The thread for political and personal attacks in the wake of a national tragedy

[QuikSand]

How about we use this thread as the place for horseshit like that? Many of us would like to learn about or discuss the Aurora tragedy on this forum, without the need for this sort of tripe.

Have at it.

[MrBug708]

Dude looked like an atheist

[spleen1015]

Kind of looks like Phillip Phillips, the latest AI winner.

[wade moore]

How about we use this thread as the place for horseshit like that? Many of us would like to learn about or discuss the Aurora tragedy on this forum, without the need for this sort of tripe.

Have at it.
:thumbsup:

[Edward64]

In before the lock.

[JediKooter]

Mormons smell like jelly donuts.

[Suicane75]

Shut up you dirty Presbyterian.

[sterlingice]

And I, for one, think that Quiksand needs to be downgraded from his current i7 Ivy Bridge down to a 80286! His politics are spineless, cowardly, and hypocritical! And he smells funny!






Wait- not that sort of personal and political attack?

SI

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i blame the jews

[sterlingice]

And since no good can come from this thread except maybe some sillyness, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that I just now remembered to update my profile location

SI

[sterlingice]

Then again, you know where I have to go with this:



Bart: OK, it's not painfully clear the adults are definitely paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.
Milhouse: You fool! Can't you see it's a massive government conspiracy? Or have they gotten to you too? {he and Bart start wrestling}
Lisa: Hey! Hey, hey, stop it! Stop it! Why are you guys jumping to such ridiculous conclusions? Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."
Bart: {condescending} So what's the simplest explanation?
Lisa: I don't know. Maybe they're all reverse vampires and they have to get home before dark.
Everyone: Aah! Reverse vampires! Reverse vampires!

...

Bart: So finally, we're all in agreement about what's going on with the adults. Milhouse?
Milhouse: {steps up to blackboard} Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people --
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: -- under the supervision of the reverse vampires --
Lisa: {sighs}
Milhouse: -- are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. {sotto voce} We're through the looking glass, here, people...



SI

[stevew]

When is our Kenyan National president going to talk about this, or is he too busy hobnobbing with the illuminati?

[GrantDawg]

Your momma is so fat

[stevew]

No youre mom

[GrantDawg]

Would this be a good thread to bring up how idiotic people are that brings babies to midnight movies. Makes me want to slap people.

[stevew]

Your momma so dumb she heard that we had the right to bear arms and she grabbed a razor and shaved hers.

[Suicane75]

You momma so stupid, she bought two pet rocks so she could sell the stones.

[Ksyrup]

Well, I guess this will do then:

Editor's Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

[molson]

This killing is a reflection of this or that and reveals something or other substantial about society, religion, and certain political ideologies.

[flounder]

Your momma so fat, she can't wear a Malcolm X jacket cause helicopters keep trying to land on her back.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Just another plot to keep the liberal news from talking about the real issues Americans want to hear about.

[gstelmack]

Would this be a good thread to bring up how idiotic people are that brings babies to midnight movies. Makes me want to slap people.

I brought that up in the Pet Peeves thread, because it's a Pet Peeve, not directly related to the incident.

[GrantDawg]

Just another plot to keep the liberal news from talking about the real issues Americans want to hear about.


Yeah. I mean, no one is reporting whether Kim Kardashian took a crap today.

[GrantDawg]

Cnn.com already has a "Is gun control the answer?" report on their front page.

[Ksyrup]

Speaking of which, hard to believe this tweet which is making the rounds:

<S>@</S>celebboutique (https://twitter.com/celebboutique): <S>#</S>Aurora (https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23Aurora) is trending, clearly about Kim K inspired <S>#</S>Aurora (https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23Aurora) dress

...and getting responses like this:

SC_DougFarrar ‏<S>@</S>SC_DougFarrar
Go straight to hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[panerd]

I guess I still don't see what was so bad about the discussion in the previous thread. Hope this is the place to ask these questions and not get immediately boxed? (I have never been boxed so I hope I don't come across as a troll here.) The gun control thing was pretty predictable but like a few others I have no idea what caused all the uproar and account suspensions. Noop seemed to be warned by Skydog and kept pushing the issue anyways but Logan seemed to just make a passing comment that I am making here. I realize this has become a joke thread but since Quik set it up it seems like a decent enough place for someone to answer. shrug

[panerd]

Cnn.com already has a "Is gun control the answer?" report on their front page.

Yeah I mean every news site (especially their comments section) is headed in this direction. Is it the appropriate time? Probably not. It is where it is ultimately headed? For sure.

[DaddyTorgo]

I guess I still don't see what was so bad about the discussion in the previous thread. Hope this is the place to ask these questions and not get immediately boxed? (I have never been boxed so I hope I don't come across as a troll here.) The gun control thing was pretty predictable but like a few others I have no idea what caused all the uproar and account suspensions. Noop seemed to be warned by Skydog and kept pushing the issue anyways but Logan seemed to just make a passing comment that I am making here. I realize this has become a joke thread but since Quik set it up it seems like a decent enough place for someone to answer. shrug

Don't bother looking for logic - you won't find it.

[RomaGoth]

Yeah. I mean, no one is reporting whether Kim Kardashian took a crap today.

Don't need to report that since we all know Kim K is not really human and thus does not take a crap in the conventional way.

[BillJasper]

Yeah I mean every news site (especially their comments section) is headed in this direction. Is it the appropriate time? Probably not. It is where it is ultimately headed? For sure.

If it hadn't been a gun it would've been homemade explosives. If people want to kill people, they'll find a way.

Best to try to figure out how to spot these people before they go over the edge.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Colorado gun laws

Residents allowed to keep guns in homes, offices and vehicles, but can only carry them in public with a permit

There are no limits to how many guns can be bought a month, and the state permits sale of automatic weapons

No waiting period for buying a handgun, both state and federal state law requires criminal background checks

Since 1998 Columbine massacre, 20 miles from scene of Friday's shooting, it has become easier to buy guns in US - a national ban on assault weapons sale expired in 2004

Interesting Colorado gun law facts.

(Yes, guns don't kill people... but guns being easily available to those who want to kill people doesn't help matters much.)

[Kodos]

As one of the first guys who mentioned gun control, I guess I can see both sides. Clearly, gun control (and our country's gun problems in general) is strongly related to the events of last night. But on the other hand, bringing it up will certainly create a back and forth that will not be productive since both sides are dug in, and the ensuing arguments will pollute the thread for people who just want details about the shootings. So I can understand people who didn't want to see the larger discussion muddy the waters in the thread about this specific event.

[GrantDawg]

As one of the first guys who mentioned gun control, I guess I can see both sides. Clearly, gun control (and our country's gun problems in general) is strongly related to the events of last night. But on the other hand, bringing it up will certainly create a back and forth that will not be productive since both sides are dug in, and the ensuing arguments will pollute the thread for people who just want details about the shootings. So I can understand people who didn't want to see the larger discussion muddy the waters in the thread about this specific event.


Yeah, sort of get it (though maybe an extreme beat down to stop it).

[Kodos]

If it hadn't been a gun it would've been homemade explosives. If people want to kill people, they'll find a way.

Best to try to figure out how to spot these people before they go over the edge.

See, I disagree. These people will still try to kill others, but without guns, especially semiautomatic ones, they'd probably be a lot less effective at it.

[molson]

Best to try to figure out how to spot these people before they go over the edge.

I don't have a strong opinion on the gun control thing but if there is a real, practical issue here I think it's this one instead. It's the same one from VT, the Seattle shooting, the Tuscon shooting, and a lot of others. It's really almost impossible to force treatment on people until they act out violently, and by then it's obviously too late. You can "spot" them before they go over the edge, it sounds like his family did, but there's almost nothing anyone can do about it until they enter the criminal justice system. I think our criminal justice system is too obsessed with not "blaming" the mentally ill for their actions, and ignoring the risk to the community. When someone is killed, it really doesn't make a difference to them or their family whether the killer was mentally ill or not.

[BillJasper]

See, I disagree. These people will still try to kill others, but without guns, especially semiautomatic ones, they'd probably be a lot less effective at it.

I'm not pro-gun nor have I ever been pro-Second Amendment, thinking it is an outdated concept. But if you don't figure out a way to diagnose these people before they go off there will always be tragedies like these.

[panerd]

Yeah, sort of get it (though maybe an extreme beat down to stop it).

I guess I just don't get where these persoanl attacks were. The thread was pretty much just two sides of an issue. If people really want to wrap themselves up in 24/7 news coverage of something whose facts will become clear by tomorrow and don't want their speculation derailed by gun control fine. But boxings and the over the top reaction just seemed a bit strange.

Oh well I will probably just duck out of this thread. I have been on the outside quite a few times and watched people try to understand what causes the once every 6-7 month suspensions and just thought it was kind of pointless. So I guess I should heed my own advice.

[sterlingice]

I don't have a strong opinion on the gun control thing but if there is a real, practical issue here I think it's this one instead. It's the same one from VT, the Seattle shooting, the Tuscon shooting, and a lot of others. It's really almost impossible to force treatment on people until they act out violently, and by then it's obviously too late. You can "spot" them before they go over the edge, it sounds like his family did, but there's almost nothing anyone can do about it until they enter the criminal justice system. I think our criminal justice system is too obsessed with not "blaming" the mentally ill for their actions, and ignoring the risk to the community. When someone is killed, it really doesn't make a difference to them or their family whether the killer was mentally ill or not.

But at the same time, I think there's a wide gulf between "might do it" and "will do it" and we start towards the legislating thought crime problem.

SI

[sterlingice]

I guess I just don't get where these persoanl attacks were. The thread was pretty much just two sides of an issue. If people really want to wrap themselves up in 24/7 news coverage of something whose facts will become clear by tomorrow and don't want their speculation derailed by gun control fine. But boxings and the over the top reaction just seemed a bit strange.

Oh well I will probably just duck out of this thread. I have been on the outside quite a few times and watched people try to understand what causes the once every 6-7 month suspensions and just thought it was kind of pointless. So I guess I should heed my own advice.

Oh, since this is a thread for political and personal attacks: Mizzou Sucks :D

SI

[molson]

But at the same time, I think there's a wide gulf between "might do it" and "will do it" and we start towards the legislating thought crime problem.

SI

Sure, it's a balance, we can't round up everyone with ADD and lock them up as a security measure, I just think at the moment, the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

there's only one solution. ban summer movies

[panerd]

Oh, since this is a thread for political and personal attacks: Mizzou Sucks :D

SI

Yeah I guess the thread title does give someone an out when the predictable personal attack does end up happening. "What am I in trouble for? The thread said it was intended for personal attacks!" :)

[Ksyrup]

I don't have a strong opinion on the gun control thing but if there is a real, practical issue here I think it's this one instead. It's the same one from VT, the Seattle shooting, the Tuscon shooting, and a lot of others. It's really almost impossible to force treatment on people until they act out violently, and by then it's obviously too late. You can "spot" them before they go over the edge, it sounds like his family did, but there's almost nothing anyone can do about it until they enter the criminal justice system. I think our criminal justice system is too obsessed with not "blaming" the mentally ill for their actions, and ignoring the risk to the community. When someone is killed, it really doesn't make a difference to them or their family whether the killer was mentally ill or not.

Yep, I remember we had a very good discussion about this issue in the VT thread. At some point, I think we are going to have to look long and hard at how much freedom we may have to take from someone who has a mental illness and either isn't willing to be treated or is acting bizarrely despite treatment. But it's obviously a slippery slope and one there is no real practical answer for. As I recall in the VT case, there were all sorts of warning signs. Here, that may or may not have been the case. We may find out that the school knew something and that was related to his withdrawal, or we may find out it was just something that the family privately worried about.

The way the mom responded, I have to believe there was some direct communication from the son that lead her to instantly know he did it. Some "goodbye" message or something.

[gstelmack]

Guy Fawlkes

And of course the Colombine shootings were all illegal weapons.

But yes, can we just reference the VT thread and be done with the discussion? I remember that as a good rational presentation of the arguments from both sides for the most part, no reason to do that whole thread over again.

[Edward64]

Would this be a good thread to bring up how idiotic people are that brings babies to midnight movies. Makes me want to slap people.

I remember going to see remake of Dawn of the Dead one evening after work in a small town. There was a family that brought 2 young kids to the showing - definitely under < 10. I was thinking WTF ...

[Radii]

I guess I still don't see what was so bad about the discussion in the previous thread. Hope this is the place to ask these questions and not get immediately boxed? (I have never been boxed so I hope I don't come across as a troll here.) The gun control thing was pretty predictable but like a few others I have no idea what caused all the uproar and account suspensions. Noop seemed to be warned by Skydog and kept pushing the issue anyways but Logan seemed to just make a passing comment that I am making here. I realize this has become a joke thread but since Quik set it up it seems like a decent enough place for someone to answer. shrug

I can't speak for Ben, I haven't talked to him, but I remember the Gabrielle Giffords Arizona shooting thread and the terribly ugly turn it took for a time and I'm personally very happy to see the discussion on the tragedy today was handled in a way to prevent that from happening.

[JediKooter]

Interesting Colorado gun law facts.

(Yes, guns don't kill people... but guns being easily available to those who want to kill people doesn't help matters much.)

I had no idea that the assault weapons ban expired. I have no problems with the second amendment, I do however, question anyone that thinks they need an assault rifle.

Unless you're the A-Team, I see no need for non military or non police to have them. I could be missing something though.

[RomaGoth]

I had no idea that the assault weapons ban expired. I have no problems with the second amendment, I do however, question anyone that thinks they need an assault rifle.

Unless you're the A-Team, I see no need for non military or non police to have them. I could be missing something though.

Some people just like to collect them, but should they not be operational at that point just to be safe?

[lungs]

Another university student goes on a rampage. When will people wise up and realize that institutions of high learning are nothing but terrorist training camps where child molestation is common?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The Second Amendment says nothing about limiting the type or amount of arms we are allowed.

That said, I feel it is my right as a Patriotic American to purchase enriched uranium and a couple hundred anti-aircraft missiles. I should also be allowed to gift them to whomever I please, as it is their right to bear these arms as well.

[bronconick]

I think we'd need a discussion on terms before really digging into guns.

For example, a "Semi-automatic" is a gun that chambers the next round, but requires you to pull the trigger to shoot again. An automatic allows you to just hold the trigger down and bullets continue to fire.

My hunting rifle (and almost every other hunter that I know) is a semi-automatic with state imposed limitations on how many bullets I can load while hunting (6 or less).

So realistically, saying "We need to ban all semi-automatic weapons" is a non-starter.

[EagleFan]

there's only one solution. ban summer movies

Ben has that kind of power?

:eek:

:devil:

[RomaGoth]

Another university student goes on a rampage. When will people wise up and realize that institutions of high learning are nothing but terrorist training camps where child molestation is common?

And parents/the government loans are footing the bill!!!!!

[Young Drachma]

Found a concealed carry forum talking about this, as I was curious. Naturally a bunch thought the idea would be 6-8 people with CCW permits shooting at dude. Not to mention tear gas, dude had body armor, a helmet and you couldn't even kick him in the balls to disable him because he had a groin protector for goodness sakes. The only way you could get him is if he was behind you. And you'd really only have one opportunity to get a clear shot and you'd just have to hope it didn't devolve into a shootout of some kind.

This isn't a situation where the conceal carry crowd should really be holding up as an example of how CCW would solve everything. Because in the case of Gabby Giffords in Arizona, a CCW guy was there but didn't want to shoot because he didn't have a clear shot and didn't want anyone to think he was the 2nd shooter.

And now you have this situation.

[Passacaglia]

This isn't a situation where the conceal carry crowd should really be holding up as an example of how CCW would solve everything. Because in the case of Gabby Giffords in Arizona, a CCW guy was there but didn't want to shoot because he didn't have a clear shot and didn't want anyone to think he was the 2nd shooter.



On the other hand....


I live in Mayberry U.S.A. so I'm not so much worried about copycats (especially since people here are armed to the teeth and I know dozens of people who conceal carry) as much as I just felt far less interested in seeing it.

[Jon]

To be fair, though, a fair amount of legislation was enacted as a response to tragic events.

The support for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went up dramatically after Schwerner, Cheney, and Goodman disappeared.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

This is one of the tragedies that would have been difficult to stop. Even with extremely strict gun control laws that would have prevented him from having guns I believe he would have just built a bomb.

Perhaps the only thing that could have come into play would be a system to investigate when an individual purchases several weapons in a short time period. This guy seems intelligent enough though that he likely would have known the laws and flew under the radar.

Still, saying "it wouldn't have stopped this" doesn't mean that regulations and controls are a bad thing. The Constitution is a living document. Amendments have been changed and clarified. We can easily retain the right to bear arms while controlling what arms we bear and the methods of obtaining them.

[sterlingice]

It turns out that we can even pass laws without having to amend the constitution. Fancy that. In fact we do it all the time (well, maybe not this Congress).

SI

[M GO BLUE!!!]

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Not making the nation better.
Not fixing problems.
Not getting people employed.
Not helping Americans in any way, shape or form.

Just getting rid of the President.

[Chubby]

I heard Joe Paterno came to this guy in a dream and told him to do it.

[sterlingice]

We need to do this "thread for personal and political attacks" thing more often :D

SI

[Kodos]

Gun Deaths: A Familiar American*Experience - National News - ABC News Radio (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/gun-deaths-a-familiar-american-experience.html)

Gun Deaths: A Familiar American Experience

Hemera/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- One of the most depressing aspects of the shooting rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., is just how familiar it all is to the American experience.

We’ve seen it so many times, the body counts, the candlelight vigils, the search for motive, the gun control debate. The numbers may be different this time – 12 dead, four guns, 6,000 rounds of ammunition purchased online — but in an effort to put this heartbreak into a national context, here are some other numbers to consider.

In America, over one dozen guns are legally sold every minute of every day.

There are almost 300 million privately-owned firearms in this country — that’s almost enough to arm every man, woman and child — but while there is a gun in four out of every 10 of American homes, only a small percentage of owners have most of the weapons, with the average collection swelling in recent years to around seven guns per owner.

With this massive supply, prices have dropped. The cost of suspected gunman James Holmes’ massive arsenal was $3,000. And with bullets going for around 50 cents a piece, he could fill the 100-round magazine on his AR-15 rifle for around the cost of a tank of gas.

The National Rifle Association is quick to associate more guns with less crime, saying that since the early 90’s, when many states relaxed their weapon laws, violent crime has dropped 70 percent. Despite the rampages on campuses and military bases, as well as the hail of gang bullets in Chicago that has killed over 200 so far this year, the national murder rate is at a 47-year-low.

But on the other side of the argument, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a non-profit organization, points out that Americans still kill each other with guns at a level that is staggering compared to the rest of humanity.

[B]A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is at 19.5 percent, almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest nations combined.

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

But regardless, polls show that public attitudes don’t change, even after a mass slaughter like this. Forty-nine percent say it’s more important to protect gun rights while 45 percent favor tighter gun control.

But no one of any political stripe can deny the human cost of our collective trigger fingers.

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, in the 44 years since Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot to death, bullets have ended the lives of more than one million people — including 12 in Aurora, Colo., who came together at midnight, just looking to cheer for a superhero.

Read On ABC News Radio: Gun Deaths: A Familiar American*Experience - National News - ABC News Radio (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/gun-deaths-a-familiar-american-experience.html#ixzz21IHDMg1K)

[RainMaker]

I'd start by saying I think the concealed carry people who think that a bunch of Rambos are going to pop up and save the day are clueless. Life doesn't play out like a hero in a movie.

On the other hand, I have changed my stance a bit on gun control. I just don't think it would do that much. Yes I do think it should be difficult for a mentally ill person to buy one. I do think we should not let violent criminals buy them. And I do think there should be reasonable restrictions on the type of guns that are sold.

But banning guns doesn't seem plausible. Chicago had a famous handgun ban up till a year or so ago and it never lowered our murder rate. People still shot people all the time. And if you make it a federal law, the guns will just come up from Mexico and Central America. We've made drugs illegal and it's still pretty easy to come by them if you really want. At least with our current system there is some record-keeping and some oversight.

There is also the case of what to do with all the guns out there. Is the government going to run into everyone's home and round them up? You will still have millions of guns in homes, being passed around, and so on.

Ultimately if someone wants to kill someone with a gun, they'll find a way to do it. Just like if they want to purchase heroin and inject themselves, they'll find a way to do it. I'm all for making things more difficult in certain cases and do support legislation on things like automatic weapons. But I also don't think some huge gun control bill is going to stop criminals from acquiring and using guns. The reason they are criminals is because they don't care about the laws.

If anything the focus should be on mental health which seems to be the one constant in a lot of these shooting sprees.

[britrock88]

Kodos: statistical figures like those are the greatest half-truths around. I'm sure our numbers are still bad, though.

The 19.5% gun murder rate: this means that one-fifth of all murders are by guns? By citing this, are we celebrating the 80% of American murders and (based on the phrasing, apparently close to 100% of) international murders that are accomplished by other means?

The 80-87% figures: of the 23 wealthiest nations in the world, what is our share of the population in general? The raw numbers are meaningless without an anchor that standardizes for population sizes.

[JPhillips]

the-geography-of-gun-deaths (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/)

This comes from Jan 2011, but I found it interesting.

[molson]

The gun control debate just seems opportunistic based on what happened, but I don't think it really has to do with anything. Law abiding people without a documented and dangerous mental illness are always going to amass a bunch of weapons. There's almost zero real sentiment to ban access to weapons for even law abiding people. Norway has stricter gun control regulations, and today's the 1-year anniversary of their own mass killing. These things are so rare statistically that there probably isn't a way to attribute a some larger common thread that ties them all together, but I don't think it's whether or not you have to wait 7 days for a background check or what level of crime removes your gun rights. Maybe at the ordinary street violence level you can make more of a difference with access laws and harsher punishments for the use of a gun in a crime, but I don't think the gun control debate addresses the "well-educated non-criminal mass killer"

[sterlingice]

I think it's a good excuse to have a gun control debate, but not necessarily to address this particular instance. We should always be looking for opportunities for good discourse that can improve society.

Nutjob today will be able to get readily available guns. If we banned all guns starting tomorrow, nutjobs will still be able to get readily available guns because they are so prevalent. And I don't think anyone is advocating banning all guns starting tomorrow except the most ardent of supporters. Guns are easily accessible and will continue to be for the near future.

So, two points. First is that any change today resonates towards the future. I was talking to someone about how, sure, if you increase fuel efficiency starting with just today's cars, that doesn't help the big polluters still on the road. But what about in 10 or 20 years when most of those cars cease working and cannot be repaired? Then someone who was driving a 1985 gas guzzler will be replacing it with a more fuel efficient car for lack of the ability to get something else. Same with weapons: yes, there are tons out there right now and they aren't going to be confiscated or even (snicker) voluntarily turned in. However what about in 20 years if we don't allow certain arms: when we have kids or our kids have kids, they won't face the same world and the same problems if we improve it for the better.

Secondly, I think (and I know there's a lot of room for debate here) that there's very little societal value for you and I, common people, to have access to automatic weapons. And I also think there's very little societal value for the populace to have access to concealed weapons.

SI

[Julio Riddols]

What I have been trying to figure out as this story has unfolded is how did this guy obtain so much ammunition, weaponry, and other things with which to create such an arsenal? Apparently his apartment was so booby trapped with bombs and fluids and more ammunition he could have created his own little army.

I don't like guns, have never shot one, and probably never will - but I don't think gun control is going to do anything to stop people from getting what they want by some means. The people that commit these crimes are not gonna just give up because its a little harder to get a gun. They'll find some other means of creating bloodshed if they have to. Once someone who is crazy gets it in their head that they want to commit an atrocity like this, I am pretty sure their regard for obeying the law goes right out the window. No matter how much you try to keep guns out of peoples hands, these people will always find ways to get them, and whatever else they think they need in order to put their plans into action.

[gstelmack]

This was fun to peruse: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf (death rates in 2010)

Accidental firearms discharge: 600
Suicide by firearms: 19,308
Suicide by other means: 18,485
Assault by firearms: 11,015
Assault by other means: 5,050
Undetermined firearms: 246
Drug-induced: 37,792 (I didn't dig deep, but I believe this is medication & illegal & whatever else in one figure)
Alcohol induced: 25,440
Work injuries: 4,066
Falls: 25,903
Transportation Accidents: 37,661 (35,080 by auto)

So, for example, for every 2 people intentionally murdered by a firearm, 1 person was intentionally murdered by other means. For every person who committed suicide with a firearm, another one found a different means. Guns may be convenient, but it's clear when they aren't available folks will find a way.

[spleen1015]

More deaths by cars than guns. We should ban cars.

[JediKooter]

More deaths by drugs, we should ban...hey is that the phone?

[Rizon]

More deaths by cars than guns. We should ban cars.

No, just Asians and old people.

[lungs]

I heard some concern about how the guy was able to get so much ammunition in so short of a time. Really, what's the big deal about that? He obviously didn't need all 6000 rounds he bought in order to do the damage that he did. Some people target practice as a hobby and can easily go through that much ammunition in a month.

How is any amount of gun control going to stop a guy like this that had a squeaky clean record beforehand?

[Apathetic Lurker]

Another university student goes on a rampage. When will people wise up and realize that institutions of high learning are nothing but terrorist training camps where child molestation is common?


I'm stealing this for FB...

[gstelmack]

From rowech in the other thread, we have Costanza weighing in at TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht). And he says:

Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence -

Off by a factor of 3, and that's only if you include the suicides. People killing other people with guns is about 1/8 his number, based on what I quoted above.

[JPhillips]

The gun control debate just seems opportunistic based on what happened, but I don't think it really has to do with anything. Law abiding people without a documented and dangerous mental illness are always going to amass a bunch of weapons. There's almost zero real sentiment to ban access to weapons for even law abiding people. Norway has stricter gun control regulations, and today's the 1-year anniversary of their own mass killing. These things are so rare statistically that there probably isn't a way to attribute a some larger common thread that ties them all together, but I don't think it's whether or not you have to wait 7 days for a background check or what level of crime removes your gun rights. Maybe at the ordinary street violence level you can make more of a difference with access laws and harsher punishments for the use of a gun in a crime, but I don't think the gun control debate addresses the "well-educated non-criminal mass killer"

It is opportunistic, but what's the problem with that? We always respond to big events. Is it wrong to talk of flood control after a flood?

You're right that we can't ever stop all of these attacks, but we can make it harder. That's the premise of all crime control. I can't stop people from breaking into my home, but I can look the doors and windows. Each additional barrier reduces the number of people willing to jump through the hoops to commit the crime. Making drum magazines and assault rifles won't guarantee that no one will use them in a crime, but it will make it more difficult. If that was the law before the Aurora massacre Holmes couldn't have prepared in the same manner. Maybe he would have found a way around those barriers, but maybe he would have been less lethal.

I would have a problem making that trade off for all guns, but I don't mind losing access to assault rifles and drum magazines if it will reduce the odds of this happening again.

[gstelmack]

You're right that we can't ever stop all of these attacks, but we can make it harder. That's the premise of all crime control. I can't stop people from breaking into my home, but I can look the doors and windows. Each additional barrier reduces the number of people willing to jump through the hoops to commit the crime. Making drum magazines and assault rifles won't guarantee that no one will use them in a crime, but it will make it more difficult. If that was the law before the Aurora massacre Holmes couldn't have prepared in the same manner. Maybe he would have found a way around those barriers, but maybe he would have been less lethal.

Colombine was committed with all illegal guns.

[gstelmack]

More people killed by one pickup than Holmes: 14 die when packed pickup truck crashes in Texas - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/us/texas-truck-wreck/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

Not to put down or try to make this tragedy any less than it is, but just to point out that guns aren't necessary for these kinds of events.

[Kodos]

From rowech in the other thread, we have Costanza weighing in at TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht). And he says:



Off by a factor of 3, and that's only if you include the suicides. People killing other people with guns is about 1/8 his number, based on what I quoted above.

To his credit, he did try to correct his error later:

jason alexander ‏@IJasonAlexander

Correction all: the 100,000 guns deaths should be 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum. My bad. Number still sucks.

[spleen1015]

Take the guns away and this crazy son of a botch would have driven his car through the wall of the theater or walked in throwing Molotov cocktails made from vodka.

Crazy people are going to do crazy shit with or without guns.

[gstelmack]

To his credit, he did try to correct his error later:

jason alexander ‏@IJasonAlexander

Correction all: the 100,000 guns deaths should be 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum. My bad. Number still sucks.

Ah, injury, he added injuries to it. Maybe he's close now that he's expanded his definition enough.

[gstelmack]

I would have a problem making that trade off for all guns, but I don't mind losing access to assault rifles and drum magazines if it will reduce the odds of this happening again.

One other point here: Norway has laws that pretty much limit guns to hunting weapons, and just hit the one year anniversary of a much worse tragedy.

I don't think strict gun control laws would do a darn thing to limit these incidents, they'd just be accomplished via other means (and we've had someone drive an SUV into a crowd not too many years back here in the Triangle).

We have enough domestic violence involving knives, fists, and just plain pushing people down staircases to make me think that guns are nothing more than a tool of convenience, people just grab something else when one is not available.

None of it will change the root cause of the problem(s).

[molson]

It is opportunistic, but what's the problem with that? We always respond to big events. Is it wrong to talk of flood control after a flood?

You're right that we can't ever stop all of these attacks, but we can make it harder. That's the premise of all crime control. I can't stop people from breaking into my home, but I can look the doors and windows. Each additional barrier reduces the number of people willing to jump through the hoops to commit the crime. Making drum magazines and assault rifles won't guarantee that no one will use them in a crime, but it will make it more difficult. If that was the law before the Aurora massacre Holmes couldn't have prepared in the same manner. Maybe he would have found a way around those barriers, but maybe he would have been less lethal.

I would have a problem making that trade off for all guns, but I don't mind losing access to assault rifles and drum magazines if it will reduce the odds of this happening again.

I could be wrong but from what I've read, the guns he used weren't a part of the assault weapon ban (one of them had a modified version that was legal during the assault weapons ban, and it's not clear whether the version he used was the "legal" version.) But either way, there's a lot of semi-automatic, high powered firearms that have legitimate hunting purposes, were legal under the assault weapon ban, and like in Norway, law abiding people are always going to have access to that stuff unless there's some real dramatic change that we've never had before. The contemporary gun control debate just operates at a level way below that, I think, it's just reality that this guy could have had a trove of dangerous weapons under even a much stricter, European-style system and we're nowhere close to even that. That's why I think bringing that up is opportunistic, not because it's bad, just because the gun control debate doesn't really address this type of issue at all.

[Kodos]

I guess I don't see how removing the most lethal firearms (semi-automatic guns) from the equation wouldn't translate into at least a lower amount of casualties in some cases. If it can save even a few lives, isn't it worth pursuing?

[DaddyTorgo]

I guess I don't see how removing the most lethal firearms (semi-automatic guns) from the equation wouldn't translate into at least a lower amount of casualties in some cases. If it can save even a few lives, isn't it worth pursuing?

Because if i can't own a semi-automatic rifle (for which there is no reasonable usage by a civillian) then this isn't really AMURIKA - FUCK YEA!!! FREEDOM N GUNZ!!!

:rolleyes:

[Kodos]

To put it in terms of the Jerry Sandusky thread, wouldn't these unfortunate kids have been safer if police had removed his penis in 1998?

[lungs]

Because if i can't own a semi-automatic rifle (for which there is no reasonable usage by a civillian) then this isn't really AMURIKA - FUCK YEA!!! FREEDOM N GUNZ!!!

:rolleyes:

Saying that there is no reasonable usage by a civilian is not correct which somebody else already stated in this thread:

I think we'd need a discussion on terms before really digging into guns.

For example, a "Semi-automatic" is a gun that chambers the next round, but requires you to pull the trigger to shoot again. An automatic allows you to just hold the trigger down and bullets continue to fire.

My hunting rifle (and almost every other hunter that I know) is a semi-automatic with state imposed limitations on how many bullets I can load while hunting (6 or less).

So realistically, saying "We need to ban all semi-automatic weapons" is a non-starter.

[DaddyTorgo]

Before I go on my rant: Honestly, I don't have a fundamental issue with some level of responsible civillian gun-ownership. I don't. I've shot guns...in fact I would even like to own one. But as long as the NRA-nutballs have the laws moving BACKWARDS instead of FORWARDS, I don't want to be supporting that side, even in terms of just being a # on a piece of paper.

There's no rational reason for civillians to own anything other than handguns, shotguns for hunting, and hunting rifles. And the regulatory environment for obtaining and keeping those needs to be cleaned-up and standardized.

"Waaah waaah waaah...government tyranny...have to be able to risist...waaaah waah." - NEWSFUCKINGFLASH: IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO OPPRESS THE POPULACE, NO AMOUNT OF CIVILLIAN OWNERSHIP OF SEMIAUTO ASSAULT WEAPONS IS GOING TO STOP THEM. THEY HAVE TANKS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS YOU IDIOTS."

"BUT IT'S NOT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!" - That's because when the damn thing was written they were using muzzle-loading fucking muskets. One bullet at a time idiots. Let's get real strict constitutionalist and make that the standard for what a firearm relying on that protection has to adhere to? What's that - you don't want that? THEN STFU AND ACCEPT RESTRICTIONS ON SHIT THAT HAS NO PRACTICAL PURPOSE BEING IN CIVILLIAN HANDS!!

[Kodos]

So would you say that it is 1) more important to give hunters more effective hunting tools or 2) more important to give psychotic people less effective human killing tools?

[DaddyTorgo]

Saying that there is no reasonable usage by a civilian is not correct which somebody else already stated in this thread:

I was obviously using imprecise terminology - congratulations on being a firearms-terminology nazi. I should have said a "semi-automatic ASSAULT rifle."

[molson]

I guess I don't see how removing the most lethal firearms (semi-automatic guns) from the equation wouldn't translate into at least a lower amount of casualties in some cases. If it can save even a few lives, isn't it worth pursuing?

I guess it could but there's no realistic push to ban all semi-automatic weapons to all individuals. That's not happening, and it's hard to imagine it ever happening.

[lungs]

So would you say that it is 1) more important to give hunters more effective hunting tools or 2) more important to give psychotic people less effective human killing tools?

I'm generally against prohibiting something that will simply move the trade of the product to the black market.

I was obviously using imprecise terminology - congratulations on being a firearms-terminology nazi. I should have said a "semi-automatic ASSAULT rifle."

So I'm going to be a bigger firearms-terminology nazi here... but what constitutes an assault rifle? Semi-automatic is semi-automatic, no?

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm generally against prohibiting something that will simply move the trade of the product to the black market.



So I'm going to be a bigger firearms-terminology nazi here... but what constitutes an assault rifle? Semi-automatic is semi-automatic, no?

AR-15s, M-16s, etc.

There's no reason for civillians to have them. You don't need an AR-15 to go deer-hunting. Use a fucking traditional hunting rifle (say something by Winchester, or whatever the modern-day equivelent to that is), not something that the military developed for killing people.

[Glengoyne]

Because if i can't own a semi-automatic rifle (for which there is no reasonable usage by a civillian) then this isn't really AMURIKA - FUCK YEA!!! FREEDOM N GUNZ!!!

:rolleyes:


Isn't hunting a reasonable and legitimate use of a semi-automatic rifle? It just seems like a stretch to say there is no reasonable way for a civilian to use one of these.

What if I'm practicing my target shooting as a hobby, or maybe for the Olympics?

Just because you don't consider gun ownership and enthusiasm a worthy hobby, doesn't mean you are right.

Edit...I guess I was late to the party.

[DaddyTorgo]

Isn't hunting a reasonable and legitimate use of a semi-automatic rifle? It just seems like a stretch to say there is no reasonable way for a civilian to use one of these.

What if I'm practicing my target shooting as a hobby, or maybe for the Olympics?

Just because you don't consider gun ownership and enthusiasm a worthy hobby, doesn't mean you are right.

I already said I consider it a worthy hobby.

No - I don't think hunting necessitates that type of semi-automatic rifle. Our ancestors hunted more than we did, and they didn't have AR-15s.

Do they use AR-15s for shooting competitions in the Olympics now??

[Glengoyne]

I already said I consider it a worthy hobby.

No - I don't think hunting necessitates that type of semi-automatic rifle. Our ancestors hunted more than we did, and they didn't have AR-15s.

Do they use AR-15s for shooting competitions in the Olympics now??

Again, I was late to the party. You already addressed that you didn't mean all semi automatic rifles, just the Assault rifles.

As for the Olympics...I think the only semi autos are actually handguns, but it really isn't something I follow.

[Chief Rum]

I already said I consider it a worthy hobby.

No - I don't think hunting necessitates that type of semi-automatic rifle. Our ancestors hunted more than we did, and they didn't have AR-15s.

Do they use AR-15s for shooting competitions in the Olympics now??

If they did, I would watch.

[lungs]

AR-15s, M-16s, etc.

There's no reason for civillians to have them. You don't need an AR-15 to go deer-hunting. Use a fucking traditional hunting rifle (say something by Winchester, or whatever the modern-day equivelent to that is), not something that the military developed for killing people.

All guns were designed to kill people and other things. The only thing that makes a semi-automatic different is its speed. And I'd argue that it's not all that better than if somebody was using other types of action (though lever would be slower)

Should we only allow single-shot guns to be possessed by civilians? Look, I'm a flaming liberal but when it comes to gun control I think we're at a fairly reasonable level. Further control will do next to nothing besides drive the weapons trade to the black market. No, I don't believe citizens should be able to own heavy artillery. So where do we draw the line? I'd just say the line is just fine where it's at.

[gstelmack]

AR-15s, M-16s, etc.

But DEFINE them. That's part of the problem here. Is it the fact that they are semi-automatic? The fact that some are easy to convert to full-auto (despite being illegal to do so)? The large magazine? The barrel length? Do you see a difference between a 6-shot .357 revolver, 7-shot .45 Colt M1911A1, a 15-shot 9mm Beretta M92, a 10-shot AR-15, or a 30-shot AR-15? Where in that realm would you draw the line? Are 8-shot pump-action shotguns a problem? Does a hunting rifle need to be bolt-action? Is it okay if it has a magazine, or do you need to put each round in one at a time? Is there a caliber limit? Amount of charge in the cartridge (so velocity limit)?

As pointed out these sorts of restrictions were in place for the Norway massacre last year which was far worse than any similar incident in the US. And the Unabomber did not fire a single shot. The original assault weapons ban was in place during both the North Hollywood shootout and the Colombine massacre. Heck, for that matter 9/11 was accomplished with boxcutters.

The evidence just does not point to stopping these sorts of incidents, they are aberrations where the gun happened to be the weapon of choice. Talking about more typical daily violence might be more interesting, but even there the evidence shows that when other options are available besides a firearm, the incident will still occur (see the suicide numbers above for one example of many). Because these involve much smaller numbers of victims (so a single-shot weapon would suffice), you'd need far more egregious laws to get the guns out of them, yet still not likely reduce the number of incidents by any noticable means, just change their nature.

[DaddyTorgo]

Again, I was late to the party. You already addressed that you didn't mean all semi automatic rifles, just the Assault rifles.

As for the Olympics...I think the only semi autos are actually handguns, but it really isn't something I follow.

Aaah okay - I missed that that was your point. :D

[molson]

But DEFINE them. That's part of the problem here. Is it the fact that they are semi-automatic? The fact that some are easy to convert to full-auto (despite being illegal to do so)? The large magazine? The barrel length? Do you see a difference between a 6-shot .357 revolver, 7-shot .45 Colt M1911A1, a 15-shot 9mm Beretta M92, a 10-shot AR-15, or a 30-shot AR-15? Where in that realm would you draw the line? Are 8-shot pump-action shotguns a problem? Does a hunting rifle need to be bolt-action? Is it okay if it has a magazine, or do you need to put each round in one at a time? Is there a caliber limit? Amount of charge in the cartridge (so velocity limit)?

As pointed out these sorts of restrictions were in place for the Norway massacre last year which was far worse than any similar incident in the US. And the Unabomber did not fire a single shot. The original assault weapons ban was in place during both the North Hollywood shootout and the Colombine massacre. Heck, for that matter 9/11 was accomplished with boxcutters.

The evidence just does not point to stopping these sorts of incidents, they are aberrations where the gun happened to be the weapon of choice. Talking about more typical daily violence might be more interesting, but even there the evidence shows that when other options are available besides a firearm, the incident will still occur (see the suicide numbers above for one example of many). Because these involve much smaller numbers of victims (so a single-shot weapon would suffice), you'd need far more egregious laws to get the guns out of them, yet still not likely reduce the number of incidents by any noticable means, just change their nature.

I know just about nothing about guns but was reading just now about after the assault weapon ban, the gun manufacturers were able to transform a lot of "assault weapons" into regular legal "semi-automatic weapons" with largely cosmetic changes. I don't know if there's just no meaningful place to draw that line, if the legislature is bad at drafting legislation, or if the gun lobby got that stuff in, or if it's a combination of all three. And maybe adding red tape to the transactions theoretically slows down violence, but it's not like we have widespread assault weapon conflicts in this country. For the one guy who plans for months and has no criminal record, he'll be able to get a ton of stuff regardless of the regulations in place. Maybe that's a scary thought, but in a free society, people are going to be free to plan and execute bad stuff, there's not always an easy solution to "solve" that, regardless of what the TSA or the gun control lobby think. Some events just suck.

[panerd]

There's no rational reason for civillians to own anything other than handguns, shotguns for hunting, and hunting rifles. And the regulatory environment for obtaining and keeping those needs to be cleaned-up and standardized.

"Waaah waaah waaah...government tyranny...have to be able to risist...waaaah waah." - NEWSFUCKINGFLASH: IF THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO OPPRESS THE POPULACE, NO AMOUNT OF CIVILLIAN OWNERSHIP OF SEMIAUTO ASSAULT WEAPONS IS GOING TO STOP THEM. THEY HAVE TANKS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS YOU IDIOTS."



Have you ever stopped to think why there is no government tyranny? Could you at least concede part of it could be the number of civilian guns? You don't think a well armed populace makes them think twice about some ideas? You don't think some ruthless dictators rule with an iron fist due to the lack of guns? You don't think the military and police might think twice about engaging in a war with fellow Americans armed to the teeth? (Especially when they would be killing their neighbors) How are those tanks and helicopter gunships working against a country about 1/10 of the size of the United States right now? Mission accomplished right?

I should have prefaced mine like you did yours with the fact that I don't hold the NRA line either and think some of their stances are pretty ludicrous. But I just hate to see people blow off the real purpose of the second amendment like an armed populace isn't desirable to prevent governments from overstepping their bounds. And I certainly don't think it is a slam dunk non starter like you do.

[Maple Leafs]

Have you ever stopped to think why there is no government tyranny? Could you at least concede part of it could be the number of civilian guns? You don't think a well armed populace makes them think twice about some ideas? You don't think some ruthless dictators rule with an iron fist due to the lack of guns? You don't think the military and police might think twice about engaging in a war with fellow Americans armed to the teeth?
I'd just like to point out tha a.) this opinion is fairly commonly held and I've read similar arguments in various places over the past few days, and b.) as a Canadian, this reads as completely insane.

[JPhillips]

We already agree that there are some weapons too dangerous for civilian use. These weapons are illegal and there are very few instances of them being used in crimes in the U.S. When was the last crime with a RPG? Hand grenades? A .50 caliber machine gun? You can't convince me that banning the sale of an item won't lessen the number available.

Banning large drum magazines and assault rifles(I'm fine with the definition used in 1994) won't stop all mass killings. It will, though, make them somewhat more difficult with a tradeoff of losing access. I think that tradeoff is worth it because hunters and target shooters will still have choices.

[panerd]

I'd just like to point out tha a.) this opinion is fairly commonly held and I've read similar arguments in various places over the past few days, and b.) as a Canadian, this reads as completely insane.

I must of missed when Canada banned firearms. I was getting at DT's rant about how an armed populace is a dated concept and really pointless nowadays. I even said I think some of the NRA's stances are out there but I support the basic principle of armed citizens to prevent someone (in the future) from thinking they have too much power.

I would argue that Canada's government is sometimes held in check by an armed populace.

[Noop]

Second Amendment... I am a fan.

[Radii]

Other arguments about the second amendment aside, it has never once crossed my mind that the fact that we have lots of civilians walking around with guns helps prevent our government from tyranny. Upon reading this suggestion from someone else, my reaction was to stop, read it again, and say "what the fuck?" many times to myself.

I'd love to hear of an oppressive or tyrannical idea that "the government" may have been considering and the fact that people have guns ever even entered the minds of anyone involved in the decision. This sounds unbelievably insane to me.

[Noop]

The second amendment, in my opinion, should be exercised when the government decides (or tries) to remove your ability to speak out against them, i.e. first amendment.

[molson]

Other arguments about the second amendment aside, it has never once crossed my mind that the fact that we have lots of civilians walking around with guns helps prevent our government from tyranny. Upon reading this suggestion from someone else, my reaction was to stop, read it again, and say "what the fuck?" many times to myself.

I'd love to hear of an oppressive or tyrannical idea that "the government" may have been considering and the fact that people have guns ever even entered the minds of anyone involved in the decision. This sounds unbelievably insane to me.

It's why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place so it isn't that insane. We've done well as a country, things are stable, and there's only an extremely remote possibility we'll ever have an armed citizen's revolt in this country in our lifetime. That's a good thing. There's nothing Congress is going to pass tomorrow that's going to cause revolt in the streets. I'm not sure what point exactly though enough people for a constitutional amendment all agree, "well, we did it everyone, we'll clearly be a stable restrained Democracy forever, so let's repeal the 2nd amendment." I personally would never vote for such a thing. And we have the lowest violent crime rates at the moment that we've had in this country in 50 years or so, so the timing isn't ideal for it anyway, the occasional crazy person aside.

As for the future, I don't think it's an argument against reasonable gun control laws in the meantime or anything, but nothing's permanent, nations rise and fall, shit goes down eventually.

[Sun Tzu]

In my opinion, the thinking behind the idea that this maniac said to himself...

"Gee, I'd really like to kill a bunch of people, but whether I actually carry it out is largely dependent on my country's gun laws."

...is asinine. The guy was going to do whatever he wanted, with whatever weapons he wanted, regardless of whether Uncle Sam says it's legal or not.

[JPhillips]

We know he bought guns at gun stores and online. If those methods weren't available where would he get the drum magazine? This isn't a hardcore criminal with contacts to get black market weapons.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Have you ever stopped to think why there is no government tyranny? Could you at least concede part of it could be the number of civilian guns? You don't think a well armed populace makes them think twice about some ideas? You don't think some ruthless dictators rule with an iron fist due to the lack of guns? You don't think the military and police might think twice about engaging in a war with fellow Americans armed to the teeth? (Especially when they would be killing their neighbors) How are those tanks and helicopter gunships working against a country about 1/10 of the size of the United States right now? Mission accomplished right?

I should have prefaced mine like you did yours with the fact that I don't hold the NRA line either and think some of their stances are pretty ludicrous. But I just hate to see people blow off the real purpose of the second amendment like an armed populace isn't desirable to prevent governments from overstepping their bounds. And I certainly don't think it is a slam dunk non starter like you do.

Other arguments about the second amendment aside, it has never once crossed my mind that the fact that we have lots of civilians walking around with guns helps prevent our government from tyranny. Upon reading this suggestion from someone else, my reaction was to stop, read it again, and say "what the fuck?" many times to myself.

I'd love to hear of an oppressive or tyrannical idea that "the government" may have been considering and the fact that people have guns ever even entered the minds of anyone involved in the decision. This sounds unbelievably insane to me.

I'm not sure of the exact name of the logical argument/fallacy here, but reads to me:

1) If A is true, then B
2) B is true
3) Therefore, A must also be true

1) Because of gun carrying citizens, the gov't will not become oppressive
2) The gov't has not become oppressive
3) It's because of the gun carrying citizens

Could it be part of the reasoning? I guess, I'm just not following the logic.

[Sun Tzu]

We know he bought guns at gun stores and online. If those methods weren't available where would he get the drum magazine? This isn't a hardcore criminal with contacts to get black market weapons.

I think he would have just chosen another method to carry out the destruction. Bombs perhaps? Some kind of chemical? People were doing this same exact crap for thousands of years before firearms.

[panerd]

Other arguments about the second amendment aside, it has never once crossed my mind that the fact that we have lots of civilians walking around with guns helps prevent our government from tyranny. Upon reading this suggestion from someone else, my reaction was to stop, read it again, and say "what the fuck?" many times to myself.

I'd love to hear of an oppressive or tyrannical idea that "the government" may have been considering and the fact that people have guns ever even entered the minds of anyone involved in the decision. This sounds unbelievably insane to me.

That's right history has shown oppression everywhere on the planet throughout the history of civilization. But this is the USA so it will never happen here.

[JediKooter]

Perhaps if the current laws were enforced better and the guidelines for getting a gun were at the very least, as stringent as getting a drivers license, I think would be a good start. Completion of mandatory gun safety classes should be a prerequisite before you can purchase any gun in any state. That's just my opinion though.

[DaddyTorgo]

Have you ever stopped to think why there is no government tyranny? Could you at least concede part of it could be the number of civilian guns? You don't think a well armed populace makes them think twice about some ideas? You don't think some ruthless dictators rule with an iron fist due to the lack of guns? You don't think the military and police might think twice about engaging in a war with fellow Americans armed to the teeth? (Especially when they would be killing their neighbors) How are those tanks and helicopter gunships working against a country about 1/10 of the size of the United States right now? Mission accomplished right?

I should have prefaced mine like you did yours with the fact that I don't hold the NRA line either and think some of their stances are pretty ludicrous. But I just hate to see people blow off the real purpose of the second amendment like an armed populace isn't desirable to prevent governments from overstepping their bounds. And I certainly don't think it is a slam dunk non starter like you do.

An armed populace in this country, in this day and age, doesn't have any desireability at all. It doesn't do shit to prevent the government from doing anything.

[JPhillips]

I think he would have just chosen another method to carry out the destruction. Bombs perhaps? Some kind of chemical? People were doing this same exact crap for thousands of years before firearms.

But you can do things that will make it more difficult. That's what all crime prevention is about. Why bother locking your door when breakins have happened for hundreds of years?

[PilotMan]

An armed populace in this country, in this day and age, doesn't have any desireability at all. It doesn't do shit to prevent the government from doing anything.

Well, and on top of that, if there was ever an armed resistance the police, military, private security forces, along with private citizens who agree with the direction of the govt, that it would be shut down in short order, no matter how heavily armed the armed group was.

[Radii]

That's right history has shown oppression everywhere on the planet throughout the history of civilization. But this is the USA so it will never happen here.

I didn't say it couldn't happen here. I think, in the United States in the year 2012 (and for the last 125 years or so at least and maybe more) that members of our government do a damned thing because you or me or anyone else has a firearm is outdated and insane. If you were talking about 1777 then I suppose I misunderstood. I read your words as stating that our present day/modern government in its current form are considering, among other things, the fact that our populace is armed, and avoiding passing laws or taking executive actions that they otherwise might take.

On top of that:

You don't think the military and police might think twice about engaging in a war with fellow Americans armed to the teeth?

The idea that our military would think twice about engaging ANYONE because they are armed is fucking offensive to the US Military.

[Desnudo]

Gun Deaths: A Familiar American*Experience - National News - ABC News Radio (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/gun-deaths-a-familiar-american-experience.html)

Gun Deaths: A Familiar American Experience

Hemera/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- One of the most depressing aspects of the shooting rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., is just how familiar it all is to the American experience.

We’ve seen it so many times, the body counts, the candlelight vigils, the search for motive, the gun control debate. The numbers may be different this time – 12 dead, four guns, 6,000 rounds of ammunition purchased online — but in an effort to put this heartbreak into a national context, here are some other numbers to consider.

In America, over one dozen guns are legally sold every minute of every day.

There are almost 300 million privately-owned firearms in this country — that’s almost enough to arm every man, woman and child — but while there is a gun in four out of every 10 of American homes, only a small percentage of owners have most of the weapons, with the average collection swelling in recent years to around seven guns per owner.

With this massive supply, prices have dropped. The cost of suspected gunman James Holmes’ massive arsenal was $3,000. And with bullets going for around 50 cents a piece, he could fill the 100-round magazine on his AR-15 rifle for around the cost of a tank of gas.

The National Rifle Association is quick to associate more guns with less crime, saying that since the early 90’s, when many states relaxed their weapon laws, violent crime has dropped 70 percent. Despite the rampages on campuses and military bases, as well as the hail of gang bullets in Chicago that has killed over 200 so far this year, the national murder rate is at a 47-year-low.

But on the other side of the argument, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a non-profit organization, points out that Americans still kill each other with guns at a level that is staggering compared to the rest of humanity.

[B]A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is at 19.5 percent, almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest nations combined.

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

But regardless, polls show that public attitudes don’t change, even after a mass slaughter like this. Forty-nine percent say it’s more important to protect gun rights while 45 percent favor tighter gun control.

But no one of any political stripe can deny the human cost of our collective trigger fingers.

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, in the 44 years since Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot to death, bullets have ended the lives of more than one million people — including 12 in Aurora, Colo., who came together at midnight, just looking to cheer for a superhero.

Read On ABC News Radio: Gun Deaths: A Familiar American*Experience - National News - ABC News Radio (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/national-news/gun-deaths-a-familiar-american-experience.html#ixzz21IHDMg1K)

Who were 24 and 25 - Russia and Brazil? What happened the year before MLK was shot?

[Groundhog]

Have you ever stopped to think why there is no government tyranny? Could you at least concede part of it could be the number of civilian guns? You don't think a well armed populace makes them think twice about some ideas? You don't think some ruthless dictators rule with an iron fist due to the lack of guns? You don't think the military and police might think twice about engaging in a war with fellow Americans armed to the teeth? (Especially when they would be killing their neighbors) How are those tanks and helicopter gunships working against a country about 1/10 of the size of the United States right now? Mission accomplished right?


Yes, it is definitely our gun laws in Australia that has led to the brutal dictatorship we are currently suffering under. How could the founders of our nation have been so short-sighted!

Crazy. What is more likely; you are shot by a criminal with a legally purchased firearm, or you are required to take up arms against your government? I mean seriously.

Guns are 'in the wild' here, but the vast majority are either stolen from security guards (very common) or illegal imports, and incidents involving them are so rare as to be newsworthy whenever shots are fired, and the majority of the time it's the underworld types going at each other. I couldn't even imagine being in a situation involving a firearm (knock on wood) because it's just so uncommon. I haven't even seen a gun in Australia outside of being carried by policemen or farmers.

[DaddyTorgo]

I love the hyperbole that the "No regulations" side brings out. It's always about the 2nd Amendment and protecting us from some hypothetical tyrannical government.

That's fine and good...not saying I buy it, but okay...but does that really require that we make drum magazines and semi-to-full conversion kits and military-style assault rifles available to ciivillians?

It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing thing. I'm not even saying we ought to ban all guns or anything...I'm just saying that REASONABLE REGULATIONS might help (and certainly could not HURT) to reduce some of these mass-killings.

[Sun Tzu]

But you can do things that will make it more difficult. That's what all crime prevention is about. Why bother locking your door when breakins have happened for hundreds of years?

No no, you've got me all wrong. I'm not saying let's just go back to the old west days, where anyone can carry whatever the hell they want. I'm just saying that If gun laws were more stringent, this guy would have still found a way to do what he did. He just would have done it...differently. Maybe differently results in less deaths, maybe it results in more. I have no idea, but my thought is that sick people are going to do sick stuff. To me, blaming the gun laws comes off as an red herring in this whole matter.

[molson]

I love the hyperbole that the "No regulations" side brings out. It's always about the 2nd Amendment and protecting us from some hypothetical tyrannical government.

That's fine and good...not saying I buy it, but okay...but does that really require that we make drum magazines and semi-to-full conversion kits and military-style assault rifles available to ciivillians?

It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing thing. I'm not even saying we ought to ban all guns or anything...I'm just saying that REASONABLE REGULATIONS might help (and certainly could not HURT) to reduce some of these mass-killings.

I don't think anyone here is opposing reasonable regulations.

[stevew]

What ever happened to Cam?

[molson]

Well, and on top of that, if there was ever an armed resistance the police, military, private security forces, along with private citizens who agree with the direction of the govt, that it would be shut down in short order, no matter how heavily armed the armed group was.

Armed citizens definitely couldn't destroy the U.S. government straight up, but they could get attention and cause a lot of havoc, and the military doesn't remain loyal to a government forever, especially when they're ordered to slaughter civilians. If there was an armed revolt against an oppressive government here, and the military responded with brutal force, it's not like everything goes back to normal the next day like nothing happened, shit's on at that point and that story usually ends with some kind of regime change, eventually.

I don't think that really has much to do with gun control in a practical sense, because again, the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, and there will always be access to semi-automatic weapons, and there's a ton of assault weapons that will be out there for long after any ban - the gun control debate, though heated, is really just at the fringes (the country really isn't that different a place before and after the assault weapons ban, it's really not that big a deal), but just as a fun theoretical historical exercise, an armed American populace could definitely cause some problems for the government, and eventually take it down, through attrition.

[Maple Leafs]

I would argue that Canada's government is sometimes held in check by an armed populace.
You would argue wrong.

[gstelmack]

We know he bought guns at gun stores and online. If those methods weren't available where would he get the drum magazine? This isn't a hardcore criminal with contacts to get black market weapons.

Neither were the Colombine shooters, yet they managed to acquire illegal weapons to carry out their attacks.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I must of missed when Canada banned firearms. I was getting at DT's rant about how an armed populace is a dated concept and really pointless nowadays. I even said I think some of the NRA's stances are out there but I support the basic principle of armed citizens to prevent someone (in the future) from thinking they have too much power.

I would argue that Canada's government is sometimes held in check by an armed populace.

What about the United Kingdom? Sweden?

This is fucking crazy talk.

[Grover]

How long is it before someone pulls out the fake Hitler quote about disarming the citizens and populace to take over/invade a country?

[molson]

How long is it before someone pulls out the fake Hitler quote about disarming the citizens and populace to take over/invade a country?

I think you just did, to take on that dangerous strawmen under attack in this thread.

Edit: What kind of gun control do you want exactly? So far all I'm seeing is a sentiment to bring the assault weapon ban back. I don't think that's a huge drastic change that would bring peace to our streets, we had it already and crime is lower now than it was then. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons from private use, then we'd have stricter gun laws than pretty much all of Europe, and I don't see that happening any time soon. That's really what this debate is if you get down to the details. Whether people should be allowed to have semi-automatic weapons that have certain kinds of grips and other features that put them up in to the notorious "assault weapon" range. I'm not really against that, I wouldn't notice the difference either way, but, do you think that's a really critical issue in this country right now? Something that we need to be lectured about by more enlightened posters from other countries? It just seems like there's more emotion and looking down on gun owners, and looking down on a country that, like Norway, has a big gun/hunting culture, than practical application in these debates.....I mean, if the assault weapons ban comes back, is it all good? The country is better? The gun control advocates are happy? We could have bigger gun ownership restrictions, we're still going to have a ton of guns here. I don't, maybe the assault weapon ban made the country safer and better, it's possible, I just think it's a pretty minuscule difference, not as much as the rhetoric would suggest, and definitely not enough to warrant the vilification of gun owners or American gun laws. There's not a lot of crimes in this country that could not be committed with semi-automatic weapons but could be committed with assault weapons (including the one in Colorado)

[Groundhog]

Neither were the Colombine shooters, yet they managed to acquire illegal weapons to carry out their attacks.

I doubt the people they bought the guns off were high profile arms dealers either. The fact of the matter is that, obviously, it is far too easy to get your hands on weapons that no civillian should ever have.

[Grover]

I doubt the people they bought the guns off were high profile arms dealers either. The fact of the matter is that, obviously, it is far too easy to get your hands on weapons that no civillian should ever have.

Exactly. It's not as if when I was in high school buying a bag of weed I was going to some gigantic crime lord dealer. I was buying it from a fellow student.

[JPhillips]

Neither were the Colombine shooters, yet they managed to acquire illegal weapons to carry out their attacks.

Some people will be able to, but just because we can't make it impossible doesn't mean we should make it as easy as possible.

[Grover]

I think you just did, to take on that dangerous strawmen under attack in this thread.

Edit: What kind of gun control do you want exactly? So far all I'm seeing is a sentiment to bring the assault weapon ban back. I don't think that's a huge drastic change that would bring peace to our streets, we had it already and crime is lower now than it was then. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons from private use, then we'd have stricter gun laws than pretty much all of Europe, and I don't see that happening any time soon. That's really what this debate is if you get down to the details. Whether people should be allowed to have semi-automatic weapons that have certain kinds of grips and other features that put them up in to the notorious "assault weapon" range. I'm not really against that, I wouldn't notice the difference either way, but, do you think that's a really critical issue in this country right now? Something that we need to be lectured about by more enlightened posters from other countries? It just seems like there's more emotion and looking down on gun owners, and looking down on a country that, like Norway, has a big gun/hunting culture, than practical application in these debates.....I mean, if the assault weapons ban comes back, is it all good? The gun control advocates are happy? We could have bigger gun ownership restrictions, we're still going to have a ton of guns here.

Would I like to see all guns banned in the United States? Sure, but I know it's practically impossible and I know that banning something completely doesn't mean it will be impossible to get (see: prohibition, war on drugs). Banning all semi-automatic weapons would also be a huge mess.

We need reasonable regulations that make it more difficult for people to acquire these weapons. But how you go about enforcing them when you can still acquire them over the internet through Craig's List or any other means is the true issue of anything implemented.

I feel like it would be almost as pointless and costly as the war on drugs (I can still get cannabis any time I'd want it with ease). I like the idea of implementing long-term goals for reducing the number of weapons or the way they are purchased. Someone earlier in this thread equated it with high gas mileage cars. The theories are good, but would the practice match is my biggest concern.

This was probably pretty disjointed and non-sensical, but hey.

EDIT: But really, the first step should be to end the militarization of the war on drugs. Seriously.

[molson]

Would I like to see all guns banned in the United States? Sure, but I know it's practically impossible and I know that banning something completely doesn't mean it will be impossible to get (see: prohibition, war on drugs). Banning all semi-automatic weapons would also be a huge mess.

We need reasonable regulations that make it more difficult for people to acquire these weapons. But how you go about enforcing them when you can still acquire them over the internet through Craig's List or any other means is the true issue of anything implemented.

I feel like it would be almost as pointless and costly as the war on drugs (I can still get cannabis any time I'd want it with ease). I like the idea of implementing long-term goals for reducing the number of weapons or the way they are purchased. Someone earlier in this thread equated it with high gas mileage cars. The theories are good, but would the practice match is my biggest concern.

This was probably pretty disjointed and non-sensical, but hey.

No, that made sense. I am definitely pro-regulation, pro harsh-punishment for ANY gun crime, a required license for gun ownership. I just can't think of any realistic regulation that would keep THIS guy from having semi-automatic weapons. So the calls for general "more regulation!" just seems like opportunistic bullying, which for some reason I find a little off-putting even though I've never owned a gun and have never even seen a privately owned gun until I was an adult. I'm just difficult like that.

Edit: I do think it's kind of cool that we have a billion guns in this country and violent crime rates continue to fall off a cliff. It's like, we don't even need laws not to shoot each other dead that often. Which at some humanistic, maybe idealistic level, I like more than relying on stricter gun laws to keep us from killing each other. I mean, does the U.K. need stricter gun laws because they're a bunch of blood-thirsty savages that would just annihilate each other if only they had high enough caliber weaponry?

[PilotMan]

This whole argument is like the Clantons versus the Earps.

I can't imagine any of my gun toting friends booing Sam Elliott in his attempt to disarm the the Cowboys in Tombstone.

So the gunfight at the OK corral was a result of government attempted gun control. LOL!

The movies are so damn unrealistic.

[PilotMan]

Armed citizens definitely couldn't destroy the U.S. government straight up, but they could get attention and cause a lot of havoc, and the military doesn't remain loyal to a government forever, especially when they're ordered to slaughter civilians. If there was an armed revolt against an oppressive government here, and the military responded with brutal force, it's not like everything goes back to normal the next day like nothing happened, shit's on at that point and that story usually ends with some kind of regime change, eventually.

I don't think that really has much to do with gun control in a practical sense, because again, the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, and there will always be access to semi-automatic weapons, and there's a ton of assault weapons that will be out there for long after any ban - the gun control debate, though heated, is really just at the fringes (the country really isn't that different a place before and after the assault weapons ban, it's really not that big a deal), but just as a fun theoretical historical exercise, an armed American populace could definitely cause some problems for the government, and eventually take it down, through attrition.

Reminds me of my thought that if the US Civil war were to happen today, the UN would step in and essentially force the North to recognize the South and their acknowledge their right of independence.

No, you have a point, but not, I believe, without such a group being marginalized as a terrorist group not unlike the IRA. I don't think that the police or military use brutal force on a populace at all. We have learned from Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan that time and local populations haveto be won over, and that time is actually on the side of the government. Brutal force only works against the armed group in revolt, so I don't think it goes down quite how you see it.

[gstelmack]

No, that made sense. I am definitely pro-regulation, pro harsh-punishment for ANY gun crime, a required license for gun ownership. I just can't think of any realistic regulation that would keep THIS guy from having semi-automatic weapons. So the calls for general "more regulation!" just seems like opportunistic bullying, which for some reason I find a little off-putting even though I've never owned a gun and have never even seen a privately owned gun until I was an adult. I'm just difficult like that.

Exactly. I bring up things like Colombine to show that regulation won't stop these events. We have lots of shootings because we have lots of people and lots of crowded cities, not because we have lots of guns. Folks still find ways to kill each other and themselves plenty often enough when there is no gun around to do so.

However, guns are dangerous, and I have no problems with reasonable regulations like taking a safety course, tightly regulation certain weapons (for example, I'm okay with the very tight regulations on full-auto weapons), and harsh punishments for using one to commit a crime. But folks seem to think we can wave the magical lawmaker wand and make violent crime disappear, especially these types of incidents, and I think that's just living in fairytale land.

[DaddyTorgo]

Exactly. I bring up things like Colombine to show that regulation won't stop these events. We have lots of shootings because we have lots of people and lots of crowded cities, not because we have lots of guns. Folks still find ways to kill each other and themselves plenty often enough when there is no gun around to do so.

However, guns are dangerous, and I have no problems with reasonable regulations like taking a safety course, tightly regulation certain weapons (for example, I'm okay with the very tight regulations on full-auto weapons), and harsh punishments for using one to commit a crime. But folks seem to think we can wave the magical lawmaker wand and make violent crime disappear, especially these types of incidents, and I think that's just living in fairytale land.

That's not what folks think. Folks think that if you remove or restrict ONE OF the major tools used in these types of incidents that it will have the effect of lowering the number of incidents.

Sure...the wackos could turn to bomb-making, but bomb-making is much more complicated than buying a gun and some ammo. Requires more time and effort. Plus - there's the not-insignificant chance that the bomb-maker screws up and either makes a bomb that doesn't go off, or makes a bomb that detonates early, killing just him, or bringing him to the attention of police.

[JPhillips]

But folks seem to think we can wave the magical lawmaker wand and make violent crime disappear, especially these types of incidents, and I think that's just living in fairytale land.

Who?

I've specifically said that crimes will still happen, but we can lower the odds of a crime with a drum magazine or assault weapon. That's really all we do with the full auto ban. There are occasional crimes with full auto weapons, but they are harder to get. To me there isn't much difference between full auto and 100 round magazines.

[Young Drachma]

Former AZ Lawmaker Blames Aurora Victims For Shooting, Then Blames Gun Control | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/russell-pearce-blames-shooting-victims-facebook.php)

[sterlingice]

No no, you've got me all wrong. I'm not saying let's just go back to the old west days, where anyone can carry whatever the hell they want. I'm just saying that If gun laws were more stringent, this guy would have still found a way to do what he did. He just would have done it...differently. Maybe differently results in less deaths, maybe it results in more. I have no idea, but my thought is that sick people are going to do sick stuff. To me, blaming the gun laws comes off as an red herring in this whole matter.

Nothing particular to this response, but I think we're arguing about 3 different points here:

1) Guns serve a purpose in keeping the government from being tyrannical to us. (you know, like preventing them from torturing people except Gitmo or riots in the street except in Los Angeles or oppressing gun owners like Waco...)

2) Would this particular circumstance have been prevented by stricter gun control laws? Maybe- if they weren't so easy to get. But maybe not as there are other ways to kill people. And, as I've stated previously, guns will be easy to get for quite a while but if you make a change now, things might be better for people in 20 years.

3) What place do guns play in society? Is it good that there's easy access to guns? Is that detrimental, in particular, to lower income areas where gun crimes are much more common? And are the benefits better than these detriments?

It's all one big pile of wax unless you tie it together and ask "Is it good if guns are accessible as they are in this country? (more or less question 3)". And you can't say "well, this crime X, Y, or Z" to address the greater issue because it's much bigger than just this incident.

SI

[sterlingice]

An armed populace in this country, in this day and age, doesn't have any desireability at all. It doesn't do shit to prevent the government from doing anything.

I would argue that we are the ones kept in check and it's by bread and circuses.

Then again, the government is kept in check because it's run by a bunch of people who enjoy their power and don't really have a need to tyrannically impose their will on us. What do Barack Obama or Mitt Romney gain by starting a war with the populace?

SI

[sterlingice]

I think you just did, to take on that dangerous strawmen under attack in this thread.

Edit: What kind of gun control do you want exactly? So far all I'm seeing is a sentiment to bring the assault weapon ban back. I don't think that's a huge drastic change that would bring peace to our streets, we had it already and crime is lower now than it was then. If we ban all semi-automatic weapons from private use, then we'd have stricter gun laws than pretty much all of Europe, and I don't see that happening any time soon. That's really what this debate is if you get down to the details. Whether people should be allowed to have semi-automatic weapons that have certain kinds of grips and other features that put them up in to the notorious "assault weapon" range. I'm not really against that, I wouldn't notice the difference either way, but, do you think that's a really critical issue in this country right now? Something that we need to be lectured about by more enlightened posters from other countries? It just seems like there's more emotion and looking down on gun owners, and looking down on a country that, like Norway, has a big gun/hunting culture, than practical application in these debates.....I mean, if the assault weapons ban comes back, is it all good? The country is better? The gun control advocates are happy? We could have bigger gun ownership restrictions, we're still going to have a ton of guns here. I don't, maybe the assault weapon ban made the country safer and better, it's possible, I just think it's a pretty minuscule difference, not as much as the rhetoric would suggest, and definitely not enough to warrant the vilification of gun owners or American gun laws. There's not a lot of crimes in this country that could not be committed with semi-automatic weapons but could be committed with assault weapons (including the one in Colorado)

That's a lot of strawmen all in one paragraph after accusing someone else of it. YES, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BRING PEACE TO THE STREETS. C'mon, that's just ludicrous.

1) It's still all about degrees. You will never solve problems overnight. In the aggregate, is it better or worse, tho? And, again, as I've argued: is it better or worse in 20 years, not just today.

2) Does an assault weapons ban somehow vilify gun owners? We have restrictions on some arms now? Does that make them vilified? If we add more are they more vilified? If we take away all restrictions, are they not vilified? I think these are independent of gun control laws- it's not like suddenly people hate or like gun owners because it's legal or not. It's not that binary.

SI

[bronconick]

For the one guy who plans for months and has no criminal record, he'll be able to get a ton of stuff regardless of the regulations in place. Maybe that's a scary thought, but in a free society, people are going to be free to plan and execute bad stuff, there's not always an easy solution to "solve" that, regardless of what the TSA or the gun control lobby think. Some events just suck.

This. The real answer to limiting mass attacks like this is in the mental health system. However, as a nation we've chosen to err on the side of personal liberty and make it extremely difficult for someone else to get you committed. I'm not really comfortable with any other answer though. Ignoring your neighbors shouldn't be cause to be forcibly shoved in a hospital for a week.

I'm sure after weeks of digging, the FBI will find all sorts of little signs that this guy had fallen off his rocker on top of the big one of dropping out of school and ordering 6000 rounds of ammunition. We already see all kinds of crazy all over the internet. Picking out which of those are going to act and which ones simply have untreated mental issues is impossible.

[Kodos]

That's not what folks think. Folks think that if you remove or restrict ONE OF the major tools used in these types of incidents that it will have the effect of lowering the number of incidents.

Sure...the wackos could turn to bomb-making, but bomb-making is much more complicated than buying a gun and some ammo. Requires more time and effort. Plus - there's the not-insignificant chance that the bomb-maker screws up and either makes a bomb that doesn't go off, or makes a bomb that detonates early, killing just him, or bringing him to the attention of police.

Exactly. Make it more difficult to kill people in mass. With virtually no gun knowledge or experience (aside from a BB gun as a kid), I am confident I could kill a number of people if I had access to a semi-automatic assault rifle. Now if my best option was making my own bomb, then I'd say my chances of doing significant harm to others drops dramatically.

[Kodos]

This. The real answer to limiting mass attacks like this is in the mental health system. However, as a nation we've chosen to err on the side of personal liberty and make it extremely difficult for someone else to get you committed. I'm not really comfortable with any other answer though. Ignoring your neighbors shouldn't be cause to be forcibly shoved in a hospital for a week.

I think it is much easier to limit the sale of the most dangerous guns than to effectively spot who is about to crack at any given moment. Getting your neighbor committed because he seems off to you doesn't sound like a viable solution. Especially if he comes back pissed off and decides to employ his shiny new AR-15.

[Kodos]

Like others have mentioned, I don't think regulating guns more strictly will end violent crime. I do believe it would result in an incremental improvement in the number of homicides each year.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i don't like any scenario where one group of people has weapons and the others don't. doesn't matter who or what that group of people is supposed to be.

[PilotMan]

i don't like any scenario where one group of people has weapons and the others don't. doesn't matter who or what that group of people is supposed to be.

I think this hits the nail cleanly on the head. All I've seen on my FB feed the last couple of days is second amendment crap. Nobody is threatening to take away all the guns from a group. Nobody is threatening to repeal the second amendment. It's like me threatening a divorce if my wife yells at me because I forgot to take out the trash. Why the massive knee jerk reaction?

[Grover]

I think this hits the nail cleanly on the head. All I've seen on my FB feed the last couple of days is second amendment crap. Nobody is threatening to take away all the guns from a group. Nobody is threatening to repeal the second amendment. It's like me threatening a divorce if my wife yells at me because I forgot to take out the trash. Why the massive knee jerk reaction?

Yeah but if you ask anybody that staunchly supports 2nd amendment rights, or is a card carrying NRA member, they'll most likely tell you that Obama is trying to take away all the guns!

[Grover]

Former AZ Lawmaker Blames Aurora Victims For Shooting, Then Blames Gun Control | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/russell-pearce-blames-shooting-victims-facebook.php)

Sad to see comments like these being made.

[Groundhog]

i don't like any scenario where one group of people has weapons and the others don't. doesn't matter who or what that group of people is supposed to be.

I don't like the scenario where people think like this.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it's power. if i have a stick and you don't you have to yield to me. i could be the dalai lama and it wouldn't matter. we're not equals. i have more power than you.

power with benevolence isn't a concept we've done well with as a species.

[PilotMan]

So power is only achieved through force, or the threat of it?

Certainly not the basis for the second amendment.

Nor is it the basis of any type of non-third world government.

[molson]

Yeah but if you ask anybody that staunchly supports 2nd amendment rights, or is a card carrying NRA member, they'll most likely tell you that Obama is trying to take away all the guns!

I don't know about card carrying NRA members but I don't think it's "most likely" that people who staunchly support 2nd amendment rights would say that.

[PilotMan]

I think we all support the second amendment, don't we? I mean, I don't hear anybody, I mean anybody who is out there saying we have to repeal the second amendment.

The question then lies somewhere between those who would define the right to bear arms as all and as many as possible and those who would define it as simply the right to own a gun.

[Grover]

I think we all support the second amendment, don't we? I mean, I don't hear anybody, I mean anybody who is out there saying we have to repeal the second amendment.

The question then lies somewhere between those who would define the right to bear arms as all and as many as possible and those who would define it as simply the right to own a gun.

I'd strongly prefer it if all guns were banned in the country, but I know it's not feasible. It's impossible.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it's one big retarded mexican standoff. cops have guns because people have guns. people have guns because the gov't has guns. the gov't has guns because other gov'ts have guns.

[gstelmack]

So power is only achieved through force, or the threat of it?

Certainly not the basis for the second amendment.

Nor is it the basis of any type of non-third world government.

Actually, aren't we based on the threat of force used to prevent others from infringing on our rights? Without any threat of force, how would the police, FBI, etc function? Our country is founded on using force to protect the rights of individual citizens.

[molson]

I think we all support the second amendment, don't we? I mean, I don't hear anybody, I mean anybody who is out there saying we have to repeal the second amendment.

The question then lies somewhere between those who would define the right to bear arms as all and as many as possible and those who would define it as simply the right to own a gun.

I think you're right, I think everybody here really isn't that far off on their gun control views, which is why I find the rhetoric kind of confusing. A lot of the attacks seem to be against the concept of legal firearms and the concept of the 2nd amendment in general (people posting that we don't need weapons as a check on the government, that we don't need weapons in general, people from other countries bragging about how they don't need guns), but then when you get down to details, they just want the assault weapons ban back. OK. Then there's vague calls for "regulation", as if that's controversial and anyone disagrees with it. There's not a lot of substance to it really, people just take a side based their general concept of guns in general, either they're disgusted by them, or they appreciate the right, and then it's just like a discussion between those two vague ideas. But clearly you can shoot up a movie theater pretty effectively with modified assault weapons that qualifies as legal semi-automatic weapons under the assault weapon ban, and the response to that is, "well, any regulation improves things a little", which I think you could argue no matter what the state of the law, so that's kind of meaningless too. Ya, you can always add regulations, but how much should you regulate exactly? As some point, as you said, everyone acknowledges the 2nd amendment and supports it to some extent, at some point almost everyone says, "that's enough regulation." And when you get to the meat and potatoes of where the regulation line should be, everyone's pretty much the same.

Edit: That's what I meant by the "vilifying" thing before, it doesn't seem so much a practical debate about types of regulation as much as its an opportunity for people to just generally spout off how much they don't like guns and sometimes, gun owners, (and sometimes, countries with gun cultures), which usually just manifests itself into general calls for "REGULATION!" There's just not a lot of room for debate. Banning semi-automatic weapons would be an incredible leap that European countries haven't even made, and we already had the assault weapon ban and nobody really knows or can tell the difference unless you're a serious gun guy. There's not a lot of options, but lots of rhetoric. Unless someone wants to try to make the technical point as to why "assault weapons" are just so much more dangerous than modified non-assault semi-automatic weapons - though I would assume that a lot of the stronger gun control advocates don't have the knowledge of guns to do that, they just know "more regulation" is better, because people just got killed so obviously there's not enough "regulation" now.

[Rizon]

I think the internet needs more gun control debates.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

yeah, but it's fairly civil here. and this is the only board i've ever been on where people will actually concede a point.

[Autumn]

Edit: That's what I meant by the "vilifying" thing before, it doesn't seem so much a practical debate about types of regulation as much as its an opportunity for people to just generally spout off how much they don't like guns and sometimes, gun owners, (and sometimes, countries with gun cultures), which usually just manifests itself into general calls for "REGULATION!" There's just not a lot of room for debate. Banning semi-automatic weapons would be an incredible leap that European countries haven't even made, and we already had the assault weapon ban and nobody really knows or can tell the difference unless you're a serious gun guy. There's not a lot of options, but lots of rhetoric.

Well, I think like most political discussions these days, people leap right to a polarized, defensive stance, rather than discuss issues or policy. When there's some tragedy, the gun control side sees more gun control as a way to prevent more deaths, so they're very emotionally invested in the idea of trying to save the victims. The gun owners instantly take a defensive stance, which often smacks of "pry them out of my dead fingers" and makes some reference to needing guns to defend against an overbearing government. This is read as indifference to victims by the gun control side, which therefore ups its response, which is read by the gun control side as foreshadowing of that very overbearing government, and so both sides just escalate rather than listen to each other.

What we need is to hear the gun owners say, "Yes, this is awful, and I wonder if there's some way we can keep these things from happening, even if it means some small sacrifices on the part of our hobby." And we need to hear the gun control side say, "Even though it feels right now as though guns are the bogeyman, I realize they're only part of the problem. We need to make, logical, reasonable changes, not sweeping changes that simply make us feel better after a tragedy. I need the gun owners to tell us about what changes make sense, since I don't know crap about guns."

If the gun owners felt heard, respected as the actual experts on their side of the issue, and having their worries about their hobby and about self-defense heard, they would participate in the discussion. And if the gun control people felt heard, as needing us to put human life first ahead of a person's pasttime, and ahead of often Orwellian worries about gun control, they would be able to participate reasonably as well. It's the lack of reason on both sides that makes the discussion go nowhere. If you listened to the arguments you'd think that people are being mowed down in the streets by submachine guns, or that we're inches away from a totalitarian state where we are chained against our will. But nobody wants to let go of their particular paranoia until they see the other side do the same.

[molson]

Well, I think like most political discussions these days, people leap right to a polarized, defensive stance, rather than discuss issues or policy. When there's some tragedy, the gun control side sees more gun control as a way to prevent more deaths, so they're very emotionally invested in the idea of trying to save the victims. The gun owners instantly take a defensive stance, which often smacks of "pry them out of my dead fingers" and makes some reference to needing guns to defend against an overbearing government. This is read as indifference to victims by the gun control side, which therefore ups its response, which is read by the gun control side as foreshadowing of that very overbearing government, and so both sides just escalate rather than listen to each other.

What we need is to hear the gun owners say, "Yes, this is awful, and I wonder if there's some way we can keep these things from happening, even if it means some small sacrifices on the part of our hobby." And we need to hear the gun control side say, "Even though it feels right now as though guns are the bogeyman, I realize they're only part of the problem. We need to make, logical, reasonable changes, not sweeping changes that simply make us feel better after a tragedy. I need the gun owners to tell us about what changes make sense, since I don't know crap about guns."

If the gun owners felt heard, respected as the actual experts on their side of the issue, and having their worries about their hobby and about self-defense heard, they would participate in the discussion. And if the gun control people felt heard, as needing us to put human life first ahead of a person's pasttime, and ahead of often Orwellian worries about gun control, they would be able to participate reasonably as well. It's the lack of reason on both sides that makes the discussion go nowhere. If you listened to the arguments you'd think that people are being mowed down in the streets by submachine guns, or that we're inches away from a totalitarian state where we are chained against our will. But nobody wants to let go of their particular paranoia until they see the other side do the same.

Good points, I think both sides would do better to listen more and be constructive, and that for the most part, we are all willing to do that here - we're just so used to being in debates or hearing rhetoric where that doesn't happen at all, where either any type of regulation is evil or any type of gun is evil.

[stevew]

I think the internet needs more gun control debates.

If you outlaw guns, then only Raiders fans will have guns!

[sterlingice]

If you outlaw guns, then only Raiders fans will have guns!

There is proof of this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079501/)

SI

[Groundhog]

I think we all support the second amendment, don't we? I mean, I don't hear anybody, I mean anybody who is out there saying we have to repeal the second amendment.

The question then lies somewhere between those who would define the right to bear arms as all and as many as possible and those who would define it as simply the right to own a gun.

I'm not American so my opinion truly doesn't really matter (...unless me or someone I know is on holidays over there, anyway!), but for the sake of conversation, I would support repealing the second amendment. Absolutely.

If I lived in a country that is continously engulfed by civil wars and brutal dictators, I'm sure I would feel differently about my right - let alone my need - to bear arms, but I just do not view the military or government of my country as "them". They are "us" - even if they are a pack of lying assholes 75% of the time. Is it possible that that could change at some point in the future? Yes. Is it possible that I will get shot with a legally purchased firearm (or a firearm that was stolen/illegally sold due to it's ease of availability) during a robbery. Yes. The likelihood of these 2 events fall at opposite ends of the scale.

I think the benefits of gun control FAR outweigh the negatives. Like, FAAAAAAAAAR outweigh. Really far. I can't stress that enough. I mean, in the incredibly unlikely event you had to take up arms against your own military, have you seen what the US military does to similarly armed soldiers in the middle east, who would be a hell of a lot more experienced (if not trained) than these USA 'freedom fighters'? Is the amount of real-life firearm deaths each year worth covering this minute possibility?

However, I do conceed that, realistically, guns are so ingrained in the American psyche that it would be both impossible to make them illegal, and that there are so many of them out in the wild that it would take a long long time for there to be any noticeable decrease. Hell, even attempting to outlaw firearms would probably invoke the sort of armed rebellion that gun owners say they need them for.

I don't see any reasonable solution outside of limiting the types of firearms that can be legally owned, and even that will probably cause heavy resistance from those gun owners who think the military/government will have taken the "upper hand" - like the technology, training, manpower, and intel they have outside of the shooty things they hold onto doesn't already give them that.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i think it's primarily the hypocrisy of a gov't engaged in multiple wars of aggression telling it's people they should lay down their arms.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

and trust in gov't is at an all time low. for good reason. i literally just read this on boingboing:
I would not be surprised if one of the reasons why Microsoft bought Skype was to outfit the product with backdoor access for the US government's top eavesdropping agency, the National Security Agency.

This may be a good thing ... Hopefully, Microsoft is in bed with various governments to allow them to listen in on our calls. This sounds crazy, but no. It would be an ironic twist, but if it were the case, Microsoft would be required to keep the quality high so everyone doesn't bail out and go elsewhere.

A wacky theory, but it does make sense.

[Autumn]

Yeah, Groundhog, I tend to agree. I don't support repeal of the 2nd amendment because I think we should leave our bill of rights the hell alone, and because I know there certainly isn't popular support for that idea. But I find it odd how comforting some people find the idea of having arms to resist their government. Odd both from the sense that I can't imagine anything farther from reality than some sort of armed uprising being necessary in the U.S., and odd in the sense of the idea of that actually being feasible. It's not going to work, and exactly what would we gain from it? What would these armed civilians replace our democratic republic with exactly?

Needing to overthrow the government supposes a rather radical deterioration in U.S. society and government, to get to the point where that would be necessary. If things had gotten that bad, do we think the 2nd amendment is protecting us? If the government is so authoritarian that we need to revolt, do you think they'll be stmyied by our right to bear arms? It seems nonsensical.

We've got all our eggs in one basket, and that is an open, democratic government. The basket's pretty good. It's beyond the point where we are going to, or need to, change things with guns. If people spent as much time being politically and civically involved as they do worrying about their gun rights, we'd be in way better shape, in my opinion (and that is true about many things other than gun rights).

[Passacaglia]

Former AZ Lawmaker Blames Aurora Victims For Shooting, Then Blames Gun Control | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/russell-pearce-blames-shooting-victims-facebook.php)

Sad to see comments like these being made.

neice
Courages (took me a while, but he was trying to say courageous here)
sensless
putting "bad" in quotation marks

Posted at 1:21 am -- Drunk facebooking I guess?

[molson]

Yeah, Groundhog, I tend to agree. I don't support repeal of the 2nd amendment because I think we should leave our bill of rights the hell alone, and because I know there certainly isn't popular support for that idea. But I find it odd how comforting some people find the idea of having arms to resist their government. Odd both from the sense that I can't imagine anything farther from reality than some sort of armed uprising being necessary in the U.S., and odd in the sense of the idea of that actually being feasible. It's not going to work, and exactly what would we gain from it? What would these armed civilians replace our democratic republic with exactly?

Needing to overthrow the government supposes a rather radical deterioration in U.S. society and government, to get to the point where that would be necessary. If things had gotten that bad, do we think the 2nd amendment is protecting us? If the government is so authoritarian that we need to revolt, do you think they'll be stmyied by our right to bear arms? It seems nonsensical.

We've got all our eggs in one basket, and that is an open, democratic government. The basket's pretty good. It's beyond the point where we are going to, or need to, change things with guns. If people spent as much time being politically and civically involved as they do worrying about their gun rights, we'd be in way better shape, in my opinion (and that is true about many things other than gun rights).

You make it sound like American gun owners are sitting there, clutching their guns, waiting for the government to do something they don't like so they can jump into action.

Guns as a check on government is a key historical basis for the 2nd amendment, and it doesn't have a ton of practical implication today obviously, but we are a pretty-well armed citizenry (and that will be true long after any version of the government tried to repeal the second amendment, or have a new constitution), and history says that that will matter someday in some capacity in terms of the future of Americans. It's silly to worry about that this minute, or really in our lifetimes or children's lifetimes, and it's silly to say, "that's why I need this rifle right this minute", but I don't think a lot of people are really doing that.

But it's really more of a historical-based right that really matters to some people, and the thought of it being taken away causes strong emotions (I know you're not saying you support literally repealing the 2nd amendment, though you also appear to be ideologically in support of such a thing). When it comes to government and people and the things they can do, there's strong emotions involved and just because you don't share those emotions, that doesn't make then invalid. I don't get how someone can get so emotionally upset over the government making them take off their shoes for 20 seconds before they get on a plane, but they do, on this board. I don't really care if the government looks at what books I took out at the library, that just doesn't matter to me. But there's enough people who find these things just psychologically damaging that there's pretty big opposition to stuff like that. I think those kinds of thing do matter to a free society, to be able to try to tell the government to step back in all kinds of avenues, in terms of what matters to THEM, even if the practical this-very-minute implications aren't always super-evident, and even if those things aren't important to some other group of people. It makes sense that non-gun owners would find guns expendable for an entire country's citizenry, just like it would make sense to someone else, for their own reasons, to get riled up about seemingly irrelevant privacy or airport security matters.

And of course, there's tons of practical uses for all kinds of firearms, especially if you're living out in the country, like millions of Americans do. They're not hoarding their guns for a government rebellion. They're hunting, they have them for protection (from both people and animals - I've avoided hiking around the Boise foothills with my dog until I finally get around to buying my first gun, just because of wolves, mountain lions, goats, or whatever the hell else my dog tries to pick a fight with), they have them for sport shooting. None of these purposes are really REQUIRED for their existence but that's not the standard we use generally in deciding whether the government should remove historical rights. I never even saw a gun until I was an adult but spent a little time in more rural environments later and grew to appreciate the resentment of gun owners - not towards "regulation", or calls to repeal the 2nd amendment (which don't exist really to any significant degree), but just the attitude of looking down on them, as if to say they're part of the problem of violence in this country, that perceived sentiment that city-folk and Europeans are so much more enlightened. That can make someone defensive, and then you can have these debates that don't really mean anything because most people don't even disagrees that much. I mean, if we voted to repeal the 2nd amendment AND ban all firearms today, what % of the vote would that get? Maybe 5-10%? Yet there's many more people than that that seem to say they'd vote "no", but wish they could vote "yes", and would if enough other people did, or something.

[PilotMan]

You make it sound like American gun owners are sitting there, clutching their guns, waiting for the government to do something they don't like so they can jump into action.



Sadly, I know people who are doing that very thing. It's like an episode of South Park.

[molson]

Sadly, I know people who are doing that very thing. It's like an episode of South Park.

Sure, they're all kinds of weirdos, but I think they're pretty rare by % of gun owners, and it's even rarer that these people actually do attempt armed rebellion. If THOSE guys are the reason we need to repeal the 2nd amendment, or become more gun-strict than Europe (I know that's not what you're saying), then we have to take away a lot of other potentially dangerous liberties first, and maybe pass the Super-Duper PATRIOT ACT to organize it all.

[JediKooter]

I'd like to take the Patriot Act out in the woods and pump it full of bullets from my imaginary assault rifle that I purchased from Walmart's website.

[Autumn]

I'm simply talking about those people who argue that the arms are necessary in order to act as a counterweight to government oppression. To me that's an argument that makes some emotional sense, and yes, some historical sense, but no other kind of sense.

I'm certainly not saying those are all gun owners, or the only reason to own guns. But that rationale is, I believe, the original reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. And so I can support the idea that in that sense the amendment is pretty out of date. Does that mean hunters shouldn't have guns or people shouldn't have guns for self defense? No. But it means if you're still backing the amendment for its original purpose I think you're deluding yourself.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

I'd like to take the Patriot Act out in the woods and pump it full of bullets from my imaginary assault rifle that I purchased from Walmart's website.
hold it down and give it a once over like ned beatty in deliverance before you shoot it.

But it means if you're still backing the amendment for its original purpose I think you're deluding yourself.look at all the batshit that happened in europe during and after the protestant reformation. now replace the word catholicism with capitalism things really aren't all that different.

[stevew]

I feel like if guns were this huge deterrent to anything that I would read stories every day where home owners were wasting jackals who attempt to B&E. I guess I'm not looking the right places, cause I never see those stories anywhere.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

to be clear i hate violence and can't shoot a gun. i just have a mountainous distrust for people in authority.

[panerd]

I feel like if guns were this huge deterrent to anything that I would read stories every day where home owners were wasting jackals who attempt to B&E. I guess I'm not looking the right places, cause I never see those stories anywhere.

Wouldn't the lack of break-in stories mean they are a deterrent? Not sure I am following your logic.

[JediKooter]

hold it down and give it a once over like ned beatty in deliverance before you shoot it.


Make that inbreed act squeal like a pig.

[stevew]

Wouldn't the lack of break-in stories mean they are a deterrent? Not sure I am following your logic.

I realized that i was unclear....i meant that if these guns were so great, we'd see piles of dead criminal bodies everywhere

[sabotai]

I'm certainly not saying those are all gun owners, or the only reason to own guns. But that rationale is, I believe, the original reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.

There was also the matter of the US not being able to support a large standing army, and they needed well armed local militias (and citizens in general, depending on how you read the amendment) to protect the nation in case Britain or someone else decided to invade.

Just look at the War of 1812. At the start of the war, the US only had a standing army of 7,000, and depended on local militias for defense. Unfortunately for that idea, the local militias did so poorly against the British regulars that the US decided to start pumping a lot more money into the federal army.

[molson]

I realized that i was unclear....i meant that if these guns were so great, we'd see piles of dead criminal bodies everywhere

Seems like a pretty high standard. How high does the pile of dead bodies have to be in order for this liberty to be worth preserving? And what about the deterrent value (which is what panerd was getting at), no criminal burglarizing your house at all is even better than a dead criminal.

[molson]

to be clear i hate violence and can't shoot a gun. i just have a mountainous distrust for people in authority.

Which is one of those other deep-rooted things that is really important to some individuals and not others, and I think our views on what liberties are expendable revolve around those views.

Imagine if we could just have a giant cumulative patriot act, where we could just all decide what liberties don't matter to us, and what liberties we think shouldn't matter to other people, and then we can all collectively get rid of those rights to improve public safety. People that don't care about gun rights can get rid of those for everyone, people who don't care if their car is searched without suspicion every day can get rid of that 4th amendment right, people who don't care about privacy can get rid of those rights, people who think defendants should answer questions can get rid of that right not to. Then we'll all be REALLY safe.

Edit: Obviously, through democratic process there's all kinds of liberties we do give up up for security and that's really important. I'm just saying than an individual's personal view of say, guns, doesn't say much about how sincerely important that right is to someone else, and how valid those rights are to a society as a whole.

[stevew]

Seems like a pretty high standard. How high does the pile of dead bodies have to be in order for this liberty to be worth preserving? And what about the deterrent value (which is what panerd was getting at), no criminal burglarizing your house at all is even better than a dead criminal.

I think that in order for criminals to be scared of the threat of being shot by these armed to the teeth people ready to defend their homestead to the grave, we'd see tons and tons of stories in the news about criminals getting shot everywhere. Maybe I don't read the correct articles, etc, but I don't see these types of stories. I don't see the heroic homeowner with his bayonet brandished ak47 semi automatic defending himself. People take shit way too seriously.

It's also possible I know way more gun nut retards than most.

[JediKooter]

Congrats England!! On being in the top 10 laziest countries, coming in at #9.

20 Laziest Countries in the World - Forbes Galleries (http://galleries.forbes.com/gallery/20_Laziest_Countries_in_the_World#image=00lOfhHbZqdfD&view=filmstrip)

America you ask? #46. Suck it red coats!!

[gstelmack]

I think that in order for criminals to be scared of the threat of being shot by these armed to the teeth people ready to defend their homestead to the grave, we'd see tons and tons of stories in the news about criminals getting shot everywhere. Maybe I don't read the correct articles, etc, but I don't see these types of stories. I don't see the heroic homeowner with his bayonet brandished ak47 semi automatic defending himself. People take shit way too seriously.

There are plenty of stories of self defense, they just aren't nearly as interesting so don't get as much play. It's a common media bias: the Trayvon Martin shooting gets national attention, but the guy walking his dog killed in the Taco Bell drive-through gets nary a blip, despite the major similarities in the two except for the race being reversed.

[sterlingice]

Congrats England!! On being in the top 10 laziest countries, coming in at #9.

20 Laziest Countries in the World - Forbes Galleries (http://galleries.forbes.com/gallery/20_Laziest_Countries_in_the_World#image=00lOfhHbZqdfD&view=filmstrip)

America you ask? #46. Suck it red coats!!

And, because we haven't had enough personal attacks in this thread lately, JediKooter, you're a lazy bum! :D

SI

[JediKooter]

And, because we haven't had enough personal attacks in this thread lately, JediKooter, you're a lazy bum! :D

SI

I resemble that remark!

[DaddyTorgo]

This is the most civil and rational thread for political and personal attacks I think I've seen.

[Coffee Warlord]

This is the most civil and rational thread for political and personal attacks I think I've seen.

Fuck you you useless piece of shit. Everything you say is absolutely batshit insane, I hope you contract leprosy and rot into oblivion, along with your worthless opinions.

Better? :)

[DaddyTorgo]

Fuck you you useless piece of shit. Everything you say is absolutely batshit insane, I hope you contract leprosy and rot into oblivion, along with your worthless opinions.

Better? :)

I <3 you too CW. :D

[panerd]

This is the most civil and rational thread for political and personal attacks I think I've seen.

Yeah the other thread was really getting clouded up with such out of line and obscene "tripe" like a discussion of the two sides of gun control. Luckily suspensions were quickly handed out to anyone that got out of line so that the important discussion of a national tragedy could get into important pressing issues like what different FOFC posters would do if confronted with a mass shooter. (Including jokes every couple of posts)

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah the other thread was really getting clouded up with such out of line and obscene "tripe" like a discussion of the two sides of gun control. Luckily suspensions were quickly handed out to anyone that got out of line so that the important discussion of a national tragedy could get into important pressing issues like what different FOFC posters would do if confronted with a mass shooter. (Including jokes every couple of posts)

Exactly my point. Sssh...you'll attract attention though. ;)

[JediKooter]

We must ban all knives before this happens here!!!!

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack: reports - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html)

[cartman]

A bit late to this discussion, but what I don't get is the mindset that "they are going to take my guns, so I'm going to go out and buy more guns". I mean, if you are sure they are going to take them away, then why buy more? If it is to arm yourself to keep them from taking the guns, you can really only use up to two at a time anyway.

[Kodos]

Imagine if he had a chainsaw!

[panerd]

A bit late to this discussion, but what I don't get is the mindset that "they are going to take my guns, so I'm going to go out and buy more guns". I mean, if you are sure they are going to take them away, then why buy more? If it is to arm yourself to keep them from taking the guns, you can really only use up to two at a time anyway.

Be careful or they might kick you out of Texas. :)

[cartman]

I'm in the Austin area, so I'm safe. :) I'm also a member of a Facebook group called LATTTE, 'Liberals Armed to the Teeth Everywhere'.

[DaddyTorgo]

A bit late to this discussion, but what I don't get is the mindset that "they are going to take my guns, so I'm going to go out and buy more guns". I mean, if you are sure they are going to take them away, then why buy more? If it is to arm yourself to keep them from taking the guns, you can really only use up to two at a time anyway.

FREEDUM! AMURIKA!!

Damn liberal commie!!!

[molson]

A bit late to this discussion, but what I don't get is the mindset that "they are going to take my guns, so I'm going to go out and buy more guns". I mean, if you are sure they are going to take them away, then why buy more? If it is to arm yourself to keep them from taking the guns, you can really only use up to two at a time anyway.

I would think one, if guns ever became more regulated or banned, they'd be worth more on the black market. I'd have to think that investing in firearms is one of the best hedges against any kind of widespread catastrophe - tyrannical government, environmental disaster, economic collapse, zombies. A gun is always going to be worth something. And two, but kind of related, in the event of any of those occurrences, you're gonna need a posse. I'd imagine its easier to start one of those if you have a bunch of guns.

[JediKooter]

Imagine if he had a chainsaw!

That's just scary. I'll never trust a lumber jack again.

[sterlingice]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5zey8567bcg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

SI