest fail post I've read in a while.

Here's two facts about me:

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, and have been for almost 20 years.
I'm a Federal employee. Part of that is taking an Oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

Protecting Civil Rights matters and is KEY to Liberal and Progressive views. You are advocating the curtailing of speech of an organization based on the content of that organizations speech. You are asking the Government, who is prohibited from doing this, to do just that.

As for the NRA, they are a private entity and are able to advocate for whatever they want. But the protections of the First Amendment must be maintained for all, equally. And that only applies to the Government, at all levels. That you would compare an ACLU position to the teaparty is absolutely over the top and offensive frankly.

[branford]

169. A lot of people believe in free speech, except when they don't agree . . . nt

[ManiacJoe]

28. The relatively easy fix to most of these shootings

is proper, secured storage of the guns.

[calimary]

142. Uh-huh... I'll bet the mother of that kid who blew away all those children at Sandy Hook

thought so, too. Ironically, she was her son's first victim. What On EARTH business did she have, owning all those guns including that murderous bushmaster machine gun? WHAT THE HELL business did she have acquiring or owning all those guns? Especially knowing she had an emotionally troubled kid living with her? WTF??????????????

[ManiacJoe]

144. You should probably brush up on your facts.

The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter does not use proper, secured storage, else the shooting would not have happened.

The rifle used was not a machine gun; just a semi-auto carbine.

What "all those guns"? How many do you think she owned?

There is nothing wrong with being a gun owner and the parent of an emotionally troubled kid as long as you are properly storing your guns. Dangerous tools require proper storage regardless of what the tool is.

[calimary]

155. Yep. I'm sure they stored all those nice harmless guns properly and safely

at that gun range where the little girl blew away that war veteran who was assisting her with a machine gun she had no business being near, or touching, much less being allowed to shoot.

I realize that gun enthusiasts will never concede this. There's always some reason why people who want to curtail or regulate guns are wrong or ill-informed or whatever the excuse is on this particular day. ALWAYS some reason why we're stuck living by YOUR idea of what's fair and reasonable. Well, I WON'T. Nothing you said in the post above changes anything, or the results that happened and were factual and horrible and murderous and completely unnecessary - as in DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. No excuse you gave, no hairs you split, no technicalities you mentioned. And I'm also sure that she probably thought there was no problem and no danger and, if her arsenal was not properly stored or secured by the book, well, why bother, then? There's always that canard that people fall back upon - "NUTHIN'S GUNNA HAPPEN..." Nothing to see here. Move along. She had the right. It wasn't a whole buncha guns. Oh you have the label wrong. Oh you're not describing it correctly. There's always a reason, isn't there? There's ALWAYS an excuse, isn't there? There's ALWAYS a loophole, isn't there! There's ALWAYS a justification as to why we can't do anything about it. We can't even be allowed to ATTEMPT to do anything about it.

The FACT is that all this excuse-making and hair-splitting and fine-debate-pointing has not helped. All the outrage and faithful genuflecting to the precious Second Amendment and rationalizing about how this won't work so we can't try it or that won't work so we can't go there either - and things stay as they are - give us 87 school shootings since Sandy Hook. EIGHTY-SEVEN. Letting it ride as it is now, because heaven forbid we look at changing the Second Amendment or tightening the regulations, how's that worked out so far? We haven't done anything about it. And it therefore has been allowed to continue. EIGHTY-SEVEN TIMES since two Decembers ago. How 'bout we change it up a little and TRY to do something about it, for a change? NOT doing anything - not being able to do anything - how's that worked out so far?

The OTHER FACT is, dear friend, when you add guns into the mix - the changes are far greater that there will be death, injury, carnage, wreckage, post-traumatic stress, and further descent into total anarchy. What if "all those guns" were "all those knives," maybe? You would not have had the wholesale carnage. Maybe this kid might have gotten close enough to slash another student or two, but certainly not TWENTY. The carnage would be far more contained and minimized, and instead of 20 little coffins there might have been one or two. And even that one or two is one or two too many. When you add guns into the mix, you WILL eventually have trouble. There WILL eventually be "accidents" or "didn't mean to's" or "well, she had 'em legally's" or some such. And how has that worked out for you? Well, maybe it hasn't been hard or tragic or horrifying for you personally. But I would ask the parents of Sandy Hook, and Columbine, and every other school shooting up to and including this one (what is it? Number 87 now, just since Sandy Hook - which isn't even two full years behind us?) the same question.

I do not share your defense of guns. Or gun ownership. Or gun usage. It DOES NOT make me feel any safer. It DOES NOT make me feel more patriotic or more in touch with the Founders or the Constitution or any of that. And I don't see a way clear that it ever will make me feel safer, knowing there are guns around me. That's just me.

And every time we have ANOTHER ONE OF THESE, my anti-gun stance solidifies just that much more.

[ManiacJoe]

168. You really need to take a deep breath and think about what you are trying to say.

I'm sure they stored all those nice harmless guns properly and safely at that gun range where the little girl blew away that war veteran who was assisting her with a machine gun she had no business being near, or touching, much less being allowed to shoot.

Of course not. The girl was actively shooting the gun at the targets on the gun range. But you already know that.

There's always some reason why people who want to curtail or regulate guns are wrong or ill-informed or whatever the excuse is on this particular day.

Yes, usually -- but not always -- there is a reason. The reason for most folks is ignorance of the subject matter; that is relatively easy to fix as long as the person is willing to learn. For other folks the reason is purposeful misinformation; the truth and facts do not work well for their agenda.

Nothing you said in the post above changes anything, or the results that happened and were factual and horrible and murderous and completely unnecessary - as in DIDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. No excuse you gave, no hairs you split, no technicalities you mentioned.

Very true. Nothing I said changes the facts. All I did was correct your misconceptions so that you now know the facts and can have a knowledgeable conversation. I gave no excuses. You entered a technical discussion you did not understand. You have been corrected in your misuse of the technical terms. The socially acceptable response from you should have been a simple "Thank you."

And I'm also sure that she probably thought there was no problem and no danger and, if her arsenal was not properly stored or secured by the book, well, why bother, then? There's always that canard that people fall back upon - "NUTHIN'S GUNNA HAPPEN..."

And that attitude is the way bad things happen. She knew there was a large problem with her child. She chose not to do the simple and necessary steps to prevent such a tragedy. She gets no sympathy or forgiveness from me. Hopefully she gets none from you.

It wasn't a whole buncha guns. Oh you have the label wrong. Oh you're not describing it correctly.

Proper terminology is important for intelligent discussions. You are not required to use the labels and tags; but if you misuse them, do expect to get called on it. If you don't know the proper labels and tags, you can easily use the long descriptions instead, which is perfectly fine. If you have questions, please ask. There are lots of knowledgeable folks here who are happy to help you.

There's always a reason, isn't there? There's ALWAYS an excuse, isn't there? There's ALWAYS a loophole, isn't there! There's ALWAYS a justification as to why we can't do anything about it. We can't even be allowed to ATTEMPT to do anything about it.

There are lots of reasons that many of the attempts to do "something" fail, most of them are technical in nature. I know of no reason or excuse not to try; there just need to be intelligence backing the try.

[Duckhunter935]

157. what hyperbole, I really think you believe it

Just how many guns did she own? She did not even own an assault weapon let alone a "machine gun". She owned legal semi-automatic rifle that were AWB compliant. She made the fatal mistake of not properly securing them from her son. Target shooting can be very calming. You have to calm down, focus and have steady and slow breathing to shoot accurately. It would have been a good activity for him in a supervised environment. She just did not secure the weapons properly.

[calimary]

167. OH, I see, it was a "legal semi-automatic rifle that were AWB compliant."

Oh, that changes everything!


Actually - what SHOULD change is that very thing. OBVIOUSLY those "AWB compliant" measures weren't worth squat. And need to be VERY thoroughly revisited, reconsidered, and either replaced with a stronger restriction or otherwise tightened further. And what was so "legal" about being able to have wanton unrestricted access to weapons like that - in a household in which one knows full-well that there's a troubled kid in residence?

Makes no difference to me. You can split hairs all day. It's your right, of course.

And I realize full-well, also, that just tightening restrictions and/or imposing new laws or whatever - is not an ultimate cure-all, either. I recognize that won't cure this particular disease. But it may slow it down. And even just slowing it down might mean instead of 20 little coffins at Sandy Hook, maybe there might have been 15 or 16. Tragic as hell, but maybe the carnage might not have been quite as large. A death count, still, but I'd go for even a slight reduction. EVEN ONE less family with that empty seat at their Christmas dinner table, and black bunting dominating instead of the green-and-red.

Just the same as what happened in my own neighborhood - in a slightly different context. This one was a stop sign.

TOO many neighbors were against it for the stupidest reason of all. Meh, nobody stops for stop signs. Meh, not in front of MY house. Meh, won't work. Meh, won't do any good. Yeah, human nature. I know all about it. Makes people sneak and try to get around the rules and cut corners and blah-blah-blah. I was staunchly FOR a stop sign on our street. Why? Because we had ridiculously reckless and selfish speeders on our street who wouldn't stop or slow down for ANY reason. Even if you were a pedestrian and the rules in the California Motor Vehicle Code say you had the right-of-way. Even if you were a nanny pushing a baby carriage. Even if you were out walking your dog. Even if you were a slow-moving senior citizen shuffling along on a nice little afternoon walk. Never mind. Speeding up or down the street was more important. I know all about stop sign behavior. There's something here called the "California stop." Which is - you don't stop at all, at a stop sign. You slow down. You roll through it at a reduced speed. Okay FINE. FINE!!!!! Let's STILL do it. It's STILL a worthwhile idea! And we did it. And there's a stop sign at this particular intersection that's a real trouble spot. And you know what? They still, indeed, do NOT stop.

BUT DAMMIT, THEY SLOW DOWN!!!!! THEY ACTUALLY DO SLOW DOWN A LITTLE!!!!

And you know what THAT means? It means that the little old lady shuffling across the street might have an extra second or two to get out of the way. It means one less nanny having to dive into the ivy in the easement between the sidewalk and curb - to get out of the way of an oncoming speeder who felt no need to stop or slow down because that nanny dared to be in their way. And I have seen that. I've SEEN the nanny having to dive into the ivy to get out of the way in the nick of time because some asshole speeder from up the street didn't want to drive more slowly and responsibly and didn't have time to slow down enough, or soon enough. If they only just are forced to slow down a little, that's STILL enough time to get to safety, to cross the frickin' street safely! So it seems to me - doesn't matter if they won't stop at the stop sign. We STILL need the stop sign. Because at the very least, the speeders slow down. Even if just a little. IT'S ENOUGH TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!! IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. A DIFFERENCE FOR THE BETTER.

For the same reason, I am all in favor of tightening all kinds of restrictions, and imposing more restrictions whenever possible - on guns. Your argument may actually not be with me - but with all the nutcases out there who make you and your gun stance look bad. I'm guessing YOU are law-abiding and respectful of your guns and what you know they can do in the wrong circumstances. But as long as there are nutcases willing to defy the rules, or ignore the rules, or fight against the rules, or try to undo the rules or prevent the rules from being enacted, I think we have to keep on with the rules. And the rules won't fix everything. But maybe, like the stop sign, they might reduce some of the risk, and the carnage. Maybe instead of 20 little coffins after Sandy Hook, there might have been 15, or 12, or seven, or less. Even ONE less would have meant the rules worked. And were beneficial.

[ManiacJoe]

170. Now you are beginning to understand.

OBVIOUSLY those "AWB compliant" measures weren't worth squat.

Exactly correct. However, your desires at gun control do not match the desires of the authors of the various "assault weapon" bans. Thus, the crap they legislate over us makes no one happy.

And what was so "legal" about being able to have wanton unrestricted access to weapons like that - in a household in which one knows full-well that there's a troubled kid in residence?

"Legal" is obviously not the word you were looking for here. Most likely the word you are looking for is "smart". If one wants to own firearms while caring for troubled kids, an extra level of security is needed beyond the normal levels of secured storage. In this case the mother got lazy and it resulted in the Sandy Hook tragedy.

[calimary]

173. Wrong. I already understood that.

I STILL am in favor of restrictions. Even though not a perfect cure-all.

So what's the answer otherwise? That we do nothing?????????

[Jenoch]

175. You have used the word 'restrictions'.

Do you have any specific 'restrictions' you would suggest be made into law?

[ManiacJoe]

193. What should be done depends on your goals.

State your goals.
Then state what restrictions you think will meet those goals.

Most here are more than happy to help you refine your ideas into something workable.

[Duckhunter935]

180. you are correct

"OBVIOUSLY those "AWB compliant" measures weren't worth squat."

That is what a majority if gun owners have been saying for years. Does not matter because the controller side will still want to do that very thing and it will make it harder to pass any legislation. Bayonet lug and barrel shroud banning is utter craziness.

So just what would you like to implement? I am for better background checks and incentives for locks and safes for proper storage. I am also for better mental health care and much more enforcing of current laws. That includes prosecuting the parents that do not safely store the weapons and a person or child is injured as a result. Same for those "gun cleaning ACCIDENTS" They just are not that it is negligence and the person should be held accountable.

[Recursion]

221. No, the real problem there is that the AWB didn't do what its supporters think it did

Supporters think the AWB banned guns that "fire really fast" or something like that, rather than regulated their grip shape and whether or not they could have a bayonet lug. It's why discussions about it get so frustrating: it's not the law you think it was, and a law that would do what you think the AWB did would ban about 80% of guns.

[LuvLoogie]

30. Start shaming the NRA's footmen in congress

Show up at their rallies with signs calling them child killer, with crime scene photos of shot up dead kids. Start with the Dems, and work rightward.

[calimary]

41. We also need to frame it differently. Dumbed-down so more of the low-information voters can start

even CONSIDERING another point of view.

They're always on about their fucking freedom. Their freedom to shove their damn guns in my face, to parade around in public with massacre machines draped all over themselves, menacing people. Menacing ME. What about MY freedom, 'eh? What about MY freedom - NOT to have to deal with that, not to be menaced and endangered by that, NOT to be MUZZLED by their damn restrictions on MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND MY DOCTOR'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH even to DISCUSS this as a health issue? What about MY freedom to live in peace without that in my face all the time? What about MY freedom from the aggression of the gun goons, insisting their right to have any fucking damn guns they want, anywhere they want - somehow outranks and overrides MY freedom?

I doubt anybody on that side ever even considered that those of us who want these damn guns controlled and more stringently regulated and contained - so that NOT just anybody can get any ol' gun they want - have freedom, too. OUR freedom is guaranteed and protected, and has weight and importance TOO. Okay?!?!?!? OUR freedom from that public menace, that domestic terrorism. I think it's time we asserted this. You gunners aren't the only ones entitled to assert all your freedoms, okay? We NON-gunners have freedoms, TOO. And they're EVERY BIT as high-priority as YOURS. And if you feel like you've just got to arm up like that, then that tells the world you're one helluva lot more scared and insecure than I am.

For me, the "enough" line was drawn when it was revealed that the NRA torpedoed President Obama's nominee for surgeon general. And we have an Ebola crisis smoldering in this country at this moment and because of the fucking NRA, we don't have a surgeon general. That is QUITE ENOUGH! They've gone over the edge. They've thrown their weight around too much. That's IT. I think we should start asserting OUR rights - NOT to be menaced by all these fucking guns everywhere.

And yes, start shaming them. And don't let up. And hit below the belt. If they can call me a "baby killer" because I'm pro-choice - and I never killed a baby in my life - then I can CERTAINLY call them baby-killers. Because of their reckless insistence on unrestricted guns everywhere for everyone, babies and children actually ARE being killed. By GUNS. Yeah, if you're splitting hairs - guns don't kill people, people kill people. And people are killing people - including kids and babies - with GUNS. More innocent gun violence victims would still be walking around alive today if fewer people had easy access to guns.

[Eleanors38]

70. "Start shaming them." It's been going on for years.

Even here on DU. Shame doesn't work well, unless you are spoiling for a losing fight. The biggest problem with the gun-control "movement" is that it isn't one.

Serious efforts to lessen mass shooting begin with good science, not the propagandizing numbers crap posted in GD the other day. If people were serious, SERIOUS about mass shootings, they would recognize there has not been ONE mass shooting since Sandyhook (4+ killed not counting shooter). Instead, it's move the goal post, conflate, re-define the categories, and resume the Same Talk of shame and prohibition with the Same results. If we recognized the true fall-off in mass shootings, then we might actually discuss safety measures taken since Sandyhook to see what works. That should be basic.

[kcr]

81. School shooting. Shooting that happens in a school. School. Shooting.

Are victims less dead or injured if there are fewer of them? Well, it's just one dead kid, so....

Who's moving the goal posts?

[calimary]

126. I think we know. Gun-apologists. They'll seek ANY rationale to keep and get more damn guns.

Just GOTTA keep and preserve that easy, open, WANTON access to any ol' damn fucking goddamn guns they want.

There have been 87 school shootings since Sandy Hook.

EIGHTY-SEVEN. Okay? Let me repeat that. EIGHTY-SEVEN.

EIGHTY-SEVEN school shootings since Sandy Hook. Not even two whole years ago. December 14th, 2012.

EIGHTY SEVEN.

And that terrible death toll is on ALL of us - who have FAILED to get something done to start restricting, and containing, and curtailing the reckless and wanton access to all kinds of guns. Hell, we aren't even allowed to speak about it in some cases. Our doctors aren't even allowed to speak to us about gun violence as a health hazard. Even talk about it, research into it, must not be spoken about. We're not even allowed to have a surgeon general approved because of this, forcryingoutloud.

I thought America didn't like bullies, or bullying. I thought there was this rising crescendo against bullying. SO WHY, THEN, IS IT OKAY THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF US HERE IN AMERICA ARE CONSTANTLY BULLIED INTO SILENCE AND UTTER CALCIFICATION ON THIS - BY A COMPARATIVELY SMALL BUNCH OF BULLYING, PSYCOPATHIC PARANOIACS??????

Don't know about you, but I am FED-UP!!!!

[Eleanors38]

207. Whose "moving goalposts?" The banners, clearly.

You don't seem to understand or won't understand. There may be real ways to reduce school shootings -- some measures may already be in place -- but to stir the numbers around and concoct a narrative that suggests all is out of control goes beyond unconstructive politics to be irresponsible.

[Arugula Latte]

45. It depresses me that even here on DU there are all these gun nuts

who will put their beloved tools above all else and fight any suggestion of regulation. Sickening for so-called progressives!

[Hoyt]

131. +1

[calimary]

183. I hear ya, Arugula Latte.

And as you can see they'll slam you for "censorship" and all that. Yeah, well, NOBODY censors or stifles dissent or First Amendment free-speech rights like the NRA... you'd think THEIRS was the "First" amendment. I think it's the 2nd - for a reason.

[GGJohn]

184. I'm asking you this with respect,

what censorship or stifles dissent is the NRA engaged in?

[hack89]

52. Harry Reid knows no shame. He really wants to be Senate majority leader. Nt

[world wide wally]

33. Only in America

[Tikki]

34. I do not think so, because guns are everything but killing machines and when they do kill..

someone they love..we are often told there are worse ways to go.

With this mentality the gun culture rules out all common sense.


Tikki

[Kablooie]

36. The true answer ... No. Just no.

Nobody cares.
It's now even a small time news article.
Nobody cares except the people directly involved.
It's always someone else's problem and it can't happen here.

So no.

[Beringia]

42. Just a thought, we are not tops with suicides

Per one 100,000

US 10.1
Japan 19.94
Hungary 21.0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

[Arugula Latte]

44. No. You don't want to hurt the feewings of the gun fetishists!

Common sense regulations make them have a sad.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. No. n/t

[jberryhill]

55. Isis! Ebola! booooga woooga!

[Prophet 451]

57. No, you're not. Nothing will change.

Mental illness, or rather the USA's lack of care for mental illness due to the insurance mess, is a significant contributing factor. I'm mentally Ill (MDD, GAD, "visions", occasional voices) but here in the UK, all I have to do to get help is summon up the courage to talk to my doctor (which I couldn't verbalise, so my SO suggested I write notes). Once I'd done that, I got doctor's visits every month, shrink visits every month and the Community Psychiatric Nurse would visit me on alternate weeks, all carefully arranged so that I never go longer than a week without seeing someone and if I get in trouble between times, there's a duty professional at the end of the phone 24/7.

In the US, your ability to access mental health care is based on having insurance. And probably on having good insurance because many don't cover mental illness. Also, Reagan Christ closed down the mental hospitals so people who should be in secure units are wandering the streets or in jail (about 20% of US prisoners have severe mental health issues).

And your society is awash in guns. According to a couple of minutes with Google, there's about 310 million firearms. The number of firearms, combined with mentally ill people not gettign care means the two are virtually certain to collide.

That said, I don't think you need to go quite as far as we did. Here, all handguns are banned outright and it's extremely difficult to get a license for longarms. I don't think you need to go that far. A robust licensing system, coupled with a properly funded do-not-sell list would likely eliminate the vast majority of the problem.

But it's simply not ever going to happen. The NRA and the gun manufacturers have too much power, the corporations that make guns lobby the same as any other corporation and the people have been propogandized about what the 2nd Amendment means and was intended to do. They're completely certain that their Colt 1911A1 is the only thing standing between the US and gulags and that the Founders put the 2nd in so the people could overthrow government (which doesn't explain why they made it treason).

They've won. Sorry to say it but the conservatives have won. They hold an effective minority veto in Congress (which they'll abolish the second they're in charge) and their pet SCOTUS simply declares any law conservatives dislike unconstitutional and upholds any law they like. The SCOTUS is now just an arm of the Republican party and Scalia doesn't even bother hiding it anymore. So nothing significant is going to happen until the demographics shift kills the Republicans in about ten or fifteen years (assuming they don't outlaw voting for Democrats entirely). All that can be done until then is prevent the worst of their barbarism.

[peace13]

60. No!

The &$;&ers don't care. I don't know why. Most likely they have no empathy. It is so sad.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. well here is one suggestion posted on my high school graduating classes Facebook page

We went to school with a lot of mates who went on to be teachers. I read in tonights paper where they are trying to pass a bill making teachers first responders when someone enters their school with murder on their mind. They want the teachers to carry guns on them. What is your input on thids? Good or bad idea? What about the larger schools?


There will be alot of legalities to work out before that becomes a reality. My son is a teacher. I worry about the kids getting ahold of the gun by force. Then the real purpose is defeated..I do think if teachers had guns it would stop or drastically reduce the death toll

No the vast Majority probably wouldn`t accept it but if even a minor number of teachers were armed and well trained they might make a major difference.

[dsc]

211. that would be a horrible idea

So far we have had three teachers accidently shoot themselves with guns they brought to school this year. Plus the kids could well get a hold of the guns.

[Douglas Carpenter]

224. I would say so too.

But that is just how deeply entrenched America's batshit crazy gun culture is - particularly in the more rural parts of America. In small town Western PA - it is possible for a very liberal or leftwing candidate to win an election - But ONLY - ONLY if they are pro-gun. It would be absolutely impossible for anyone no matter what their politics was otherwise to win an election without being pro-gun. I would dare say that is the case in most parts of rural and small town America.

[scarystuffyo]

62. In my state after we had 20 young children and 6 staff murdered

we had a gun registration put in place, no high capacity magazines, an assault weapons ban
a license needed to buy ammunition or any type of rifle or shotgun and must be sold through a gun dealer or
it must be called into the state police in a private sale

[marions ghost]

115. A high price to pay to get sensible legislation...

---what state?

[scarystuffyo]

134. CT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

[NutmegYankee]

146. It wasn't universal registration though

It only applied to the weapons that are now banned for sale in the state (assault rifles) or magazines over 10 rounds. Owners can keep them and can pass them to heirs upon death.

I had nothing that required registration, so I wasn't impacted in that arena. I already had the required permit to buy ammo or any gun (though I haven't made a purchase in over a decade). My only impact was the laws spooked many online retailers of parts and I had to wait for them to realize they could still sell repair parts (like springs) for my antiques. There was a short period where companies outside the state wouldn't sell ammo to residents despite CT laws not applying in another state. This impacted hunters traveling to Maine, but was quickly resolved.

[hack89]

225. CT had an AWB before Sandy Hook nt

[davidpdx]

64. I agree with what you are saying

I think we have become desensitized to shootings because of the fact they happen so often and nothing is being done. There is a reaction, but no action. It is an absolute shame.

I live in South Korea and have never seen a gun here other then when around a soldier or a police officer.

[flvegan]

65. Actually do something? You mean more than bitch on the internet? LOL, no. Don't be stupid.

I don't agree with your commentary, I just answer the original question.

[liberal_at_heart]

68. Federal government is good at some things, bad at others. Federal government can be slow,

decades slow sometimes. Sometimes it takes getting a few dozen states to act before the federal government will act. We must start taking action at the state and even city level. That is where we will see the biggest and quickest changes. Then after 20 or 30 states have passed gun control laws the federal government will start to take notice.

[JCMach1]

71. Not even the lead story any more...

Now if the boy was a member of ISIS, or had Ebola ...


There is something seriously wrong about that...

[geek tragedy]

75. Vast swaths of our country value guns more than children.

Gotta fix the culture before you can fix the problem.

[Tikki]

85. This is a sad but very true answer to the question...

Think about it....


Tikki

[ileus]

77. Not as long as we take a passive approach to security.

[fredamae]

82. Yes, We, the People Are Beyond Tired

But the Politicians We've Elected For the NRA et al...are NOT.

[Takket]

88. No.

Those who wanted change after sandy hook were met with silence. To me the government and society officially put a stamp of approval on tolerating school massacres over having any sort or gun regulation and I officially stopped caring.

I believe the majority of us wants change but we just aren't backing that up in our voting to give the left the power to do anything about it.

[former9thward]

91. Why weren't there school shootings when guns were more available?

Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 guns were very easy to get. You could order them in the mail. No checks, no nothing. Where were the school shootings? We used to take guns to school to target shoot or hunt afterwards. Threw them in our lockers. Where was the shootings if it is all about guns. Where were the school shootings in the 50s, 60s, 70s?

[Tikki]

103. Children, even in High School, feared reprisal from their parents if they were caught messing...

around with their parents' guns or disrespecting their own guns. And respect for a weapon was taught.
Guns were locked up more than often.

Now, parents leave guns lying around and play with the guns like they are a toy in front of their children.
They drive around in their cars with guns lying on the front console. They carry guns into the grocery store
always with the message, FEAR ME, I can use this.

A frustrated teen sees a gun as a final solution...well taught by the adults around them.



Tikki

[former9thward]

107. There is much truth to your post.

Which is why I think it is not guns but society that is the problem.

[Tikki]

111. Yes...but guns tag along with this part of Society's downgrade.

Back when, only a certain type of person would run around with their guns unsecured and
flashing them around. They were pretty much looked down upon for being rebellious and anti-social.

They were often singled out and questioned by police for their motives. Children were
forbidden from going into a home of a known gun flasher.

I am pretty sure the anger of generations of those who felt picked on has turned into people
who now say the rights of the gun owner trump all other rights.

Tikki

[calimary]

127. Truly. These people parading around openly wearing their massacre machines are public menaces.

Public menaces. It's an attempt at bullying and it should be labeled as such, loudly, publicly, and REPEATEDLY. It's an attempt to force their way upon you who may not agree or want to adopt or share that way. But they're doing it ANYWAY. Because they can. Because in their sick, twisted view there's nothing to stop them. But we have to stop them ANYWAY. And we have to do that OURSELVES. Because our legislators are either too chicken, or wholly-owned subsidiaries of the NRA, or both.

[GGJohn]

129. How do you propose to stop open carry where it's legal?

I think it's stupid, it creates too much angst and it should be banned in all 50 states except for when one is hunting, or hiking in the back country.

[calimary]

140. I'd be working to reverse that and make it ILLEGAL.

Open carry is just an accident waiting to happen, in my opinion. People parading around showing off their guns and ammo, in my opinion, are just asking for it. They're ASKING for some sort of big ol' shootout at the OK Corral, so they can prove how "right" they are and how "tough" they are and how "Second Amendment Remedies" they are. They all remind me of that obnoxious commercial for batteries that starred the tough-guy (and short-statured) actor Robert Conrad. He was featured in the commercial as kind of a hot-head, spoiling for a fight, talking about the chip on his shoulder and just daring somebody to try to knock it off. That, to me, sums up the gunners and other gun goons parading around showing how they're entitled to menace the rest of us with their damn fucking massacre machines open, at their fingertips, and at the ready.

And you expect me to feel safe with that menacing, bullying CRAP shoved in my face and blighting my field of vision? ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME?????? If I saw that in some store I was in, I'd report it to the manager and tell them as long as THAT is allowed in here, I will NOT be in here with it. And I won't feel safe OR interested in coming back into this place of business UNTIL THAT IS GONE. Don't care if it's purportedly "legal" or not. DON'T CARE!!!! And if it IS "legal," then there's one law that needs to be abolished in my opinion. You can have their aggressive, menacing, bullying, in-yer-face gun displays in public places where they DO NOT belong, OR you can have my business as a customer. But you can't have both.

I'm fed up. I've personally had enough. Go ahead and flame away if you must. Won't change my mind or soften my stance. I. Am. SICK. And. TIRED. Of. The. Reckless. Wanton. Access. To. GUNS. In. This. COUNTRY. And I am ALSO extremely SICK AND TIRED of the inaction on this issue, the chicken-hearted "response" from our so-called representatives, the unrestrained bullying and menacing of the NRA which is part of a very clear numerical minority but still somehow holds all the cards, all the balls of all our reps, and all the advantages as well as all the bully pulpits. THAT has to change, too.

[GGJohn]

147. You won't get any flaming from me.

I happen to agree with you that open carry should be abolished except in certain circumstances as I outlined in my previous post.

Your idea of the supermarket is great idea, if enough people do what you suggest, and the stores start losing money, then that nonsense would stop.

One small contention, the NRA does only have a minority of gun owners as members, but the majority of gun owners do generally, and I stress generally, support the NRA's message of the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2A isn't an unrestricted right, there are restrictions allowed per the SCOTUS, as annunciated by no less than Scalia, but the trick is balancing those restrictions so's not to motivate the vast majority of gun owners in the country.

I have my own ideas about what I, as a gun owner, would or would not accept.

[Duckhunter935]

159. Try proper concealed carry

when it is over 110. Remember printing of a firearm is a violation.

[GGJohn]

164. True, and I live in one of those states that have hot, dry summers, average temp-110

and I don't have a problem with concealed, in summertime I carry a small .380 in the small of my back with a loose fitting shirt, winter, a slightly bigger .45 with an IWB holster under my winter clothes.

[LWolf]

92. Well, that opens a great can of worms.

Last edited Sat Oct 25, 2014, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Our constitution, and our courts' interpretation of, for good reason, has historically leaned liberally toward protecting rights even when that means that some people who are guilty of various things get away with it. This is a good thing for a host of reasons, and might make an interesting thread all by itself for someone who has the time to sit with it.

No rights are more sacred, really, than parental rights. There has to be an abundance of evidence, and legal hoops jumped through, to interfere with parental rights. It's a bi-partisan thing. It also highlights the dark side of "choice" that Democrats don't like to air: women who have proved over and over again that they are unfit to be parents, who have had children taken away from them repeatedly, still have the right to produce more, and keep every succeeding child until that child has been damaged enough to meet the burden of proof...again.

What does this have to do with school shootings? How about this: schools, and society, can't force parents to get their kids mental health services when needed, or for that matter, to get family counseling themselves.

A concrete, current example happening IN MY CLASSROOM this year:

A middle school student with a long history of mental health issues and referrals to DHS has been spending his time, instead of working on any academic task in any of his classrooms, drawing page after page of graphic illustrations of him with a gun. Shooting. Others and himself. When approached by others who try to talk to him, he mimes shooting.

We've been having regular meetings since the very first day of school. Every official agency has been contacted. His parent has been contacted. His parent's response? The school is going too far, trying to interfere with his 2nd amendment rights, and taking the boy's "foolishness" too seriously. The parent COULD lock up all the guns so the kid can't get to them, but then, how is he supposed to protect the kid? That's what the guns are for, and he's not going to remove access to the numerous guns in the home. This man is more concerned with perceived threats to his guns than he is with his son's mental state.

In our numerous meetings and contacts, we have set up free counseling for this student with a local therapist. Dad refuses. His first excuse? He doesn't have the money or time to drive the kid to town to see a therapist. When we offered to provide the transportation, he says their family schedule is too busy to make time.

The meetings continue. It's not like we're not doing anything. But at this point, there is no way to force the parent to address the issue. If or when this boy explodes, it will somehow be "the school's fault;" he'll have been bullied, or have been an outcast, or...

He hasn't been bullied. He is somewhat of an outcast among his peers, because they are afraid of him. Partly because he is violent himself, and likes to throw punches and kicks, and partly because they have seen his "artwork."

Of course, we could also point to our for-profit health care system which limits access to care, including mental health care, for many...but until we can ensure that our children are raised in safe, socially/emotionally healthy environments and are allowed to get care when they need it, it won't really matter. After all, we have a community standing by to offer MY student whatever support he needs, and we're not allowed to deliver that support.

And there are many other things we could do before taking that drastic step of intruding on parental rights. We could make every school a small, safe community with plenty of staffing to ensure that kids can't fall through cracks. We could put health services, including mental health services, ON campuses and ensure that all students, and their families when necessary, have full access to whatever care is needed. We could focus our education system on growing the whole child, instead of making schools too-large, too-anonymous, too-over-crowded crucibles of high-stakes testing stress.

As a matter of fact, we could see the bigger picture and do that for our society, focusing our time, talents, energy, and resources on closing class gaps, on making sure that there are abundant, many-layered safety nets and supports for all people. Of course, that would interfere with the neoliberal agenda, and we can't have that.

[cwydro]

98. Nope. nt

[Lint Head]

104. Not until a close family member of

Wayne le Piss-ants family is shot or killed.

[Logical]

105. There is no solution to prevent a lone nut with a gun. Too many guns and too easy to obtain. nt

[Cleita]

108. +1

[arthritisR_US]

110. Sadly, other people's children do not trump

the gun crazy's 2A rights

[Cleita]

112. Now they are also claiming 1st Ammen. rights like

lassez faire ownership and use of guns are free speech.

[GGJohn]

113. Who is doing that?

Link?

[Cleita]

116. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5713068

[GGJohn]

117. Except I'm not, but you knew that.

I'm saying that you're attempting to trample on a civil right just because YOU don't like the message.

[Cleita]

118. Your words speak for themselves and you aren't the only person who says it.

I'm not talking about message. I'm talking about innocent dead people because an organization is terrorizing our politicians into not doing the right thing and passing common sense legislation about gun laws so unarmed citizens don't have to be afraid to go to school, or go shopping or just be alive.

[GGJohn]

120. The NRA is terrorizing politicians?

Then why hasn't the Secret Service, FBI, DoJ arrested them yet?
Why haven't they been designated as a terrorist organization yet?
Why hasn't their HQ been raided yet?
Why hasn't their assests, bank accounts been frozen/seized yet?
Why aren't the board members under indictment for terrorism yet"

Can you see where I'm going with this?

Now, let me use your own words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025711337#post49

Cleita (70,813 posts)
49. And a crackdown on the NRA, whatever it takes, to defang them. n/t

This clearly shows that you want to trample on their 1st Amendment right because of your disagreement with the way they go about lobbying.

[arthritisR_US]

114. Wow, the lengths they go in service to

their paranoia

[marlakay]

121. Make a law if your gun is used in a shooting mandatory 5 years jail

For person who owns gun....That is my husbands idea. He said if parents knew they personally could go to jail if their kids used their guns they would be locked up much tighter or not around at all.

I think he is right but I said NRA would never let such a bill pass!

[GGJohn]

122. Very sensible law.

After a few high profile prosecutions, the word would get out that homes with guns and children, lock the firearms up in a secure safe.

[marlakay]

123. Let all the people out who went to jail for pot

And replace with people who let others use their guns...knowingly or unknowingly....

5 years later we just might be more like those other countries...

And people can still have all the guns they want, just be held responsible for them!

[GGJohn]

124. We need more logical thinkers like you.

That is an excellent idea, one I believe that the majority of gun owners would get behind, and couple it with Universal background checks, we would have a winner.

I tip my hat to your intelligence.

Good job!!!!

I

[LittleBlue]

130. There is nothing we can do. Banning guns will never happen

We pass laws with penalties like imprisonment because people are afraid of those consequences. Those who plan on murder-suicide are by definition unafraid of any consequence. They have accepted death, after all.

No law will be effective against these types of people. Banning guns is impossible because people don't want a gun ban, and it's unconstitutional anyway. You have to accept that we aren't like other countries, and we will never ban guns. You'll find a real leprechaun before you'll get 75% of states to eliminate the 2A.

We are not Canada, we aren't UK, we aren't Australia. Why does this need explaining every time a shooting occurs?

[GGJohn]

135. And, even if by some stroke of a miracle, the 2A was repealed,

it still wouldn't ban firearms, it would just fall to the individual states to set their own firearms laws.

But, you are right, the 2A will never be repealed and firearms in this country will always be here.
That horse left the barn a long time ago.

[LittleBlue]

156. Exactly!

The British government looks nothing like ours. They aren't a federation.

Unlike those other countries, guns are too much a part of who we are.

[X_Digger]

208. It wouldn't even do that-- the right would be protected by the 9th, federally. ;) n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

133. Ban all Guns!!! n/t

[GGJohn]

138. Easier said than done,

So, what's the plan?

[branford]

139. How? nt

[Dr. Strange]

150. Starting with the cops.

[Duckhunter935]

160. Lets hear your plan

[hifiguy]

149. Never. Ever.

The politicians live in mortal fear of the NRA and spend all their time fellating it.

[FrodosPet]

151. Back in the 1970s you didn't hear about school shootings

Sure, a student got shot in my high school, but it was only one student shooting another. So without cable news, only local people know about it.

[dsc]

154. it is more because we didn't have cheap assault weapons and semi automatic rifles

thus one kid couldn't shoot up an entire school.

[GGJohn]

162. Yeah, we did.

The Ar-15 has been around since the 60's the Mini 14 has been around just as long, there have been oodles of semi auto rifles and handguns, affordable ones, for decades, they just didn't become popular until after the passage of the AWB of 1994, that's when every gun enthusiast wanted one.

[dsc]

165. there is a difference between guns being around and guns being cheap

In the case of many guns prices fell when we started getting hold of guns from eastern Europe.

[GGJohn]

171. Those semi autos back then were cheaper to buy than today relative to the level of wages.

Plus, back then, there were no background checks, no ATF.

[hack89]

174. The mid to late 70's is considered the second most violent period for school shootings

The 80s weren't much better

[FrodosPet]

185. I always carried a knife to school, as did most people I knew

People talk about how terrible things are now. But the reality is, I was robbed 4 times in the 70s and 80s, but have not been robbed in the 21st Century.

I honestly think things are far safer currently.

[hack89]

189. Americans have never been safer

And every year is safer than the year before.

[Recursion]

220. And the most violent was the mid 1990's (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

181. very true

Now you have 24/7 wall to wall coverage that you did not have back then. More weapons were at schools back then. Now you have copycat shootings due to the over coverage.

[Jenoch]

192. I have mentioned this in the past

on other threads, but when I was in the 8th grade I took my shotgun to school, on the school bus, to give a demonstration speech on how to clean a shotgun. I did not have any ammunition for it of course.

[Recursion]

215. Which is odd, because shootings in schools were much more common in the 1970s than today

But they weren't white suburban schools.

[Initech]

172. The sad reality is that any serious anti gun legislation would drive gun sales through the roof.

And that's scary in and of itself. And that's just what the NRA wants. Fear + misinformation = $$$$$$$. Fuck the NRA.

[RadicalGeek]

176. I actually wondered

What effect would a "leak" of the pictures from Newtown have, would that be enough to turn folks against the "Redneck Taliban" that is the NRA.

http://teapartycrasher.hubpages.com/hub/Worth-A-Thousand-Shells

[branford]

188. Gun sales would soar as people would buy firearms to protect themselves.

The worse the pictures, the higher the new gun sales. There are many instances of heavily reported violence that prove the point.

If you tried to use the pictures to push more gun control, gun sales would increase even more. There's a reason why some call Obama the best gun salesman this decade.

It's a matter of perspective and culture, often very regional, and that's why guns are such a polarizing topic.

I would also remind you that many of the so called "Redneck Taliban" are loyal and active members of the Democratic Party, including a significant number of federal and state elected representatives, many of whom are card-carrying members of the NRA.

[Vinca]

177. I would like to see a fraction of the concern for 1 ebola death directed at gun violence.

Yesterday's school shooting by itself exceeded the number of ebola deaths we've ever had in this country.

[valerief]

182. Death machines are the major U.S. industry, so no, not in our lifetimes. nt

[Duckhunter935]

187. not really

those companies are not very big, unless you are talking about cars.

Death machines, give me a break.

[branford]

190. I waiting for the move to ban

those ubiquitous dihydrogen monoxide filled craters and tubs of liquid death, commonly known as swimming pools, that kill far more young children and teens in the USA than firearms.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2011-a.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html

[The CDC's use of an age category of 15-24 is also most unusual, as it encompasses everyone from mid-teens to post-college. It reminds me of how gun control groups's statistics define people well into their 20's as "children"]

I would also note that swimming pools, unlike cars and guns, are purely recreational.

We have to ban swimming pools . . . it's for the children . . .

Or, maybe just "high capacity" swimming pools, or scary black swimming pools, . . .

[Duckhunter935]

191. If it saves just one childs life........

[dsc]

196. lets talk about swimming pools

Pool owners are required to have insurance to cover accidents (usually via homeowners) gun owners not so much. Pool owners are required to have tall fences around their pools, gun owners often aren't even required to have them in a locked cabinet. Pool owners have to get city permits to have a pool, gun owners not so much. So yea, let's treat guns like pools.

[NutmegYankee]

197. Insurance isn't required for a swimming pool.

It is just a good idea, just like homeowners insurance. The permit is for building the pool, and is similar to that required to buy a gun. There is no requirement to maintain a permit for said pool. The fence requirement is a local requirement. I see pools without one routinely here.

As for insurance for guns, it isn't going to happen how people here think. Connecticut investigated this after Sandy hook and was told by every single insurance company in testimony that they would NOT cover intentional misuse of a firearm. So if someone goes out and shoots someone, they wouldn't cover it. The only act that would be covered is an accident, which is already standard coverage in a homeowners policy.

As for a requirement to keep guns in a locked cabinet, the law is unenforceable. Police cannot enter a home for a compliance check.

[dsc]

198. there is no permit whatsoever to buy a gun in my state or any state which borders mine

I can go to a gun show tomorrow, plunk down whatever said gun costs at a private seller, and walk out with my gun no permit at all needed. I don't know where you live that doesn't require a fence for a pool but I have never lived in a locale which didn't. Not in MS, not in IL, not in OH and not in NC.

[NutmegYankee]

199. Connecticut.

I can build a pool without a fence, but need a permit to buy a gun, either private seller or commercial, and ALL require a background check. http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/dps-3-c.pdf

Connecticut has 169 independent cities and towns, with no county government. Each town runs it's own school system and makes it's own zoning laws. A fence of course, is a really good idea when it comes to getting homeowners insurance.

As for a gun show, you can probably also just buy one off Craig's List in many states from a private seller. Very different laws out there.

[branford]

200. And nevertheless, still more children die in swimming pools than by guns,

and I doubt there are over 300+ million residential pools, as there are privately owned guns in the USA.

My point, however, is that if saving lives by ridding ourselves of discretionary objects were the goal, swimming pools would have been banned long ago. Guns are far more of a cultural or region battle than a true safety issue, particularly since such a large percentage of gun deaths are suicides.

The "if only guns were regulated like cars or pools discussion" also presupposes that there are few if any laws about the ownership and use of firearms. Such a implication is absurd. In addition to basic restrictions like the much of the criminal code, federal, state and local, and the vast myriad of rules concerning self-defense and hunting, you need to be a legal adult or older to purchase a gun, you cannot be a convicted felon or adjudicated mentally ill, fully automatic weapons are very heavily restricted, licenses and permits are often required both to own or carry firearms, and quite literally, many thousands of pages of other laws, rules and regulations nationwide.

Simply, be careful what you wish for. If guns were regulated like pools (or cars), more people would likely own and carry them. Just think about the vast multitudes of scary and irresponsible people own and operate cars despite insurance, licensing, registration, proficiency and safety requirements (and cars are not protected by a constitutional amendment).

I'm also often amused by the demand for insurance for guns. Insurance for firearms is already cheap and readily available, and often included in basic homeowners insurance. It's so inexpensive because, given the hundreds of millions of guns owned by Americans, the chance the insurance company will have to pay out for injury or damage due to a negligent use or discharge is virtually zero.

Most gun injuries and death are the result of suicide or intentional criminal use of a firearms. Insurance does not normally cover intentional acts, no less criminal acts, and thus such insurance is not even available, whether mandated by the government or otherwise. Similarly, insurance would not cover damage by an illegally owned firearm.

Those who demand insurance appear know little about insurance or firearms, and simply want a stealth tax to dissuade people from purchasing firearms. I would no more support such a policy that would only permit the wealthy to own and operate firearms, than I would support a poll tax.

There are a number of restrictions that many gun owners (which actually does NOT include me) would consider. However, honesty and respect is a precondition before any discussion begins. All the "gun humper," "child killer, "NRA stooge," "redneck," "small penis" insulting nonsense needs to end yesterday.

[kestrel91316]

206. Not in my lifetime.

But I don't have kids in school, so it's not really my problem.

[Recursion]

219. Well, let's look at why they have plummeted over the past 20 years, maybe?

If you're starting your argument with the axiom that our schools are awash in blood compared to bygone days, you've got it backwards.

Now, "spree" shootings do seem to have increased, but they're a drop in the bucket compared to "normal" shootings at schools, which are way, way, way, way, way down over the past 20 years. Maybe we should look at why?

[cantbeserious]

227. No - Because The Right Wing Will Protect Their Benefactors

eom

[spanone]

229. no. our precious guns will not allow it. period.