I hope everyone realizes that at this point there is no way to stop shootings!

[Logical]

Guns are here to stay. They are legal to manufacturer, sell and own. Any effort to ban gun ownership would be opposed even by the dems. No majority from either party would even propose banning gun ownership.
Not counting the fact there are at least 50-100 million handguns in the hands of the public already. No government of either party would propose collecting people's guns. Besides the fact that if the government tried there would be a revolt.
The best we can do is stop criminals or insane people from buying guns. And even that would not prevent the 100,000 stolen guns every year from being sold to criminals.
It is a problem that cannot be fixed. Random shootings will continue to happen.

[Scootaloo]

1. I'm glad your sole worry here is whether someone wants to take your toys away

You're very lucky; my understanding is that other people have had their lives taken away. So fortunate, to have such piddling shit to pretend to worry about.

[Logical]

4. Totally emotional answer. Tell me your solution to solving the problem. N-t

[GaYellowDawg]

11. How about

Ammunition control? The guns are out there, but they're useless without bullets. Put a $100 tax on every bullet sold.

[hack89]

24. So gangs can smuggle cocaine into America by the pallet load but not ammo? Ok. nt

[GaYellowDawg]

48. Inapt comparison.

Ammunition is heavier. And it can be detected a whole lot more easily. The logistics of smuggling ammo in would be much more difficult. It's a different market, with a different clientele. And making it expensive, rather than completely banning it, would cut down on the smuggling.

[hack89]

49. Well, fortunately it is easy to stockpile ammo and it lasts a long time

so I should be set for the rest of my life.

You do know, don't you, that any such effort to restrict access to ammo would be unconstitutional? A de facto ban is still a ban. It is like the government saying "you can print what ever you want but you can only buy your ink and paper from us.".

[GaYellowDawg]

140. A tax is not a ban. Therefore, not unconstitutional.

I wasn't advocating that the government be the sole producers of ammo. And the second amendment does mention "well-regulated." A tax is a form of regulation - so it's entirely constitutional in that respect, too.

[hack89]

153. Poll taxes were not bans either. And they were deemed unconstitutional as hell.

if the purpose of the "tax" is to restrict the exercise of a civil liberty then it is unconstitutional.

[Vattel]

167. A tax of that sort is clearly unconstitutional.

It would render the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms meaningless. No federal court in the country would uphold such a tax.

[GaYellowDawg]

170. Really?

Look at the test of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You focus on the "shall not be infringed" portion. If federal courts limited their attention to that portion of the amendment, then there would be zero limits on gun ownership, permits and licensing wouldn't be allowed, and guns could be carried anywhere at any time in any fashion (e.g., concealed/unconcealed), because they are infringements. When are people going to wake up to the fact that technology has outdated this amendment's text and it should be interpreted much more loosely?

[Bake]

173. The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment conveys an individual right

not just the "well regulated militia." This was the case of the DC handgun ban several years ago.

So there it is.

Bake

[GaYellowDawg]

176. If that's truly the case

Then we need to give some serious thought in this country to repealing or changing the text of that amendment. The Constitution was not a document written in stone - otherwise, there would be no mechanism for changing it. Amendments can be repealed or rewritten. I have a hard time believing that men as intelligent as the country's founders would have written the second amendment as it was if they'd known that someone could easily kill a room full of people with one gun.

[Bake]

180. It was a bit more difficult when you had to pour in the black powder, drop a ball in the barrel

tamp it down, etc.

But good luck getting it changed. Nobody's gonna touch that with a 10-foot pole.

Bake

[Vattel]

174. A reasonable sales tax on magazines would not violate the first amendment.

But a thousand dollar tax on magazines aimed at ensuring that few ever buy them would. Same applies to your tax ideas and the second amendment.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. THOUSANDS of people illegally cross the southern border daily.

How long would it be before they started smuggling ammo?

[GaYellowDawg]

121. And?

Whether the ammo was obtained legally or illegally, the price would still go way up. It'd be a lot more expensive. Therefore, it would make it harder for the lone nut shooters to obtain the ammo - and incidences like this would decrease. No one's ever going to stop this kind of crime from happening at all, but it could be slowed down.

[cherokeeprogressive]

155. Bullshit. You make ammo $100 a round and that's the last you'll hear about "drug tunnels"

underneath the border. Every person coming across the border illegally will be carrying rounds in their backpacks. Coyotes will recruit immigrants to carry it for them. The ammunition industry in Mexico will take off. Making ammunition more expensive than drugs is a grand idea my friend... a grand idea indeed. Not.

A "lone nut" shooter who has it in mind to kill people in bunches will save their lunch money to buy ammo.

What is your plan for all the ammo that already exists? Millions and millions of rounds, TENS of millions of rounds... Is your plan for someone from the gubmint to go door-to-door to round it all up?

This isn't a problem with a feel good solution. How about we subject every American citizen to psychological testing once a year?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

207. Good luck getting a thousand rounds of ammo hidden in your anus...(nt)

[michreject]

217. I reload and have 5 presses set up in my basement

I have 10K rounds for every caliber that I own. not for each gun. just caliber.

I shoot about 2K a month. I own over 50 guns. Mostly handguns.

Most shooters I know have a ample stock on hand. One of my shooting buddies casts his own bullets. He gets the lead form gas stations and tire stores.

Ban ammo? In your dreams.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

220. So I suppose there's plenty of room for your head (nt)

[michreject]

221. Aren't you cleaver!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

223. I'm also clever....

[sarisataka]

93. That tunnel they found in AZ...

last week could have brought in a lot of guns and ammo. How many tons of drugs passed through it before it was found?

[GaYellowDawg]

119. Yes. So?

How much do you think illegal drugs would cost if legalized? A hell of a lot less is my guess. Likewise, tight restrictions on ammo would greatly increase the price on any black market you care to envision. If the ammo had to come through a tunnel in Arizona, it most likely would cost a hell of a lot more for a lone nut gunman to buy the ammo necessary to shoot up a theater. You're never going to stop crime, or violent crime, but I think that making it harder or more expensive is worth the effort.

[cherokeeprogressive]

157. It's laughable that you think a "lone nut gunman" would abandon his intention over money. n/t

[GaYellowDawg]

168. It's laughable that you think a former grad student could afford an expensive meltdown. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

178. Grad students need money... no?

Expensive meltdown? 71 rounds expended under your scheme means $71 to kill 12 and injure 59.

None are so blind as those who will not see...

[GaYellowDawg]

183. Wow, are you ever off the mark.

Under my scheme, 71 rounds expended is $7100 - you know, $100 x 71 - plus the cost of the rounds. Having been a grad student, I can tell you that's about 1/3 of an annual stipend for an assistantship. Your average grad student might be able to afford 6 or 7 rounds instead of 71.

None are so wrong as those who cannot do simple math.

[cherokeeprogressive]

185. Daft. The fucking crazed killer goes to his gun cabinet and finds he doesn't have enough ammo...

because it's $100 a round so he goes back to being the Honor Student from UC Riverside. He sees ammo prices and decides he's not a mass murderer after all.

I've never read anything I'd consider to be more stupider than that... (sic)

Otay.

[GaYellowDawg]

186. That's because you're not thinking.

I'm not surprised at all that you've never read anything stupider than something you came up with.

I didn't say he'd go back to being an honors student. I'm saying if he could afford a whole lot fewer rounds, he could do a whole lot less damage. That's a pretty simple proposition. Think it through. Try to get those neurons sparking just a teeny bit. Perhaps a smaller phrase would help. How about this? Fewer bullets = fewer casualties. It's very simple. Of course, you're the one who thought that 71 x $100 = $71, so I can't expect too much from you. If IQ was a requirement for gun ownership, you wouldn't have a stake in this argument at all.

[cherokeeprogressive]

187. So here's the deal... I'm going to promise the coyote who brings me 250 rounds $300.

Then I'm going to go the local theater and kill 100 people.

"If I could AFFORD a whole lot fewer rounds,"

Oops! Dude, I can only afford 75 rounds... front me for the rest? I PROMISE I'll pay you double for the extras...

Honest though you'd expect me to be, given the high cost of ammo and all...

If IQ were comparable to hat size, you'd be wearing a thimble.

[GaYellowDawg]

218. You're proceeding from a premise

that rounds on the black market would be a fraction of the cost of buying them legally. That's a stupid assumption. Second, you're assuming that a buyer's friends - because everyone knows that lone gunmen always have lots of friends to lend them money - would be immediately complicit in an illegal buy. That's an even stupider assumption.

I think you've very ably demonstrated that you don't have any right to cast aspersions on anyone else's intelligence. As I said yesterday, you're stupid and dishonest. When you're not clumsily trying to set up straw man arguments, you make careless or moronic assumptions in your arguments, or try to attack your opponent instead of his argument. You have no idea how to carry on a discussion. You are an absolute discredit to this entire board, and you are a foul, contemptible little wretch. You have the soul of a Freeper.

[PavePusher]

97. Then explain how alcohol was smuggled in such high volume during Prohibition I.

We eagerly await your knowledge.

[GaYellowDawg]

113. Here you go.

You proceed from an incorrect premise. Point 1: most of the illegal alcohol in Prohibition was domestically produced, not imported. There's one piece of knowledge. Point 2: it's a whole lot harder to set up a foundry in your basement and produce ammunition than it is to distill alcohol in your basement. Which leads to point 3: Prohibition is another inapt comparison in this particular conversation. Take a seat, junior, or at least acquire a little knowledge before you mock someone else's.

[CokeMachine]

131. What about reloaders?

I know people who have progressive presses and enough brass to last a lifetime? If something like this is even proposed Dillon, Hornady and RCBS would be a good stocks to buy. Bullets can be made from scrap lead and tin.

Just my $.02

[GaYellowDawg]

138. Not a bad point -

But they'd still have to get the gunpowder, too. I would think it'd be a good deal harder to manufacture ammo, even with presses and metal, than to distill bathtub gin, and that the number of people who could do so would also be a good bit smaller. I'd also think that with extremely harsh penalties they'd be less likely to do so.

[NutmegYankee]

148. "I'd also think that with extremely harsh penalties they'd be less likely to do so."

Penalty for possession of cocaine:

Felony, 2-10 yrs.;
Subsequent offense: felony, 4-20 yrs.;
Within 1000 ft. of school or in presence of child under 12: up to double penalties;
Subsequent offense: up to triple penalties Felony, 2-10 yrs.;



Glad to know that our jails are nearly empty from these extremely harsh penalties... It must really work!

[GaYellowDawg]

171. Apples/oranges

Possession of cocaine, or any other drug, often happens after someone is physiologically addicted to the drug - erasing anything beyond the need to acquire more of the drug. Is possession of ammunition a comparable need?

[NutmegYankee]

179. Oh, I think it's apples to apples

I can see a very lucrative black market developing.

[CokeMachine]

149. You may be correct

but if the price is high enough then I good number of people will take the chance. Gun powder can be made from common chemicals and it doesn't take all that much to spin out a few hundreds rounds.

Back to work -- have a great weekend

[sav99]

201. Does A Ton Of Ammo

weigh more than a ton of cocaine? Besides, ammo is fairly easy to make. It wouldn't need to be smuggled in. The crime cartels can manufacture it right here in the US. Not to mention the billion or so rounds of ammo that exists in America today.

[DocMac]

130. Didn't we have a thread the other day

about the new scanning devices that can pick up even small traces of gunpowder, and various other substances?

That may well be used to get the guns from criminals. Gotta start somewhere.

[hack89]

139. Electronic stop and frisk?

I have no doubt the police will use that power wisely.

[DocMac]

146. Well, have fun. If they have it,

they'll use it. I'd rather that tech be used for good, at least in principle. It sounds as though you fear your government. You do realize that you can't fight the police state that exists, even now?

[belcffub]

80. I can reload

any of the calibers I own... For many I have the mold to make my own bullets... the process is too easy...

[Logical]

91. Well, millions of rounds are in homes now. And they black market would be terrible. n-t

[Auntie Bush]

126. That's the best idea I've heard today!

We could almost balance the Budget on such a tax. Well...not really... but we could put a dent in it.
Too bad we don't have any politicians with the balls to do that. The NRA rules this country...along with Grover and Rush and FOX.

[Scootaloo]

14. Gun nuts think every answer they dislike is "emotional"

Gun nuts pride themselves on being un-emotional.

Lack of emotional response is a sure sign of sociopathy.

A gun nuts' entire life revolves around their weapons, and the paranoid fear / hope that someone might touch their stuff, thus necessitating the use of those guns

My solution to solving the problem? Extensive, thorough background checks that would keep people such as yourself from owning a fucking super soaker. The problem isn't the cult of the gun, it's the fucking worshipers.

[Mojorabbit]

15. I guess the opposite can be said to your post

That people want an illusion of safety and whenever a terrible event like this happens are happy to penalize the majority of people who are responsible because it make them feel like they are doing something. I understand the impulse. Look at the history of the human race. We have always had murders and war from the beginning. I hold no illusions that if we disarmed everyone that we would not go back to spears, knives, chemicals, whatever. There will always be crazy assed people out there that will do stuff like this. I had hoped we would evolve eventually when I was younger but as I get older I don't think we ever will.

[Scootaloo]

17. Excuse me while I get my Morbo...

Bugs the hell out of me whenever someone talks about evolution like that, sorry.

Would people go back to using spears and knives to kill people? Perhaps. Tell me Mojo, ever been in a knife fight? Probably not; I haven't either, but I've seen one go down, and stitched up one of the guys afterwards. My impression from it is that it's a heck of a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than it is to kill them with a gun. And I don't think some asshole with a dagger would be able to go on a movie theater rampage and send 72 people to the morgue or hospital from it.

"People will still kill people!" is a blithering, idiotic argument, like like "lawl u emotional" is a blithering, idiotic argument.

[Logical]

27. So you have solved the illegal drug problem also? Great, lets hear that genius plan. n-t

[Scootaloo]

29. People don't tend to commit mass murder with heroin n/t

[Logical]

35. More die from prescription drug overdoses per year than murder by guns. Keep trying! n-t

[Javaman]

55. I'm not arguing, but I would love to see a link for that stat. nt

[Logical]

56. Here you go.....

About 9000 a year are murdered by guns.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

These are not isolated events. Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.

[Javaman]

184. Cool thanks. :) now do you have a stat for gun deaths? nt

[Scootaloo]

66. And the point is, they're not being murdered by crazed assholes shoving pills down their throats

[Logical]

68. And once again, you have no solution to a lone, crazy gunman. I think you just like....

reading your own posts.

[Scootaloo]

78. Why is he always lone and crazed?

I've always wondered that. Why is it when some dude turns a public place into a shooting gallery, the gun nuts are always out in a fucking herd proclaiming him alone! crazy! Pay no mind!

No. This man is a product of your culture, chief. You are here, flippantly forgiving it, going "What can you do?" and acting like it's nothing, while you gibber about your deep emotional bond with your weapons.

I hope you're as proud of your team scoring these kills as you were when it was Trayvon Martin.

[Logical]

81. Trayvon Martin? Find one post where I sided with Zinnerman the idiot. You are losing it. Take a nap.

[PavePusher]

101. "your culture"?

No, sorry, I don't promote a culture of murder.

You are terribly confused. That seems to be a pattern with you.

[Scootaloo]

103. Of course you don't

And the republicans aren't waging a war on women.

You say so so it must be true.

[Mojorabbit]

30. I know how evolution works

I was not using it in the scientific sense. I have actually had a knife pulled on me, in the 70's when I was a teen outside a basketball game. I also, as a former nurse cared for victims of violence and for people who were hearing voices telling them to kill people. People beat up their kids and spouses, people have road rage, people beat up homeless vulnerable people, and anyone they consider the other, and on and on.
I also knew when I posted that someone would move the goalpost to the amount of people who can be killed at one time. It wasn't too long ago that someone drove a car into a crowd of people deliberately. I stand by my post. We have always had war and murder, now it is mostly just managed by governments but it still is with us and I believe it will always be so. You could take away every gun and there will still be killings.

[Scootaloo]

72. You're arguing off of a straw man

Namely the assumption that I believe that murder can be totally halted by removing this or that method of killing someone.

It's not a mobile goalpost to point out that it's easy, fast, and simple to empty a clip of bullets, compared to the effort needed to go out and stab the shit out of 16 people. It's a facet of reality.

Of course there will still be murder. But why not make mass murder more challenging for those so inclined?

[Mojorabbit]

137. Truly I don't think so

Every time this subject comes up on the board after a tragedy the goal post gets moved. First, it is if we had less guns this stuff wouldn't happen, then it gets moved to " less people would die". It is just an observation. Shrug. I have no illusions that anything I do or say will prevent disturbed people from killing or maiming other people. I can think of ten ways to kill a lot of people learned just from reading novels over the past 45 years. I would never in a million years do it. I live a pretty peaceful serene life.

[FrodosPet]

216. Blowing up a bomb is even a quicker way

One thing that worries me - if we did ban and confiscate all the guns, would people start making more bombs to kill people easily?

Short of going back to caveman days, you cannot ban everything that can be used to produce an explosive or incendiary bomb.

[Green_Lantern]

40. not every mass shooter used guns on a daily basis and unless

We ban all gun sales you can't always foresee who isn't fit to own them.

We need a change of mentality away from the idea that guns and violence can solve problems.

Secondly we need more empathy.

[Scootaloo]

74. Well, as Logical and DU's other gun nuts are showing...

Empathy isn't going to be topping their list anytime soon.

So what do we do about the armed sociopaths in the meantime, while we teach them to care for bunnies and whatnot?

[cleanhippie]

86. Well, as you and other gun grabbers are showing...

Reason isn't going to be topping your list anytime soon.

[fascisthunter]

94. "gun grabbers".... who is taking your guns away????

WTF!?

[cleanhippie]

96. "Gun nuts" and "gun worshippers"?????

getting the point now?

[fascisthunter]

100. no, because gun nuts don't want any regulating, which is nuts

it is an apt description for those who are so extreme, they can't even fathom any effort to control guns at all. No point in arguing with people who place guns above people... what's freedom when it takes life away from another. Sociopathy.

Most responsible reasonable gun owners want some form of regulation. Gun nuts don't. No compromising, no meeting half-way.. it's all or nothing. THAT is insane.

[cleanhippie]

105. And have you seen anyone here advocating for ZERO regulations on guns?

I sure haven't, so the label of "gun nut" is just as absurd as "gun grabber."

There are already THOUSANDS of laws and regulation regarding gun ownership in this country. Advocating for sane, reasonable approaches to gun regulation that do not infringe on Constitutional Rights does not a "gun nut" make.

I would agree with you that advocating for totally unrestricted and unregulated ownership would be "nutty", and I would hope that you could agree that advocating to unilaterally strip legal (as in follows existing laws and regulations) gun ownership would qualify as "grabbing."

[Scootaloo]

115. Ever talked with Libertarians?

They rarely argue for zero regulation on businesses.

However, they're always arguing for "less" regulation. No matter how much or how little there is, they always want "less." The argument is framed that so much regulation stifles "liberty" and so we need to have less regulation. Just a little trim. And then a little while later, oh look, we still have too much regulation, let's trim it down again. And again. And again, and again. There's always "too much" regulation, but never do you hear them say there is "too little" or "just enough."

Arguing for zero regulation is not a winner, because most people understand regulations need to be in place, and having none at all is crazy. Arguing for a specific amount of regulation is also verboten; why restrict yourself? So instead, it's a story of how we will never be "free" unless we have "less" regulation.

Anyway. That's how libertarians work. I'd love to hear how gun advocates are so different.

[cleanhippie]

125. So you are not talking about DU'ers then?

Because just a few posts up, you specifically mention "Logical and other DU gun nuts..."


So which is it?

[Scootaloo]

195. it went so far over your head that it didn't even mess up your hair

Nevermind, chief, Have fun, uh... oiling your piece.

[cleanhippie]

202. Your shit throwing was called out and you danced like a monkey to get away.

Don't clutch those pearls so tight, you get muscle cramps that way.

[Scootaloo]

98. Background checks are very unreasonable, yes

[cleanhippie]

108. Those are already in place.

In fact, most gun owners advocate opening up the database to cover private sales.

In nearly every state where a CCW permit is issued, a background check is...wait for it...REQUIRED! No one is advocating stopping this practice, so I have no idea WTF you are talking about.

[Scootaloo]

118. And here we go, pretending a CCW permit is the be-all end-all of gun ownership

Nobody else owns or carries guns. Except "thugs." Who all use stolen guns. Presumably stolen from these people carrying concealed weapons.

[cleanhippie]

128. And here you go, pretending that your call for background checks was not addressed.

Talking to you is like talking to an ignorant child who changes the subject every single time their point gets refuted.


If you cannot even be honest with yourself, how can you be honest with me.

Have a nice day.

[Green_Lantern]

102. caring for bunnies is not my point...

I support a definite ban on the gun this guy used but it isn't as easy to do with every gun.

Some crimes will happen no matter what.

[oneshooter]

182. "I support a definite ban on the gun this guy used"

A ban on importing, selling and ownership I presume?

If so then how do you propose to pay for them? To remove a legally possessed item from the owner, now that it is no longer legal, requires the Govt. to pay the legal owners fair market value for their possessions.

How do you propose paying for the several million arms, and how to collect them?

Oneshooter

[Green_Lantern]

224. I'm not really sure...I can see both sides

There are special shooting ranges where you can go shoot these type of guns. I don't feel like that is a danger.

But a med student just walking in and ordering an AR-15 should throw up red flags.

[CokeMachine]

147. This coming from

the person that if he/she weren't a little more ethical would want to see all of the houses in Colorado Springs burnt to the ground -- that's what I call empathy (not). At least you had enough empathy to delete the post after many request to do so .


Have a nice day

[DocMac]

144. You can't be a responsible gun owner if

you leave your house with one. You're just human. You make mistakes. That includes cops.

You can't erase the problem, but it can be minimized.

[Mimosa]

210. Mojo, nobody cares about daily killings in Afghanistan

Wars might be said to be authorised mass killings.

[Logical]

18. LOL, so you have no answer. And your lack of knowledge of how criminals get guns is telling. So...

how to you stop people from getting stolen guns from criminals?

You have no real solution. Just make believe ones.

[Scootaloo]

26. Well, let's think for a moment

Where does a stolen gun come from, Logical?

I actually gave a solution. I simply happen to think that sociopaths who spend their lives bragging about their firearms on the internet ought to be screened out with the rest of the crazies.

Compare to YOUR solution; "Just accept that Gun Heroes and Proud Patriots like me will continue using the rest of you as target practice, there's nothing you can do about it, HAHAHAHA LOSERS"

[Logical]

34. So only gun nuts get guns stolen? So now your genius plan is to monitor posts from citizens, then...

tie these posts back to individual people and then decide if they should get guns. Wow, you are right, that will work perfectly!

So based on someones "feelings" about the guns they own we can ban them from owing them. And since only "gun nuts" get guns stolen it will stop the stolen gun problem!

You are a genius! You solved the gun issue in one post!

Thanks!

[Scootaloo]

64. You have feelings about your guns?

But it's apparently wrong to have feelings about people.

...huh.

See, Logical, that's a little... backwards. I know someone with your condition probably won't be able to understand it, but... Under most circumstances, people don't get emotional over their tools. By the same token, people - normal people, that is - have emotional response to people getting killed and injured in a theater.

Yes. I do believe that it's a good idea to keep firearms out of the hands of people who believe it's wrong to have emotional response to the suffering of others, but right to have strong feelings about a lumpy metal object.

[fascisthunter]

95. You nailed it

but there is no reasoning with a gun nut.

[Scootaloo]

106. Which is why I trashed the RKBA forum.

I figured, if I wanted to talk to right-wing parasites and scavengers, I actually have right-wing places I troll, I don't need to put up with their shit on DU.

But, as soon as bodies hit the floor, they come gushing out like pus from a carbuncle.

[DocMac]

152. I'm with you.

I roamed into the nest that is the gungeon one night. Not a whole lot of understanding, but a whole lot of people on the defensive. It was interesting and troubling.

[Scootaloo]

193. The way I figure it...

I lump 'em with MRA types, white supremacists, Christian fundies, and other groups that need, desperately need to believe they are downtrodden and oppressed at every turn. They condition themselves into believing they are victims, and that their victimization justifies their frankly bugfuck insane view on life.

[DocMac]

194. I don't know what MRA means.

But you're on target. We choose to be animals or less. I do understand people with mental problems, and we are lacking in that regard.

Nothing will ever change until we people, as a whole, decide to see people as thay are. And people should not fear that, but embrace the truth. And this battering of people who have nothing, must stop.

[Mimosa]

211. I think you're caricaturing being a liberal.

Your posts are beyond liberal. They're sort of cartoony.

[Scootaloo]

222. I'm "beyond liberal"

I consider myself a leftist. I also fall under the "punk" rubric. I understand that around here, there's little tolerance for those who step beyond the Sensible Woodchuck mode of liberalism... tough nuts.

[cleanhippie]

83. Gun grabbers have nothing BUT emotion.

Gun grabbers pride themselves on being reactionary and emotional.

An inability to use reason is a sure sign of personality disorder.

A gun grabbers' entire life revolves around an unrealistic fear and paranoia of guns/being the victim of gun violence even when faced with the fact that they are more likely to be struck by lightening.

My solution is to ignore such deranged people, as they are a diminishing breed.

[HankyDub]

111. fear is an emotion

and without fear, the NRA would be defunct.

[cleanhippie]

112. Without fear, the Brady Campaign would be defunct.

[HankyDub]

114. because there would be no need for them

[cleanhippie]

124. I guess your argument works both ways then.

[HankyDub]

129. and that would be my point, wouldn't it?

When gun nuts state or imply that their opponents are emotional and illogical, (as you did) and pretend that they are the calm arbiters of reason, they are full of shit. Fear drives the gun nut agenda.

[cleanhippie]

141. Still looking for your point.

All I hear are the incessant whines of an emotional gun grabber that it full of shit themselves. Unfounded fear drives the gun grabber agenda.

[HankyDub]

151. and here we go in circles

Unfounded fears drive the gun nut agenda.

[cleanhippie]

154. The only circle is you chasing your own tail.

You have a nice day.

[HankyDub]

156. don't forget that anger is also an emotion

and you got angry because I called your bullshit.

[GaYellowDawg]

132. You do realize that's an argument that Limbaugh uses, don't you?

You hear it all the time from right wing radio hosts. Conservatives are logical and use reason, and don't let those pesky emotions get in the way, whereas those damn lefties are all a bunch of bleeding hearts.

You can just as easily ascribe emotions as fundamental to being gun nuts - and I use "gun nuts" in reply to your "gun grabbers" phrasing.

1. Fear. As in, let's say, an unrealistic fear and paranoia of being the victim of a home invasion. Don't you just love projection?

2. Selfishness. As in, I love my gun/guns. Shooting them is so fun! I don't give a damn if their massive proliferation means that other people get killed, I love my guns!

Also, from the National Safety Council, based on data from National Center for Health Statistics–Mortality Data for 2008 as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program:

Odds of dying from lightning strike: 1 in 134,906.
Odds of dying from a gun assault: 1 in 321.

You are wrong by several orders of magnitude. Who's arguing from emotion and not facts?

[cleanhippie]

150. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Doesn't mean I advocate for broken clocks.

And your data is irrelevant to what I posted before. Beat that straw man up yourself.

[HankyDub]

158. When limbaugh pushes this "emotion" shit

he does it in order to imply that people who advocate for gun control are effeminate, because of the stereotype that women are more emotional.

Is this the same reason you are pushing it?

[GaYellowDawg]

175. Inappropriate metaphor, in Limbaugh's case.

Stopped clocks are right twice a day. If a clock is broken because it runs one minute fast per day, it will be right about once every 4 years. That's about Limbaugh's track record.

Straw man? You said:

A gun grabbers' entire life revolves around an unrealistic fear and paranoia of guns/being the victim of gun violence even when faced with the fact that they are more likely to be struck by lightening.

I said:

Odds of dying from lightning strike: 1 in 134,906.
Odds of dying from a gun assault: 1 in 321.

That's not a straw man. That's an entirely reasonable argument that directly addressed an assertion that you made. I will add this:

Odds of being a victim of gun violence (1 year): 1 in 9,643
Odds of being a lightning strike victim (1 year): 1 in 1,000,000

So this was a reply to your assertion that gun violence is less likely than "lightening" strikes. A straw man is a misrepresentation of someone's position, followed by a debunking of the misrepresentation. Your position was clearly stated. I have not distorted it one iota. Try learning what a straw man argument actually is before you accuse someone of it.

[HankyDub]

110. Whenever they start with that bullshit

I just explain to them that fear is also an emotion. The fear of scary criminals, the fear of the "gun grabbers."

Without emotion, the NRA would have to organize bake sales to bribe congressmen.

[Scootaloo]

120. Oh, I do

Or I did, until my reserves of "give a fuck" juice finally dried up.

[Daemonaquila]

172. While your emotional response is ever so sensible, of course.

Never mind that you're right there with the people who happily choose perceived security over liberty, which allowed our country to be so badly damaged after 9/11. Thanks, I'll side with the "gun nuts," and hope never to be in a tough situation alongside those who get all ooky at the thought of weapons. I prefer people who think clearly and logically.

[CTyankee]

189. Yes, esp. if you cite experience of a family member who dies from gun violence. Then you're

"unhinged" the "poor dear."

Then you get the dreary recitation of their manifesto: "I'm sure the dictators of _____ (fill in the blank of a totalitarian country) would LOVE your solution!" Then the listing of their prized hardware and, usually, some VERY proud owner photos of said hardware. Sometimes you are treated to charts that flash with some of the most laughable statistics you'll ever read. I'll bet at least one of those charts is up on some gun thread even as we speak! You will know it is coming because it is invariably preceded by the statement: "You are safer than you have ever been!"

They, and the people who promote them, are SO boring. Their arguments don't persuade, they thud. After a while reading these threads, you get the drill (it's not hard to do) and tune them out. Until the next round of slaughter.

As I see it the problem is the second amendment. We have no business having it, or at least having it in its present interpretation, in our Constitution today. It's one reason that modern, emerging democracies don't model their Constitutions on ours. There are better ones out there and, ahem, they don't include the second amendment. We have it to go right along with our second rate democracy.

The second amendment folks haven't had any ideas in over 30 years. If they are young now, hopefully they will get over it as they grow older and wiser. For the old geezers, well, maybe they'll just live out their sad lives, nursing their fantasies and stroking the cool metal of their gun barrels...

[FrodosPet]

215. How about periodic house to house searches?

Make it so THE ONLY thing the police can confiscate is guns, ammunition, and any other weapons.

If they find a lb of cocaine, they have to leave it alone because it is a search for weapons ONLY.

[Ninga]

87. Solutions can be discussed once there is shared goodwill to do so. Not and until then. The gun

problem is the health care problem is the tax problem is the education problem etc etc etc.

My depressed take.

[Logical]

90. There is goodwill from many gun owners. The problem with the DU is that they think all....

gun owners are NRA members. Many gun owners hate the NRA worse than you do. Including me.

[CTyankee]

197. I have seen this "I used to be an NRA member but not anymore" and my skeptic's radar went

off. When I see a full fledged, well financed truly grassroots citizens "Former NRA Members" organization devoted to reasonable regulation of guns, I will believe that it is real. Right now, I don't. What I see is people who "say" they no longer belong to the NRA but pretty much toe the NRA line. If I am wrong, please feel free to refute with facts, not with the tired recitation as I outlined above (I've heard it to death).

[Logical]

198. I hate the NRA but am pro-gun and have my conceal carry license. All gun forums and clubs....

are extreme right wing groups. I cannot even spend much time there because they annoy me so much with their damn right wing BS.

Feel free to read my many posts attacking the NRA.

I only think citizens should be able to carry guns because the criminals will ALWAYS have them. At this point there is no way to stop the criminals from obtaining them.

The NRA only has 4 million members. So they are really a minority of the citizens.

[CTyankee]

199. what a depressing post! You sound utterly defeated.

"no way to stop the criminals from obtaining them" -- uh, the CO shooter wasn't a criminal until he was a criminal. He still got them and these folks are still dead.

Throwing up one's hands and giving up is a way of endorsing the NRA and its actions. I think that's just too damn passive.

If the Second Amendment is the problem, I'm all for getting rid of it. No modern democracy needs it, as demonstrated by modern democracies around the world not having one. Even Norway, with its high gun ownership, has reasonable, and dare I say "logical", restrictions on them and that's fine with the Norwegians...no sign of a dictatorship looming there...

[Logical]

200. Well, please tell me how to stop it? Remember.....

Guns are legal. They will remain so.

I am being realistic.

name one senator who is willing to ban guns.

300 million guns exist. Going to collect them all?

[CTyankee]

203. Yawn, the usual.

So what you are saying is that people will continue to be slaughtered and there is nothing that you or anyone else can think of, can imagine, that can make one iota of change. What bold, innovative thinking! Sorry, no can do...nope, can't...too bad about the dead, but wring our hands "Oh, dear, oh, dear, how awful...but with 300 million guns, let's just lay down and die..."

Funny how Norway, with its gun loving people, can find a way to prevent the slaughter of its citizens yet still have and shoot their guns. The Norwegians didn't "collect them all." Take a clue. Are we that spineless and stupid that we can't figure something out? (I'm afraid to hear the answer, cuz I think it is "yes&quot .

Once thing is certain. Nothing will happen until people have had enough of this. You know Al Sharpton's promo for his show where he says "Lots of things were acceptable until we stopped accepting them." Well, there's your first step...

[Logical]

204. Well shit, then let us know what Norway did and problem is solved. I am waiting..!

[CTyankee]

205. They had the will to craft their laws to protect the people, that's what they did.

They love their people more than their guns. They don't have our second amendment nor our interpretation of such. They have a more equitable society. It didn't just magically happen. The Norwegian people made it happen. They agreed. They came together and wrote their constitution and made their laws and that's how freedom loving people in decent, intelligent societies do it.

How difficult is that to understand?

[Logical]

206. What did they do? Steps? n-t

[CTyankee]

208. While it is not up to me to school you I will hazard my best guess.

The people, who have the right to vote, sent their representatives to their lawmaking bodies and they agreed to a set of rules they laid out so that the people would be free to own and use guns, but that society would be protected with sane and reasonable laws regulating their purchase, the limits to their carrying and their proper maintenance and storage.

It is true that they do not have our second amendment but we don't have to have our interpretation of our second amendment. We can change the makeup of our Supreme Court, for one thing. We can have politicians who are more responsible to the people than they are to the NRA. We can form associations of people who want to change the laws, much the same way we decided as a nation to change the way we treated black people, or the way we treated a woman's right to vote, or to say that there is a constitutional right of the people to privacy regarding contraceptive use. There was plenty of opposition to all of these progressive ideas but eventually things got changed. The absurd Second Amendment interpretation is not acceptable in any decent, democratic society on this planet, but we accept it for now. That can change. It has in the past with other issues and we can do it again.

[Logical]

212. The issue we would have is no politician would introduce a bill that would stop private ownership...

of rifles, handguns or pistols. Neither the dems or the GOP would. Not counting the SCOTUS stroking it down.

Gun ownership is too popular. All the conceal carry bills introduced in the states has passed. So the voters would not be of any help.

[CTyankee]

214. I think there is a way it could be done, tho.

We could have a "test law" passed in one of our states, saying that there were constitutional ways that the people of that state could determine certain aspects of how guns were treated. The law would end up in the Supreme Court and, with a better make up of justices on the court, we could have a decision that allows the individual states to pass such laws. It would probably have to reverse the Heller decision, but past Court decisions have been reversed.

There are philosophies that have not been dreamed of in our imaginations just as there have been changes over the years in our Supreme Court decisions, as situations change. I don't think we can just give up and say the Heller decision is immortal and forever etched in stone, because nothing ever is...

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Of course. We've gone beyond being the 'shining city on the hill' to totally

uncivilized. Apparently we prefer brutal violence to all else.

[Gregorian]

3. We can fix our society. Health care, education, high quality life.

I believe it's hopelessness and illness that are the cause of most of our problems. And schooling should include how to properly raise children. Hell, George Bush would have been a good person had he been raised by human beings.

[Logical]

7. +1

[Egalitarian Thug]

22. Just so. +1. n/t

[Edweird]

41. Which will never happen until the DLC/3rd way/new 'dems' are banished from the Dem party.

When both parties push RW policies you have only the choice of 'worse' or 'worser'.

[TwilightGardener]

5. I agree with this. I don't see any way to stop this from happening.

[99Forever]

6. Your message is (as I read it):

Since we can't come up with a perfect solution, let's do nothing and let the NRA and the gunnuts win.

Nice.

Fuck the NRA.

[Logical]

10. I hate the NRA worse than anyone. What is your solution to removing guns?

[99Forever]

12. One week amnesty to turn them in..

.. after that, IMMEDIATE execution for possession of any.

[Logical]

21. I doubt you are serious. And no dem or repuk would pass that law. n-t

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. What could possibly go wrong with that?

[Lizzie Poppet]

73. Please tell me you're joking.

If not, then understand that even a half-assed attempt to actually implement such a plan would result in the (violent) dissolution of the Union. It's a given (trust me on this) that a fairly significant majority of firearms owners would refuse to comply. That means that the combined police forces of the country are absurdly inadequate to enforce such a law (even if 100% of the officers agreed to follow such orders...and they wouldn't).

That in turn means that it would require the military to have any real chance of enforcintg this law (violating posse comitatus, but I assume some sort of legislative sleight-of-hand would have dealt with that) . However, the military is increasingly conservative in its political demographics, generally (strongly) supports the RKBA, and its members are drawn disproportionately from families that also own firearms. If you think "military discipline" would be adequate to get these soldiers to fight against both their own convictions and their family members, then may I respectfully suggest you know nothing about the military.

Bottom line: such a plan would resut in many, many times the number of deaths than those resulting common criminal activity, high-profile (but statistically minute) mass killings, and suicides, combined. And the nation itself would cease to exist...

[99Forever]

127. Only..

.. half joking. In my humble opinion, that is no more "outrageous" than most of the crap I hear out of the other extreme on a daily basis.

Guess what. Sanity is losing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

164. Well, that's a fair point!

The sheer volume of "batshit crazy" from the far right would be entertaining as hell...if it weren't for the political power they wield.

[99Forever]

188. Indeed. n/t

[PavePusher]

104. Welcome to the American Civil War, Take II.

What's your remedial plan?

[yardwork]

8. Better mental health care system that increases access to care would help a lot, actually.

[warrprayer]

9. USA! USA!

somebody get me a cheeseburger



Jeebus H Christ

[SoutherDem]

13. Sadly you may be right

I first wrote a totally smart ass answer till I saw who posted it. You are not a pro gun person to the best of my knowledge, we seem to agree on most subject.

So I read your OP again.

I wish I had an answer. But, until things change a lot, you are right.

[Logical]

20. I don't like the problem. I just see no way to fix it. Thanks for the comment! n-t

[GaYellowDawg]

16. As I said in another reply, put a $100 tax on every bullet.

And institute a measure effective immediately that disallows buying more than 10 bullets in any given year without bringing in spent casings, to prevent stockpiling. Lots of guns out there would get useless pretty quickly without their ammunition.

[Logical]

19. OK, I agree it would reduce ammo sales. Who do you really think is going to...

implement this tax? No dem would even vote for it.

Hunters use ammo? Going to tax them also?

Not workable.

[GaYellowDawg]

62. In other words

You don't have a problem with that solution. The problem is that the will to implement the solution isn't there. How do you think that poking holes in potential solutions helps to solve them? Is your demand that an easy solution be found to a difficult problem? Not a lot of those solutions are out there.

[Logical]

65. I want a realistic solution. I want drunk driving to stop, would banning alcohol be a possible....

solution?

[GaYellowDawg]

76. No.

But a ban on drunk driving and severe penalties for it have really cut down on drunk driving, haven't they? Look, no one's ever going to stop any kind of crime, but I think it ought to at least be more difficult to commit a crime. If that sorry SOB wanted to shoot up a theater, he should have had a much tougher time getting the means to do it.

[Logical]

79. My post was specifically about a lone nut mass shooting. No way to prevent it. n-t

[GaYellowDawg]

85. Again -

True, there's no way to stop lone nut mass shootings, but I won't back off the position that it's possible to make the shootings harder to carry out. Right now, it's easy. Why the hell should we as a society tolerate that? Because the solution would require a lot of effort? It's my opinion that dodging a solution because it's hard means that the problem isn't important enough to a society. How do you make it important? You publicize the problem. You publicize your solution. And you go after the people who benefit from the problem - in this case, the NRA - without mercy.

[Logical]

88. I agree we can fix many issues with guns. Private sales to criminals are an issue. But hard to track

[Egalitarian Thug]

25. And create yet another multi-billion dollar black market, 'cause that always ends well. n/t

[GaYellowDawg]

44. There's a black market for child pornography.

Does that mean we should throw up our hands and allow that, too? The difference between people who advocate restrictions on gun and ammo and those who don't because it would be just too darn hard is this:

The victims don't mean enough to you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. It means that the strategy used against it has failed. Pretending that the child porn market is

comparable to the one you propose is disingenuous. It does not come close to being as large and you completely neglect to consider that treatment yields better results than punishment. Pedophilia is a mental illness, owning firearms is not in and of itself.

Pretending that you have any understanding of the content or depth of my feelings for murder victims doesn't help your argument either. You want to trade personal horror stories of violence? I didn't think so.

11,000 other people died/will die today, too many of them by violence, they just weren't regarded as important enough to get press. What do you propose we do about them? Or do you just not care about them?

[GaYellowDawg]

59. Oh, no you don't.

You've mentioned the presence of black markets as an objection. You don't get to cherry pick which black markets you find appropriate or don't. Scale is the issue? That would imply that any problem beyond a certain size does not merit solving, and I'm not a big fan of that attitude.

Recidivism rates with respect to responses to child pornography are irrelevant to this conversation, as it is the possession of the pornography that triggers the response, whether that response is therapy or punishment. I will point out, too, that the fact that the possession of the pornography results in the capture of quite a few pedophiles who either haven't been directly caught in the act or who have been caught before they dared to act.

Why would you want to trade personal horror stories of violence? Does that make you an authority? Do you think that confers upon you the right to say who can or cannot object to violence, or who can or cannot object to ignoring violence?

Every person who dies due to violence deserves an effort by society to redress that violence, whether that death is highly publicized or not. And you've heard my proposal. Make it harder to use guns, instead of throwing up my hands and saying that gun violence is an evil that is too big to fail.

[boppers]

219. Uhm, you know anything about reloaders?

You simply move the problem upstream, to those who are clever enough to make "non-tax" bullets.

[Lint Head]

28. Totally so.

[LanternWaste]

31. I imagine many people believe that because a solution has not yet been found

I imagine many people believe that because a solution has not yet been found to a problem, we should simply resign ourselves to the existence of that problem in perpetuity.




I myself call those people 'half-educated, sub-literate idiots'. But who knows... maybe I'm wrong-- maybe they're not even half-educated.

[Logical]

37. Well, I would like to hear where you begin. A real solution that either party would support. n-t

[LanternWaste]

46. Directly and obviously implies there is no current solution.

" that because a solution has not yet been found to a problem,..." Directly and obviously implies there is no current solution I am aware of. I thought I made that both plain and obvious.

Again... I imagine many people believe that because a solution has not yet been found, we should resign ourselves to the problem in perpetuity. Good thing science does not adhere to that, else advancement would flatline...

[HockeyMom]

32. The general public being armed would not have helped here

In the majority of crimes it won't help either. That IS the point that us anti-NRA people want to make. Too many gun carrying people have a very false sense of security. NRA brainwashes their members.

[Logical]

39. The NRA is a horrible right wing organization. They are a political group, not a gun group. n-t

[eridani]

116. +100 n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Why not? He had minutes to blast away and stalk a captive audience.

First responders with guns were minutes away. You don't think it would have helped if one had been in the room?

Historically at these mass shootings, even when the shooter isn't taken out, like the Tacoma Mall shooting (Maldonado), they stop killing people once they encounter armed resistance. (More often than not, they kill themselves)

[HockeyMom]

160. Did the shooter in Giffords shooting encounter an armed citizen?

You DO know that there were at least 2 people there with guns, but they were too afraid they would hit somebody else. It took an UNARMED man to tackle the perp. Guns didn't work there. Would not have worked in Colorado either, but too many people subscribe to the NRA brainwashing that they do.

[AtheistCrusader]

162. The first armed person was shot in the side of the head at the annoucement of hostilities.

The second wasn't in the area, and in fact, couldn't even SEE the location where the shooting was occuring, because he was inside the Safeway. He didn't arrive on the scene till after the shooter was disarmed.

So, feel free one of these days to stop repeating that nonsense. (I know you won't because I know for a fact you've been corrected before, but clearly you enjoy the hyperbole)

There were no uninjured armed people with a potential shot at Loughner in Arizona. You have no basis to assume the same about Colorado. There are certainly incidents like the New Life Church shooting in which armed first responders WERE in range, and could respond. That is not possible at the location in which this occurred in CO, because concealed carry is not lawful in that county.

[HockeyMom]

165. WHO took the shooter down?

You don't listen to NEWS? It was an unarmed man who tackled the shooter while he was reloading. My iminagination? That didn't happen?

[AtheistCrusader]

169. Unarmed people, once the shooter was also unarmed.

(By the way, they suspect it was jammed because he was using that stupid-assed 33 round magazine, anyway)

If you go down the list of mass shootings listed on Wikipedia, there is a common refrain in the vast majority of incidents, wherein the shooter either kills himself, or is taken down by armed first responders, whether civilian or law enforcement, once the shooter has encountered armed resistance. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Tacoma Mall. Tyler Tx Courthouse. Trolley Square. VAST majority.

My compliments to the people who tackled Loughner. They had no way to really know he was incapable of shooting them at that point. Good job. May have prevented him from either reloading, or clearing the jam, and saved lives. Awesome. Good.

Not as useful as someone shooting back at Loughner in the opening seconds of the attack.

[gopiscrap]

33. I call bullshit

Make a concerted effort like we did on the no smoking campaign, or the immunization polio eradication campaign, or the building of our inter-state system...go after ALL guns then make a profound
committment as a nation to FULLY fund mental health aid, social services and education!

[Green_Lantern]

45. that was mostly due to education

On the dangers of smoking.

We need to educate people especially kids that violence is not a solution.

[CBGLuthier]

36. There is ONE solution and I may just take it

Move the hell out of this nutsy ass country and let the gunlovers blow each other to fuck and back for all I care.

But that's just me.

[Doctor_J]

38. "There's no way to stop segregation!"

There's no way to stop lynchings! There's no way to stop the poll tax!

Moron.

[Logical]

43. Well, you totally miss the point.....

Nice personal insult also. Congrats.

Lynchings still happen. LOL, you provide my point. And you will NEVER stop all lynchings. Get it now?

Poll taxes are not implemented by individuals. So not close to a good comparison.

Keep trying.

[LanternWaste]

53. There's an undercurrent of (classical) fatalism running around this place today

There's an undercurrent of (classical) fatalism running around this place today, in that "if we haven't found a solution, there must not be one, therefore stop looking for a solution and accept fate as is..."

So many times, humanity has told itself that there is no way to overcome/achieve a particular thing, and so many times, humanity has proven itself wrong in that regard. I thought the Enlightenment and the Renaissance gave voice to the magnificent advances, not merely in science, but also in thought, in deed, and in conscience, that we may collectively achieve.

I'd be worried if and when humanity does indeed convince itself that the tough obstacles are impossible to overcome, and we should resign ourselves to allowing those problems to not merely exist with us, but to define us. I don't really understand that type of macrotic, fatalistic thought-process.

[Logical]

57. The difference is that gun rights have expanded. Where slavery, racism have....

have improved because of laws passed to prevent it. No one of either party wants to stop gun ownership.

The right to own and posses guns have only gotten better.

Crime is lower than in 30 years. And criminals are being locked up longer and longer. So it is not like we are treating murderers to lightly.

I am talking about a lone nut who wants to kill someone. Hard to stop it with any laws.

[bongbong]

75. Illogical

> The right to own and posses guns have only gotten better.

Followed immediately by:

> Crime is lower than in 30 years.

The second was not caused by the first. You might know that, or you might not. But it's a classic! Seems to be a "Talking Point" that a lot of gun-religionists have been parroting lately! It's almost as if a bunch of posters are getting the same "arguments" to post or something.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. No one is talking about banning gun ownership. I'm talking about

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

imposing strict licensing requirements on firearm possession. the same way we require motorists to be licensed.

Even my suggestion will not entirely stop 'random shootings,' nor will it prevent firearms from being available on the black market.

The real solution to gun violence is a change in societal norms and I have no idea how to accomplish that.

[Logical]

47. I have no problem with licensing guns. But stolen gun still exist.

[mazzarro]

117. So does stolen automobiles

Yet there are still registration and licensing requirements for automobiles.

[Logical]

142. Well, not true. They are chopped up to parts.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Odd.

There are in fact, a couple people upthread talking about banning guns.

[coalition_unwilling]

136. They are out-liers, I would think. The prevailing sentiment amongst most

progressive folk, imo, is for increased regulation, but not outright prohibition.

But the issue is not on my radar screen very often so I may be mis-reading the sense of the progressive cohort.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. I would certainly agree not all progressives seek to ban guns.

I know quite a few that own guns, in fact.

[MrMickeysMom]

52. Any problem, especially this one is fixable...

But, rampant cultures chock-a-block with guns as accessories, would have to be accountable.

A well- regulated militia and the 2nd amendment should fall under extreme analysis so that we understand what "regulated" really means here.

[Logical]

54. I agree, but who is willing to regulate it to prevent a lone nut? I doubt anyone. n-t

[MrMickeysMom]

58. Well, that's just IT...

There's never a "lone" nut!

Never was in any case I've ever examined, anyway. It always takes a society and leadership skills. It always takes some form of regulation, which we seem to have forgotten in the case of foreign and domestic terror plots.

[Logical]

60. Well, every country has this issue. Look up 'mass shootings' and many countries are listed. n-t

[MrMickeysMom]

69. Would there be a real difference with every other country and the United States on this issue?

Lots of mass shootings in non-democracies... We are the most violent of the democracies, and it's due to our gun laws.

Also, there's the trading of guns across the border and the perpetuation of war for profit, one of the United State's biggest industries. What has happened to the balance of the military, the gun lobby and international terrorism is absolutely telling.

[mmonk]

61. Of this type, no.

But of the type you see on your local news every week, most likely those can be reduced. I'm sure we'll disagree, so there's not much else to say.

[just1voice]

63. Few realize much of anything, they just respond to propaganda

I had the same thought myself, that with all the police and their huge budgets and militaristic spying they still can't stop things like mass shootings.

Of course that doesn't mean people should stop trying but at times it seems futile.

[Logical]

67. Good point about the police. n-t

[cleanhippie]

70. Oh, just stop it with the reality of the situation already.

The gun grabbers could care less about reality.

[Taverner]

71. No - the best we can do is produce citizens with empathy

Our schools do not teach ethics anymore, and empathy is considered by many to be a flaw, not a virtue.

It's no surprise that if we train our kids to see the other as non-human, they might extend that to everyone else.

[Tejas]

89. Parents beating me within an inch of my life worked out okay

I'm not in prison, own a ton of firearms, loving life.

[Logical]

92. I notice that also. Very few people care about other peoples misfortune. I agree. n-t

[Ian David]

77. Yeah, we're stuck with it. The gun genie is out of the bottle. n/t

[unblock]

82. nonsense! the shootings will go away if you put your head in the sand!

can we talk about "so you think you can dance" instead, please?

[Logical]

84. Another rude response with no facts. Good job! n-t

[unblock]

99. lighten up, francis!

tell me, how exactly is one supposed to respond to an o.p. that preemptively deems all solutions yet to be proposed failures?
how exactly is one supposed to respond to an o.p. that sees innocent people die and advocates doing absolutely nothing about it?

i do believe a certain degree of snark was required here.

[MannyGoldstein]

107. Somehow, MA has the second-lowest gun death rate in the US

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

And our gun control laws are about the strictest.

Only HI has a lower rate, and they have strong laws too.

[Marrah_G]

134. And I think we have good gun laws here

My guy has his ccw and my son will probably get his when he turns 21. Neither are "gun nuts" they just believe in having one (locked away) in case the day ever comes that it is needed.

[Rex]

109. Just found out about the shooting spree.

Was wondering what all the gun talk was about. I agree, shooting sprees will not stop from a reduction of guns. Even if it was impossible to buy a firearm 'officially'...someone would buy one from the black market.

[Pholus]

133. I find your OP hilarious. Yes. It is now inevitable. Thanks for that, by the way.

It was a long road of lobbying that got us where we are today. Many, many little steps. A little "stand your ground" here, a little "at will" there, a little "strike down the D.C. handgun ban." Years and years of NRA mailers, each one individually laughable in its hyperbole but it was a slick campaign that added up. The money flowed and the politicians got bought just like it's supposed to work I guess. I like Johnny Rico's graphic by the way. It might show what he says about the spread of "freedom" but to me it merely shows the wash of NRA money across our country and reminds me of all the damage that has been done.

Something to be real proud of. Too bad it wasn't something actually constructive...just more rot and decay of our society. "Universe 25's" predictions becoming manifest...

Anyway, with it all said and done and us looking at the inevitable and predictable consequences after 30 years now it's all "Get over it, guns are here to stay." My home state, which used to be sensible, now has put the burden on churches and hospitals to POST where firearms are not allowed. I remember the local cop -- 30 years ago -- predicting EXACTLY what we see today. We didn't believe him.

Whoops.

So we have bred and coddled a gun-culture that has no blessed sense about the things and when and where they're appropriate. You only have to watch 5 minutes of "Sons of Guns" to realize that there are some serious screws loose when it comes to guns.

See the problem is, when you have lots of hammers and you dream about hammers and buy every new hammer that comes out and fantasize about how your hammer will save you someday or make you important as you save everyone else or how your hammer means that nobody can give you sh*t, I guess it is no surprise that at least a fraction of these guys conclude that at least one problem ends up rising to the level of a nail at some point.

You know, I used to like hunting and I grew up target shooting. Back when they were a tool that stayed in the closet but for a couple afternoons a month. But I absolutely, positively LOATH gun culture for what it has become. It's reaction to the tragedy today merely underlines the tone deafness about the entire topic.

[_ed_]

135. "collecting people's guns"

Sad, stupid paranoia.

[uppityperson]

143. We can not stop every person from doing something awful. We can try and make changes but true

random shootings will continue to happen. It doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards stopping them, but they will continue to happen.

[Brigid]

159. Since we no longer have an unrec function . . .

I guess I am about to trash my first thread.

[redqueen]

161. And we can't stop climate change, either.

People are too invested in the status quo.

No, the best we can do is try to improve auto mileage. If we talk about actions that would mean job losses people won't support it. Goodness knows short term thinking rules, so why try?


Sorry but no matter how defeated you feel, many of us will keep challenging this culture's obsession with and glorification of violence. You work on it however you like, but save the defeatism.

[sendero]

163. Don't expect a lot of logic..

.... in response to what you are saying. People think they can just "prohibit" something and problem solved. It has never worked, it will never work and imagining worthless solutions to problems is a total waste of time.

Yes, these things will continue to happen. For those (and there seem to be a lot of them, especially here) folks who don't yet understand the seismic changes taking place right under their noses, a new PERMANENT economic malaise that will destroy many more lives and leave people with nothing to lose and and great deal of anger, which is already leading to, and will inevitably lead to more, random violence, the preferred solution of many who want to strike back at something, anything.

Please excuse the long sentence, I'm too tired to break it up And no, I do not necessarily think "the economy" had anything to do with this spree, looks like the dude is just crazy, but I'm foreseeing a wave of this kind of stuff because it is already happening.

I don't like this situation any more than the rest of you but dreaming up unworkable "solutions" is just wankery.

[Logical]

191. +100

[freethought]

166. I hope everyone realizes that

Gun control laws would not have stopped this guy in Aurora, CO.

He had no criminal record. Not even any misdemeanors.

There is no evidence that he was connected to criminal organizations or terrorists. At least thus far.

He had no record of violent behavior or mental illness. He may have been describes as shy, private, quiet, not openly friendly, or socially "off". Yet that is a far cry as being declared as a threat to himself or others or psychotic or even suspected as one by those who had contact with him.

One, at this point, can only speculate what may have gone on in this guys head.

I tend to doubt that the now-defunct assault weapons ban would have stopped him from acquiring firearms given that there were plenty of guns that he could have purchased outside the weapons ban that he could have easily and legally modified after the fact.

I'm not even surprised that he was even able to get his hands on tactical body armor. If you go to the right places, you can purchase it, even some serious high-grade stuff.

Maybe in time we'll get a picture of why this guy snapped in such a tragic way. For now though we only have questions.

[Turbineguy]

177. The solution, it seems to me

Is to have more people who actually want to live in a proper civilized society and then provide them an opportunity to do so.

[Logical]

192. I agree!

[Daniel537]

181. Finally. A Realist.

This is the reality of life. Just like tens of thousands will keep dying from car accidents, these things are here to stay.

[CTyankee]

209. I wonder what would have happened if Martin Luther King, Jr. had given up his lifelong struggle

against segregation and the denial of voting rights for African Americans. What if he had said "these things are here to stay"?

[Odin2005]

190. The rate of violent crime is down sharply since 1990.

You are much less likely to get gunned down today then 20 years ago.

[Pholus]

196. Of course it could ONLY be guns. Right?

So here are the factors which have been discussed and the special interest groups that have taken credit for this:

1) Guns, guns and more guns (uhhhh, you)
2) Improved police work removing repeats from the streets (police chiefs)
3) Changing demographics of an aging population (Demographers)
4) Evolution of the drug trade as the winners shook out (the DEA)
5) More cops in general (politicians)
6) Then you got Steven Levitt saying legalized abortion had its effects. It is about 15 years between legalized abortion and the drop in the rate.
7) Finally, the prison industrial complex. Their graph of incarceration rate vs. year looks JUST like the violent crime rate.

We all used to laugh at the stock communist character who was so blinded by ideology that he'd devise strange and bizarre rationalizations as to why it was communism responsible for only the good and none of the bad in a situation. My microwave has several bags of popcorn and I await a response for the ages as you try to explain how factor 1 is the only critical one and the rest of them are irrelevant.

[soccer1]

213. For sure...

And it says a lot about the type of people we are, collectively speaking. Sad, really.