Has the VT Shooting changed your opinion on Handguns

[bryant69]

Poll question: Has the VT Shooting changed your opinion on Handguns

I admit I am going to oversimplify the many positions possible on this issue.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MrModerate]

1. With the millions and millions of handguns out there . . .

It may seem impossible. And yes, the laws are all flawed.

But you have to start somewhere.

Handguns (guns generally) are weapons of mass destruction at the retail level and need to be withdrawn from society, however long it takes.

[endarkenment]

17. Hyperbole much?

"Handguns (guns generally) are weapons of mass destruction" uh no they are not. Nuclear devices are weapons of mass destruction.

[MrModerate]

21. Your paradigm is way too constrained.

How many people have been killed by guns versus nuclear devices since the invention of same? Half a million or so by nukes, millions and millions by guns.

How many by nukes outside of formal wars (civil or otherwise)? Zero. How many by guns? Millions.

50-dollar automatic weapons are the tool of choice for civil wars run on the cheap, particularly in Africa. I'd certainly characterize the death from civil wars in Africa as "massive," wouldn't you?

Individual lives snuffed out by guns, one or two at a time (or occasionally, 30 at a time) add up to "weapons of mass destruction."

[endarkenment]

36. You are conflating 'weapon' with 'weapon of mass destruction'

and in particular you are confusing the damage done by masses of weapons with the mass damage done by a single weapon. A weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that in a single use can kill some arbitrarily set (city sized) large number of people and/or destroy an urban area. Words have meaning and meaningful dialog depends an adhering to the common meaning of words. The deliberate misuse of language to elicit emotional reactions is a rhetorical dodge at least as old as the bloody shirt waved by Mark Anthony. It remains a useful tool for those determined to manipulate people into false choices.

[MrModerate]

39. However, if the formal definition of a term is flawed . . .

or inadequate -- as the one you cite is -- discussion highlights that fact. Especially when a term has escaped its specialist birthplace and made its way into the larger world of popular culture, and begins to take on additional meaning(s).

The implications of including or excluding individually carried weapons from an agreed definition of WMD are significant.

A policy that calls for the invasion of a sovereign nation to counteract threats from WMD, and then goes on to ignore small arms and explosives which are turned to the task of tearing the country apart, ignores the massively destructive capabilities of those small arms and explosives.

Five AK-47 knockoffs, in the hands of five teenage soldier-thugs, can eradicate a village as thoroughly as a thousand-pound bomb and take less than a day. 500 AK-47s, wielded indiscriminately, can do the same thing to a small city. When you're talking about the proliferation of millions and millions of small arms, you are -- literally -- dealing with weapons of mass destruction.

No confusion on my part -- just an attempt to attribute mass destruction to the acutal tools used to carry it out.

[endarkenment]

42. Daggers: the new WMD.

A tool capable by itself and in single use of mass destruction is not the same at all as a mass of tools which if used collectively might cause mass destruction. You continue to deliberately misuse the plain meaning of words for the emotional reaction elicited from that misuse.

By the way you cannot destroy a small city with 500 AK47s. Well you might, but it would take a very long time and one would have to wonder why the rest of society was allowing your small band of idiots to continue their activities. Contrast that to a real WMD, for example a nuclear device smuggled into an urban center and detonated there. That you insist that there is no difference is, to say the least, dishonest on your part.

[MrModerate]

43. Once again, you're guilty of a narrow -- and deceptively dangerous . . .

Interpretation of the term WMD. Go ahead and adhere to the "one big bomb" definition if that gives you comfort.

However, recent history demonstrates that mass destruction can be dealt out at the retail level and be just as devastating. As far as I'm concerned, the proliferation of dirt-cheap assault rifles is as dangerous as the proliferation of nuclear devices in the hands of unstable governments. As long as one continues to adhere to one-big-bomb-think, it's easy to take no action on this other, distinctly deadly proliferation.

I'll admit that I'd hope hearers would have an emotional reaction to the term WMD applied to guns. It'd indicate that they were thinking about the issue in a new way.

And no, edged weapons don't carry the same risk (although they did take a shot at it in Rwanda), because their killing effects are effectively limited to the reach of person's arm: run away from the knife-wielder and you're safe.

Actually, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how 500 AK-47-wielding murderers could destroy a small city. It would take several hours (or longer) to mobilize enough force to supress determined killers distrubuted through the neighborhoods of such a city. By the end of such a rampage, I think "destroyed" would be the mildest term you'd apply to the place.

[endarkenment]

44. One use - mass destruction: weapon of mass destruction. nt.

[TnDem]

18. How many elections...

Are you willing to lose to achieve that goal.

When a gun tragedy happens, invariably the first words out of the mouths of the uninformed are always, "you have to start somewhere"

All that begs for is proposing silly feel-good legislation that will do nothing but lose election.

Folks, it's a loser.

[MrModerate]

22. Shitty legislation that doesn't work clearly isn't the answer.

However, many nations, just as respectful of individual rights as the US, successfully curtail the saturation of their societies with handguns.

It can be done. It has to start somewhere.

As far as losing elections goes, I'm the first one to admit that the electoral process is fatally deformed by the murderous fucks who now run the NRA.

I just don't think the solution is to let them to continue to get away with it.

[TnDem]

27. The NRA...

is not the issue...They are no more "murderous fucks" than the nearly 50% of DU members that has responded as pro-gun on this poll on DU. The NRA are but a microcosm of society and reprsent a tiny number of gun owners. Most gun owners do not belong, but still hold the same views.

"It has to start somewhere" is a handwringing soccermom approach to this issue and does nothing but propose more feelgood legislation to fail in congress and further stigmatize us in the south and midwest.

The bottom line is that gun control is a loser, (even on DU polls the day after a gun tragedy for shit's sake).

[MrModerate]

28. I'm a former member (as a kid) of the NRA, and the currentl leadership . . .

Is definitely a collection of murderous fucks. Just like religious wackos probably don't represent their Christian "constituencies" very faithfully, the gun wackos at NRA headquarters may or may not accurately reflect the beliefs of their membership.

I'm not proposing feelgood legislation that does nothing. I save my masturbatory impulses for something that brings me more benefit. I'm proposing looking at countries that share the American respect for individual rights and responsibilities and seeing how they control guns.

Admittedly, Americans love guns more than just about anyone else. It's an uphill climb. But do they love senseless murder more? That's the question.

[William769]

2. "I was opposed to stricter handgun control, and I still am."

[MemphisTiger]

3. I was not for gun control before and I'm not for it now

[mtnsnake]

4. Choice #1

[Catchawave]

5. Tighter control on ammo...

would be a good start? I've never understood why handgun bullets are sold in boxes of 100.

[NightWatcher]

6. not on guns, but on high capacity magazines

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x676503

[TnDem]

19. Oh God...

I am beginning to think of myself as the official fact checker of the DU gun arguement.

Mags that come in capacities of 5, 10 or 20 round mag simply means that the shooter has to change the magazine a little quicker for a 10 round than he would for a 20. You simply push a button and swap the mag. I could do it in one second.

Also, in this case, Hi-cap mags meant nothing because this shooter had TWO weapons. When he was re-clipping the one, he could cover with the other or still be shooting.

Hi cap mag bans are another ridiculous feel good proposal that allow some people to feel that "at least we are trying to do something". Irrelevant of that fact is that what they are proposing is silly and unresearched.

It has been widely reported that the shooter had stacks of loaded mags. Now whether they are 10 round or 20 round really doesn't matter. If you have dozens of loaded mags and another weapon too, nothing changes.

[Hobarticus]

7. I want to see existing handgun laws strictly enforced....

The laws would work, if they were enforced realistically.

[SteppingRazor]

11. Exactly. I hate to sound like the NRA, but...

their oft-repeated line, "we need to enforce the laws on the books, not create new ones," is more or less dead on.

[SteppingRazor]

8. Was opposed to stricter gun control, still am.

Mind you, I'm all for the laws we currently have, but I don't favor stricter ones.

[theboss]

9. A hangun was not used during this spree was it?

So...not so much.

I honestly have no opinion on guns. I know, it's weird. But in general, I wish there were less of them, but I also don't think bans work.

[SteppingRazor]

10. Yes it was.

A 9mm, to be precise.

[theboss]

14. My fault

I thought he used another weapon. Maybe I was reading an earlier report.

[vote 4 democracy]

12. This is a lot like arguing with Rightwingers

No matter how obvious it is that something is detrimental to our society, that people are dying from it, that it goes against all our principles, they still stubbornly defend their counterproductive thing (Bush or guns) and both go back to that brute mentality of the bully on the playground. Might still doesn't make right and it never will. Neither does stubbornness in the face of overwhelming evidence. Lack of gun control is the latest emperor with no clothes.

[Kali]

15. Forced removal of things "detrimental to society" does not have the best

track record. Thinking booze, drugs. It does criminalize a lot of regular otherwise harmless users and fill prisons though.

[bryant69]

20. Very few bongs have been used to kill people though

I suppose you could make the comparison to drunk driving though.

Bryant

[Kali]

32. I did put detrimental in quotations.

;-) :smoke:

[vote 4 democracy]

23. you could also compare it to impeachment, stricter restrictions on

polluting and/or greedy corporations, ending wars, putting down the big guns (nuclear weapons), cutting back on lobbying and pork and the list goes on and on, increasing congressional oversight, increasing freedom of speach and other civil liberties. These are all positive things (like increasing gun control) we know we can do to stop other things that are detrimental to society (and cost lives and promote backward priorities . . . ). Prohibition was about limiting something that is used with the intent of causing pleasure and for some, guns and hunting are a pleasure, and both have caused accidental deaths . . . but NOBODY ever picked up a drink, pointed it at someone and intended to kill them, MANY MANY people have done that with guns. It is these people who need tighter restrictions.

[Kali]

34. You do have a few good examples there. I agree about restricting

Corporations from polluting etc, but I was sort of thinking more in terms of individuals.

Nobody ever pointed a drink is sort of a specious thing to say as drunks have certainly caused plenty of harm. With or without a gun.

My intent was to say that band aid or easy approaches tend to mask problems more than they solve them. I hate to use bumper sticker arguments but the old "if you outlaw guns only outlaws (and the cops, sometimes the same thing) will have guns", is what comes to my mind.

You still have sick individuals, violent drunks, dangerous criminals etc. You may reduce their potential for instant harm somewhat but you certainly aren't solving the real underlying problems by banning guns.

[LSK]

25. Europe says no....

Has their society gone to shit because of gun laws?

:shrug:

[Kali]

35. Well, they are far from perfect if that is what you mean.

I think there are other cultural and historical differences that apply as well as gun laws. I don't think the situations compare straight across. But I do acknowledge the statistics. I still maintain that much of the violence our culture expresses and experiences is because of who we are rather than the fact that we have access to guns.

I think we have the cause and effect backwards.

[Systematic Chaos]

13. I still remember Henry Rollins about a dozen years ago.

He said, during an interview that I heard on the radio, that the human species was at least 4 or 5 centuries away from being able to handle loosely restricted access to firearms. I tend to agree, but there is no way to ban firearms so we have to make the best of the situation as it stands.

[bryant69]

16. I'm surprised at how tight the voting is.

Implies another poll, maybe after lunch.

Bryant

[BlackVelvet04]

24. Right now my main concern

is helping the community, my friends and family members deal with the grief that all of us in the area are feeling. The rest is best, at least for me, left for another time.

[Duppers]

26. I'm in favor of enforcing the laws on the books now

And right NOW.

[BlooInBloo]

29. It's impossible to change peoples' minds in America.... Americans can't STAND...

... publicly acknowledging error.

[michreject]

30. My vote

I was opposed to stricter handgun control, and I still am.

[Pyrzqxgl]

40. Well, I was for stricter handgun control, and I still am!

[gravity]

31. Hindsight is 20/20

No one could know if this crime would have been prevented if the kid hadn't purchased the gun legally.

It seems like everyone is trying to figure out a way for this situation could be avoided. The truth is that no one knows, and I am not going to play the blame game and make assumptions of what we could've should've done.

This hasn't changed my opinion of handguns. We just need to have common sense gun control, and to enforce the laws on the books.

[scrinmaster]

33. It's made me absolutely certain that I'll be getting my CCW permit when I turn 21.

Even though I'll be out of college by then.

[ButterflyBlood]

37. I tend to be apathetic toward guns

Don't own one, never will buy one. But I don't believe gun control reduces crime, and believe it only loses us votes, so I tend it oppose it out of practical purposes.

Voted the third option.

[Xenotime]

38. We just need to get guns off the street.

Get an alarm or call a cop if you need "security"

[-..__...]

41. Nope... not at all.

And I'll continue to oppose any further gun control legislation at the Federal, state and local levels, and will support any new legislation that is favorable to gun owners.

Enough is enough... no more gun laws.

[maveric]

45. Lynard Skynard: "Handguns are made for killin. Aint no good for nothin else".

I agree with this too. And I own a handgun.

[Forkboy]

46. Poll shows what I suspected.

It didn't change anyone's mind but gives both cemented sides another chance to argue about it,too the same zero effect it has every time.

[bryant69]

47. Particularly when the sides are so evenly matched numerically

Bryant

[Trehuggr]

48. what we really need is to improve our mental health care system

what we really need is to improve our mental health care system. and to remove the stigma associated with mental illness so those who are suffering wont feel that they are going to be considered as nut cases. as a society we need to treat mental illness the same way we we treat physical illness

this in my opinion will cut down on violence

[H2O Man]

49. Other n/t