And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[kingfc22]

This time in San Bernardino, CA.

San Bernardino shooting: Police report active shooter - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html)

[bhlloy]

Center for people with developmental disabilities... obvious what the way too early to say cause for this one is going to be?

[BillJasper]

Another sad day in America. :(

[Subby]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVPx-PTWcAA7gcm.png

[NobodyHere]

Yet the murder rate in this country is on the decline

[nol]

Yet the murder rate in this country is on the decline

Sure is, so next time you see someone use a situation like this to harp on black-on-black crime, ask yourself if it makes sense to focus on the type of killings that are decreasing rather than increasing in frequency.

[bhlloy]

Three shooters who left the scene and a bomb doesn't sound like the common MO for this one

[Chief Rum]

Don't shoot the messenger... on the UCLA Scout site, a fireman on site with his unit says the shooters are thought to be of Middle Eastern descent. I believe he said that came from local police. I'm not putting much weight into it until we learn more though.

[jeff061]

Yeah, seems like a weird target if that turns out to be the case.

[bhlloy]

Yeah, two obvious scenarios and this doesn't particularly seem to fit either right now

[MrBug708]

One of the suspects worked at the center apparently

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

CBS was reporting that the amphitheater at the location was rented out to a third party group not affiliated with the center. They are saying the attack may be related to the third party rather than a connection to the facility since it happened within that event.

[GrantDawg]

Military gear, automatic weapons, and a plan. This sounds scary.

[molson]

Looks like they pulled over the SUV and have some people in custody. This is minute-by-minute stuff, including some things over scanners, so it could potentially be inaccurate and/or unrelated, but there's clearly a lot of activity around the SUV

[live] San Bernardino Shooting (https://www.reddit.com/live/w0nn1o5hu90y)

[NobodyHere]

One suspect 'is down' per msn.com

[GrantDawg]

Pete Williams is saying two down, one in custody.

[stevew]

So why were they targeting a county health department Christmas Party. A team of 3 shooters is pretty odd.

[Dodgerchick]

The scary thing is the military gear and automatic weapons... WTF?!

[bhlloy]

Somebody got into an argument at the party and returned armed with 2 friends, according to the LA Times. So much WTF in there, I don't know where to start.

[Dodgerchick]

People are fucking sick in the head is waht :mad: :(

[Peregrine]

People are fucking sick in the head is waht :mad: :(

I've always said the US may lose a lot of industries but we will always lead the world in violent, heavily armed nutjobs.

[EagleFan]

I've always said the US may lose a lot of industries but we will always lead the world in violent, heavily armed nutjobs.

Have you never heard of the middle east?

[Peregrine]

Have you never heard of the middle east?

I like to think we have quality over quantity.

[Ben E Lou]

Per police: one male and one female suspect were shot and killed.

[BillJasper]

I've always said the US may lose a lot of industries but we will always lead the world in violent, heavily armed nutjobs.

USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews)
6 mins ago
JUST IN: Multiple law enforcement sources identify 1 suspect in Calif. mass shooting as Sayeed Farook -

NBC News (@NBCNews)
5 mins ago
JUST IN: Suspect in #SanBernardino shooting ID'd as Syed Farook; Another believed to be Farook's brother:

[stevew]

Rate Limited (http://state-employees.findthedata.com/l/7981418/Syed-R-Farook)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Rate Limited (http://state-employees.findthedata.com/l/7981418/Syed-R-Farook)

Nice work

[JPhillips]

What's up with the sheriff/coroner/public administrator making over 600k?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What's up with the sheriff/coroner/public administrator making over 600k?

Their database appears to include cost of benefits. His actually salary is around $200k

See this page for why I say that.

2011–2013 salaries for San Bernardino County | Transparent California (http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/san-bernardino-county/)

[JPhillips]

When I clicked on his name I saw his other pay went up by 120k and his benefits went up by 100k from 2013 to 2014.

[Subby]

Daily News taking a swing...

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--xCLy7daG--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/sdur2e4zjjodywcyq1yv.jpg

[BYU 14]

A swing? That's a fucking haymaker.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A swing? That's a fucking haymaker.

Pretty much casts them as part of the problem afaic. Fuck 'em.

[cthomer5000]

The most depressing part of all of this is how thoroughly unphased I am by everything that's happened since Sandy Hook.

[Marmel]

Daily News taking a swing...

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--xCLy7daG--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/sdur2e4zjjodywcyq1yv.jpg

Its about time. Everyone acts like they care, but nobody cares because nothing ever changes.

[RainMaker]

Does anyone on the left have a solution to stopping it? I hear a lot of talk about how it needs to end but no real solutions.

[ISiddiqui]

There happen to be plenty of suggestions (I mean listen to the Democratic debate when the issue of gun control came out), but the right doesn't want to hear any of them, really and just bleats on that they won't work. I'll channel, Jon for a second - the right wing in this country has blood on their hands and they don't care.

[TroyF]

There happen to be plenty of suggestions (I mean listen to the Democratic debate when the issue of gun control came out), but the right doesn't want to hear any of them, really and just bleats on that they won't work. I'll channel, Jon for a second - the right wing in this country has blood on their hands and they don't care.

I believe in more gun control, but not gun elimination. . . and I really don't understand this though. The vast majority of gun owner do not have blood on their hands. Does everyone who owns a car have blood on their hands because they don't have an interest in banning vehicles?


Yes, the gun lobby fights legislation and part of the reason they fight it is because legislation isn't the goal, a full ban is.

Beyond that, we have a situation here where two thugs dressed in full body armor shot up an F'ing Christmas party and had BOMBS. Do you think if they couldn't have had a gun, they would have just stopped and said "well, that sucks, guess we can't kill them like we wanted too, lets go to IHOP" and moved on? Seriously?

If you feel that way, I don't really know what to say. The hands with blood are the people who did this. It might feel good to think we can stop this with a law or two, but I fail to see how it will. If you want to have a mass killing and you don't give a rats ass about your own life? You'll find a way.

Again, I with gun laws were tightened up further, but I don't think any gun laws are going to stop people like this. They have always existed and they always will.

[Marc Vaughan]

Rate Limited (http://state-employees.findthedata.com/l/7981418/Syed-R-Farook)

Totally off-base (and apologies for being somewhat off-thread) but theres an undercover police officer listed there with a salary of $1.69m ... ? .... is this normal?

[Suicane75]

Does anyone on the left have a solution to stopping it? I hear a lot of talk about how it needs to end but no real solutions.

There are easy solutions. Unfortunately nobody is much interested in enacting them.

[molson]

Totally off-base (and apologies for being somewhat off-thread) but theres an undercover police officer listed there with a salary of $1.69m ... ? .... is this normal?

I saw that, I'm assuming its an error. Officers in big cities can rack up pretty huge salaries with overtime pay, but nothing like that. The highest paid police chiefs in the biggest cities make $200k-$300k. Long-time regular police in big or wealthy cities can crack six figures if they work enough, but most make way, way less. I wonder if they pulled from a database category that included an entire undercover department or something.

I found myself on that website and my salary was off - though not by that much.

[NobodyHere]

The shooters apparently had a 6 month old girl.


Poor girl

[RainMaker]

There are easy solutions. Unfortunately nobody is much interested in enacting them.

Like what? Mind you most of the gun crime is committed by people who can't lawfully own a firearm.

[Dutch]

Like what? Mind you most of the gun crime is committed by people who can't lawfully own a firearm.

The easy solution he is talking about is the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and banning/elimination of all firearms through a massive police enforcement policy accomplished primarily through aggressive search and seizure tactics on a national scale. The only solution they see is the disarmament of the people.

[Groundhog]

The easy solution he is talking about is the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and banning/elimination of all firearms through a massive police enforcement policy accomplished primarily through aggressive search and seizure tactics on a national scale. The only solution they see is the disarmament of the people.

You can ban firearms, make it a crime to own them, without breaking into people's houses and rummaging through their property. Will it eliminate all firearms? No, of course not. Will it make it significantly more difficult to get your hands on a firearm? Yes, it will. It will take time and I'm sure there will still be a school or theatre shot up by a lunatic every couple of weeks or so for next couple of decades, but long term it will make a difference.

At this point, what's the alternative? An armed soldier on every corner of every public gathering point? How is that less oppressive than giving up your right to bear arms?

[BillJasper]

Just outlaw the manufacture and sale of ammunition to the general public.

[Dutch]

You can ban firearms, make it a crime to own them, without breaking into people's houses and rummaging through their property. Will it eliminate all firearms? No, of course not. Will it make it significantly more difficult to get your hands on a firearm? Yes, it will. It will take time and I'm sure there will still be a school or theatre shot up by a lunatic every couple of weeks or so for next couple of decades, but long term it will make a difference.

At this point, what's the alternative? An armed soldier on every corner of every public gathering point? How is that less oppressive than giving up your right to bear arms?

I'm not giving up my weapons because some fringe psychopaths are deciding to become domestic terrorists.

[Dutch]

Just outlaw the manufacture and sale of ammunition to the general public.

Is this world-wide or just within our borders? Like outlawing the manufacturing and sale of drugs? Is that what you mean?

[Groundhog]

I'm not giving up my weapons because some fringe psychopaths are deciding to become domestic terrorists.

"Some" doesn't even begin to accurately describe the situation going on in your country right now. I'm sure owning a weapon would be pretty cool, but at the same time I don't think it's worth the innocent lives being lost every time someone loses their temper and starts firing into a crowd.

[BillJasper]

Is this world-wide or just within our borders? Like outlawing the manufacturing and sale of drugs? Is that what you mean?

We can't dictate to the world, but it would be ideal. But I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Gun people are kinda leaving draconian measures as the only option. They block the banning of assault weapons, block background checks for gun shows and other measures.

It is surprising how gun people are only concerned about their rights. What about the rights of the people who are left lying dead in puddles of their own blood? We've had 351 mass shootings in 331 days this year. We can't stop them all. But we do a disservice to those who have lost their lives by not even trying.

[Dutch]

"Some" doesn't even begin to accurately describe the situation going on in your country right now. I'm sure owning a weapon would be pretty cool, but at the same time I don't think it's worth the innocent lives being lost every time someone loses their temper and starts firing into a crowd.

I don't have the stats available on how many deaths are caused by people who have guns because they are "pretty cool" and then lose their temper and start firing into a crowd. I don't think it's more than a drop in the bucket though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"Some" doesn't even begin to accurately describe the situation going on in your country right now. I'm sure owning a weapon would be pretty cool, but at the same time I don't think it's worth the innocent lives being lost every time someone loses their temper and starts firing into a crowd.

And losing that right isn't worth the lives of 1,10, 1000 or 1 million to me.

Without that right, you have no other rights.

[Groundhog]

They may not be the ones pulling the trigger all the time, but it's thanks to them that these losers and mentally ill mass shooters have easy access to the weapons needed to carry out the attacks.

[BillJasper]

And losing that right isn't worth the lives of 1,10, 1000 or 1 million to me.

Without that right, you have no other rights.

Bullshit. The government wants you dead, they'll just come drop a fuel-air explosive on your head. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

[Groundhog]

And losing that right isn't worth the lives of 1,10, 1000 or 1 million to me.

Without that right, you have no other rights.

I like to think that the rest of the civilized world is proof to the contrary Jon, but I don't expect you to alter your views ever. ;)

[stevew]

Plus there's like 20k+ gun related suicides each year

[Dutch]

We've had 351 mass shootings in 331 days this year. We can't stop them all. But we do a disservice to those who have lost their lives by not even trying.

Roughly 7,000 murders are committed every year in inner-cities over drugs. That's been going on for decades and nobody cares and you can't ever stop that. Your gun ban simply won't change the overall death toll.

[Dutch]

Plus there's like 20k+ gun related suicides each year

That's 20,000 less people that are willing to run around on the streets shooting up others...at least.

[Schmidty]

Plus there's like 20k+ gun related suicides each year

Yeah. Let's also ban ropes. Suicide by hanging has been on the rise.

[Dutch]

That's 20,000 less people that are willing to run around on the streets shooting up others...at least.

Or statistically speaking, that's 1-2 less people that are willing to run around on the streets shooting up others...

[bob]

Just curious what people think - let's say 2nd amendment is repealed. Then what? Government sends troops to search door to door? Armed battles break out?

[duckman]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB841185795318576500

[duckman]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/28/fbi-report-more-guns-correlated-with-less-crime-in-first-half-of-2014/

[Dutch]

Just curious what people think - let's say 2nd amendment is repealed. Then what? Government sends troops to search door to door? Armed battles break out?

Well, I know we dont actually have the resources to go door to door. It will effectively make tens of millions of Americans criminal by default and since a vast majority of lawful gun owners are registered with the government, they would be easy prey for targeted search and seizure as necessary...mostly right-wing citizens at that.

[cartman]

I don't have the stats available on how many deaths are caused by people who have guns because they are "pretty cool" and then lose their temper and start firing into a crowd. I don't think it's more than a drop in the bucket though.

There are hardly any stats and research on causes of gun violence, because there has been great push back to allow any kind of such research. It is kind of hard to even begin discussion when you aren't allowed to gather even basic information.

[Kodos]

Well, heavens. Discussion and research could lead to reasonable solutions. We can't have that!

[CU Tiger]

Yesterdays actions are WHY citizens need guns. Everyone of them.
A law banning guns won't stop domestiic terrorists from having them.

But yeah lets not blame these morons, letsblame their guns.

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

[cartman]

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

No, but things are discussed like lowering the BAC level or requiring ignition interlocks. But at least a discussion happens. Not just saying, "Well, that is just the way it is."

[JPhillips]

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

Are you comfortable with that same level of regulation for guns?

[Kodos]

We do have a ban on combining alcohol and cars (over a certain limit). And I think those laws should be much more stringent. Two DUI's should mean serious jail time in my book. Because at that point, you've shown you don't care about the safety of others.

You shouldn't be able to get guns without serious background checks. And there should be a waiting period when buying a gun.

[cartman]

Yesterdays actions are WHY citizens need guns. Everyone of them.


That sounds good, but in practice doesn't hold up.

A Gun Rights Organization Staged a Re-Enactment of the "Charlie Hebdo" Shooting - Texas Monthly (http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/a-gun-rights-organization-staged-a-re-enactment-of-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting/)

[stevew]

Knowing where the exits are is always the best defense

[SirBlurton]

Knowing where the exits are is always the best defense

Preventing easy access to firearms for lunatics and grudge bearers would likely also be on the list....

[jeff061]

Preventing easy access to firearms for lunatics and grudge bearers would likely also be on the list....

Right and how do you do that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I like to think that the rest of the civilized world is proof to the contrary Jon, but I don't expect you to alter your views ever. ;)

When I decide to live in one of those places I'll give a larger damn about what mistakes they make. Til then, frankly, they're incredibly irrelevant.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Yesterdays actions are WHY citizens need guns.

Yes. More guns is clearly the answer.

Pew pew

[stevew]

Preventing easy access to firearms for lunatics and grudge bearers would likely also be on the list....

That's fine, but running is wildly successful

[Subby]

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?
False equivalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence).

[jeff061]

I don't think most people on the gun rights side of things understand what a false equivalence is. Even after reading the wiki.

[JPhillips]

Yes. More guns is clearly the answer.

Pew pew

I don't get the mindset that we should all be carrying assault rifles to our corporate Christmas party. But then I'm also really bothered that my daughter is regularly taught how to hide if a shooter comes into her school.

[EagleFan]

Banning guns doesn't stop a terrorist.

[Kodos]

I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns. We're talking about making it harder for just anyone to get a gun. And of course you can't stop every terrorist. But maybe you can make it just a little harder for them to kill a bunch of innocent people?

[SirBlurton]

Banning guns doesn't stop a terrorist.

What if the US doesn't BAN guns, but just makes them more difficult to acquire?

Would that stop one person who is mentally ill from shooting up an elementary school? If so, sounds like a reasonable step to take.

But I'm from the north, my frame of reference is all warped by not having the left and right political pressures in equilibrium.

[MacroGuru]

Banning Guns won't stop terrorists or gun related crimes.

Again, this is a mental health issue for most of these events. Figure out how to handle that, and we can solve a lot of the problems that happen.

[SirBlurton]

Banning Guns won't stop terrorists or gun related crimes.

Again, this is a mental health issue for most of these events. Figure out how to handle that, and we can solve a lot of the problems that happen.

Could restricting gun ownership more than it is currently restricted reduce the rate of gun rated crimes or make terrorists lives more difficult?

I agree that mental health is a big issue - but I just can't get my head around the fact that so many people want no action at all on the gun front...

[jeff061]

I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns. We're talking about making it harder for just anyone to get a gun. And of course you can't stop every terrorist. But maybe you can make it just a little harder for them to kill a bunch of innocent people?

This is what drives me crazy about this. I don't come down hard on either side of this equation. I'll never allow a gun in my house because I firmly believe there is larger chance of accidentally shooting a loved one than preventing an intruder, no matter how trained you are. On the flip side, I'm not as interested in telling other households what they can or can not do.

That said, this nebulous argument for "making it harder" to acquire guns. How? Easy to say that, where does it form in reality. It's a black and white issue to me. Either you take all guns away and start seeing changes in society around 2050 as the supply dries up or you don't take any way. Taking the middle will not accomplish anything.

A. How many of these shooting occur by people with squeaky clean records? There is no way to prevent that.
B. Even if you could, as long as some people can get guns legally there will be a black market for it.

So like I said, I don't come down strongly on either side. As long as I'm not being forced to own a gun.

[SirBlurton]

This is what drives me crazy about this. I don't come down hard on either side of this equation. I'll never allow a gun in my house because I firmly believe there is larger chance of accidentally shooting a loved one than preventing an intruder, no matter how trained you are. On the flip side, I'm not as interested in telling other households what they can or can not do.

That said, this nebulous argument for "making it harder" to acquire guns. How? Easy to say that, where does it form in reality. It's a black and white issue to me. Either you take all guns away and start seeing changes in society around 2050 as the supply dries up or you don't take any way. Taking the middle will not accomplish anything.

A. How many of these shooting occur by people with squeaky clean records? There is no way to prevent that.
B. Even if you could, as long as some people can get guns legally there will be a black market for it.

So like I said, I don't come down strongly on either side. As long as I'm not being forced to own a gun.

I don't think it's all that nebulous.

In Canada we just throw loads of bureaucracy at the problem. Boom - guns are more difficult (but not impossible) to acquire.

I agree it's not a short term "fix" that sorts out every issue. But it's a thing that can be done in the short term. Do it and see if it helps. Set a new goal...Maybe a mass shooting every other day as a start? Then work towards a mass shooting every 3 or 4 days??? I'm spitballing here...

[Jukeman]

If they treated illegal guns like they treat illegal drugs then maybe....oh forget it.

[CU Tiger]

We do have a ban on combining alcohol and cars (over a certain limit). And I think those laws should be much more stringent. Two DUI's should mean serious jail time in my book. Because at that point, you've shown you don't care about the safety of others.

You shouldn't be able to get guns without serious background checks. And there should be a waiting period when buying a gun.

We also have bans on combining owning guns for prior felons and several other conditions.

[CU Tiger]

BTW who wants to wager before the details come out whether the guns were obtained legally?

Which if they were auto, as reported in this thread, we know they were not.
So a guy bought an illegal gun on the black market and killed a bunch of people with it and the response is, we ant allow people to legally buy guns.

Until you destroy every gun in MEXICO you wont stop criminal obtaining them....it is much easier to hide a gun than it is to hide drugs and look how much that is smuggled in.

It sounds quaint, wave a magic wand and eliminate all guns. It is physically 100% impossible. Period.

[Ben E Lou]

**WARNING: LONG POST**

You have been forewarned. ;)

In 1965, 1975, and even 1985, East Urban Heights (my old 'hood--a working-class, black neighborhood,) was mostly populated by home-owning two-parent families. But in 1995, 2005, and most certainly 2015, that was no longer the case. The standard house in EUH is 864 square feet. Over time, the "good kids" went off to college, the military, or learned a trade, and we pursued something of the American Dream, moving into "better" neighborhoods with bigger houses. The "bad kids" stayed home, got in trouble, went to jail, came back from jail, hung out on the corner, and eventually were a major part of dragging the neighborhood down.

Some time in the late 60s/early 70s, a young couple named Wiggins bought the house next door to my parents' house and birthed/raised four girls over the years. (I was born in '68, and I have no memory of the Wiggins family *not* being our next-door neighbors.) Mr. and Mrs. Wiggins are now in their early 70s. They have both retired. They still live in that house. I try to go see them when I'm home. Their 864-square foot house is plenty for the two of them. All four of their girls and/or their husbands are gainfully employed, live in the Columbus area, and there are grandkids to enjoy now. Mr. Wiggins's brother bought a house on that same street in the late 60s/early 70s as well, and he and his wife are still there, too. Both of THEIR kids are also married, moved on, and gainfully employed. The Wiggins brothers and their wives aren't going anywhere. I doubt they can afford to. I just checked Zillow. The ZEstimate value of both homes is under $45K. I know for a fact that the next-door Mr. Wiggins keeps a loaded gun in his home to protect himself and his wife from the neighborhood thugs, and I would think that his brother does, too. If they didn't have guns, there's little/no question that the thugs who have basically taken over that neighborhood would come in and help themselves to their things.

Because there is zero chance that the hoodlum predators in that neighborhood are going to give up their weapons or their lifestyles of crime, I want Mr. Wiggins to be able to keep his gun. But if there was any way whatsoever to get the guns out of the hands of the thugs in EUH, I'd be the first to sign up for that.

When I was on staff with Young Life, I met a small-time rancher who owned property in a remote part of Colorado, near one of our camps. One summer in particular there was a terrible problem with mountain lions. (We had multiple sightings at our quite-developed camp, even.) I don't know much about automatic weapons, but I know that he mentioned that he had to get some to protect his animals, because neither he nor his men could shoot a charging mountain lion without them.

However, the Planned Parenthood shooter also lived in a remote part of Colorado. I want the rancher to be able to protect his livelihood. But I don't want the nutjob who shot up that clinic to have access to any weapons.

The "mass shootings" get all the press, but I strongly suspect that "run-of-the-mill" murders (guy gets drunk and shoots his estranged wife/girlfriend, gang-related shootings, suicides, etc.) are significantly higher than the total of the mass killings. I'd think we'd all agree that not many of those (maybe suicides) would get stopped with "reasonable" gun control.

I could go on, but you get the point. I'm not far-left or far-right on this issue, and I'm a realist. It's unrealistic in *this* country to get rid of all guns. It's unrealistic to think that we can eliminate gun-related deaths/injuries. But it does seem realistic--in theory--to think that we can reduce them without trampling on rights and safety.

All that said, is it realistic in *practice* to think that anything will get through the House any time soon? I seriously doubt it. I strongly suspect that the "pro-gun" side has an near-unbreakable majority there right now. Of course, for political reasons nearly all (if not all) Republicans would vote against anything perceived as "bowing to the left." But there are also enough Democrats who represent rural and semi-rural areas that supporting anything too strict would be committing political suicide. (Heck, as far-left as Sanders is generally considered to be, he has the most "pro-gun" voting record of the Ds running from President.)

So I guess what I'm saying in short (yes, I know, wayyyyyy too late for "in short" ;)) is that I'd like to see measures that would help reduce the number of guns that are in the hands of crazies and criminals. That said, I don't see it being realistic to think that's going to happen any time soon.

[CU Tiger]

False equivalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence).

It is not a false equivalence though. In both cases the misuse or mis-combination of legal and beneficial tools causes injury or death to otherwise uninvolved parties.

I don't think most people on the gun rights side of things understand what a false equivalence is. Even after reading the wiki.

herp,derp,herp he is pro-gun he must be stoopid, can't possibly be as smart as me I'm sophisticate and for peace. herp,derp

Not even worth engaging a contest with that mindset...

[SirBlurton]

BTW who wants to wager before the details come out whether the guns were obtained legally?

Which if they were auto, as reported in this thread, we know they were not.
So a guy bought an illegal gun on the black market and killed a bunch of people with it and the response is, we ant allow people to legally buy guns.

Until you destroy every gun in MEXICO you wont stop criminal obtaining them....it is much easier to hide a gun than it is to hide drugs and look how much that is smuggled in.

It sounds quaint, wave a magic wand and eliminate all guns. It is physically 100% impossible. Period.

Holy heck...who would possibly advocate eliminating all guns??? Is that argument being made by anyone?

There are actions that could be taken to make it more difficult to acquire long guns, for example. There are reports that at least one weapon used in the attack was legally acquired.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm more than a tiny bit amused by being pretty much the only guy in my circles to be suggesting that we wait for the evidence instead of just assuming the motivation here was what it appears to be & likely is.

I mean, it's not like anything is going to change by guessing correctly anyway so why not let the investigation run its course?

[MacroGuru]

I agree that mental health is a big issue - but I just can't get my head around the fact that so many people want no action at all on the gun front...

But here is where state controlled / government controlled / big brother gets a lot of people freaked out. In fact, I am not a fan of some of the measures in states that made it harder.

The NY Safe Act was one bill that was part of my decision to move back to Utah. I now live in a state that could probably militarize and have an armed army just from their civilians, yet the amount of shootings that happen here from LEGAL weapons are almost nil. The bulk of the ones happen from guns that have been ILLEGALLY obtained, which is the case most of the time.

I hate getting into this topic because I am torn on the issue. I am all for harder background checks, but I am not for state mandated gun registration because it makes it easier for someone to show up on my doorstep and say you have X,Y,Z and we want them now or you will be jailed (Yes extreme...Red Dawn...but I fear that is where we are headed)

[SirBlurton]

**WARNING: LONG POST**


So I guess what I'm saying in short (yes, I know, wayyyyyy too late for "in short" ;)) is that I'd like to see measures that would help reduce the number of guns that are in the hands of crazies and criminals. That said, I don't see it being realistic to think that's going to happen any time soon.

I've been reading this forum since the first FOF came out and I have a lot of respect for you and the way you approach problems, Ben.

I think it's really telling that a person with a completely reasonable thought process about the whole "gun" situation has no option other than to throw their hands up in the air and say, "it isn't going to change". That to me is the biggest problem - there's no room in the debate for reasonable people...the debate polarized into two flavors of fringe insanity.

[Schmidty]

I just want to acknowledge the police in this situation. They get dumped on constantly, sometimes for good reason, but these men and women did an amazing job. 4 minutes to the site was quick and there could have been so many more dead if they hadn't been as efficient as they were.

[Jukeman]

I don't get the "I don't want to register my guns because I don't want the government showing up at my door step" as if you don't register your car, fill out a census. Lol most of y'all probably even register your electronics. Not to mention anytime you use your membership card at the grocery store you are registering your food.

[SirBlurton]

But here is where state controlled / government controlled / big brother gets a lot of people freaked out. In fact, I am not a fan of some of the measures in states that made it harder.

The NY Safe Act was one bill that was part of my decision to move back to Utah. I now live in a state that could probably militarize and have an armed army just from their civilians, yet the amount of shootings that happen here from LEGAL weapons are almost nil. The bulk of the ones happen from guns that have been ILLEGALLY obtained, which is the case most of the time.

I hate getting into this topic because I am torn on the issue. I am all for harder background checks, but I am not for state mandated gun registration because it makes it easier for someone to show up on my doorstep and say you have X,Y,Z and we want them now or you will be jailed (Yes extreme...Red Dawn...but I fear that is where we are headed)

I probably need to move on from this debate myself, but I am glad I live in a city where we worry about knives more than we have to worry about guns...although that has been changing in the past couple of years.

[TroyF]

I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns. We're talking about making it harder for just anyone to get a gun. And of course you can't stop every terrorist. But maybe you can make it just a little harder for them to kill a bunch of innocent people?


Seriously? You don't think anyone is talking about banning guns? I think that's the goal of a lot of people. I mean, a lot of people. Including politicians. When you enact a few of the laws and one of these things happens again, what is the solution going to be? I think this is where the problem lies.

I'm not Jon. I don't own a gun and never plan to. I will never got to a protest or join a political lobby who stumps for my gun rights. It is not a voting issue that concerns me. . . AT ALL.

I don't see how any gun laws are going to control this.

First off, we can't simply hit a reset button and make 200 years worth of guns vanish into thin air.

Second off, we have a country south of the border with a ton of guns.

Thirdly, and I think this is the point everyone seems to miss is this: Look around your house and your garage and think about what you would do if you wanted to take out a large group of people. You'll find most of the tools you need right there. You have a car, you have molotov cocktails, you likely have most of the bombmaking stuff you need.

What we have is a culture problem, not a gun problem. We have a percentage of people who believe it's ok to kill a group of people that "wronged" them. We have plenty of gang members who do not believe in the value of human life. (and we've seen many of them even cross the "gang" line in recent years. Shooting up a schoolyard, killing a 9 year old execution style, etc) They have ALWAYS existed and they always will. Do you think gun laws prevent Dylann Roof from slaughtering people in a church? If you do, that's wonderful but I don't share your view. He would have found a way.

There are 300,000,000+ people here and some of them have bad intentions. They will have those intentions guns or no guns. This is a cultural problem and there is NO easy fix.

[Marmel]

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

In 2013, the total number of car deaths, of which DUI is only a subset of, killed as many people as guns. My source, the CDC. (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33, 636 died from firearms.

I do believe the number is higher for guns now in 2015.

Please get your facts straight.

Also, at least 2 of the guns used yesterday were legally purchased.

[MacroGuru]

I don't get the "I don't want to register my guns because I don't want the government showing up at my door step" as if you don't register your car, fill out a census. Lol most of y'all probably even register your electronics. Not to mention anytime you use your membership card at the grocery store you are registering your food.

Nope, never register my electronics. Car is registered in my business name as I use it for business more than ever. Business is set up in a family trust, tied back to my lawyer that I used for such things.

Call me a nut job if you want. Right now, the NY Safe Act is a joke. A dr that I can upset, piss off or just get a spur with his beliefs can call the state and say I am a danger or I take a specific medication and the state can show up at my doorstep and confiscate any weapon I have.....how is that fair? And before you say wait, get real...it happened right before I moved back to Utah.

[cartman]

This is a cultural problem and there is NO easy fix.

There are far too many people that are saying because there is no easy fix, that no effort should be put forth to work on it.

[Peregrine]

TroyF, I agree to some extent - there will always be people who don't value human life. But I disagree in the sense that guns do one thing - make it easier. Yes in theory people could use their car, or knife someone, but in practice that rarely happens. In reality people use guns for a mass shooting because they are easy to operate and make the job of killing someone easier.

I don't say this because I support gun restrictions - pretty neutral on the subject.

[Jukeman]

Lol thats pretty damn creative.

@macro

[SirBlurton]

There are far too many people that are saying because there is no easy fix, that no effort should be put forth to work on it.

Where is the "like" button?

[MacroGuru]

First off, we can't simply hit a reset button and make 200 years worth of guns vanish into thin air.

Second off, we have a country south of the border with a ton of guns.

Thirdly, and I think this is the point everyone seems to miss is this: Look around your house and your garage and think about what you would do if you wanted to take out a large group of people. You'll find most of the tools you need right there. You have a car, you have molotov cocktails, you likely have most of the bombmaking stuff you need.

What we have is a culture problem, not a gun problem. We have a percentage of people who believe it's ok to kill a group of people that "wronged" them. We have plenty of gang members who do not believe in the value of human life. (and we've seen many of them even cross the "gang" line in recent years. Shooting up a schoolyard, killing a 9 year old execution style, etc) They have ALWAYS existed and they always will. Do you think gun laws prevent Dylann Roof from slaughtering people in a church? If you do, that's wonderful but I don't share your view. He would have found a way.

There are 300,000,000+ people here and some of them have bad intentions. They will have those intentions guns or no guns. This is a cultural problem and there is NO easy fix.

BINGO! You hit the nail on the head. One of the things I truly feel has desensitized a lot of people are the FPS Games / GTA / Movies and everything that glorifies it and shows no remorse..no recompense for decisions or actions.

Culture is the bulk of it, a broken and flawed system that has no middle ground right now and two sides battling it out and spending money to make sure there is no middle ground.

[Johnny93g]

Honest question, because i really don't know.

Do gun owners and supporters feel like they need guns to feel safe, or is it entirely just a "i have the right, so i want to continue to have the right" issue?

Obviously, it's way more indepth and complicated then that, but I just don't understand the need or want to bare arms. I've never seen a gun, I've never wanted to, never given thought to it, just not part of my daily life. It's a completely foreign concept to me and my friends.

[Subby]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">4 guns used in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SanBernardino?src=hash">#SanBernardino</a> shooting were purchased legally, law enforcement sources tell <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC">@ABC</a> <a href="https://t.co/LKg01YMaiL">https://t.co/LKg01YMaiL</a></p>&mdash; ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC7/status/672445546846556160">December 3, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[MacroGuru]

Honest question, because i really don't know.

Do gun owners and supporters feel like they need guns to feel safe, or is it entirely just a "i have the right, so i want to continue to have the right" issue?

Obviously, it's way more indepth and complicated then that, but I just don't understand the need or want to bare arms. I've never seen a gun, I've never wanted to, never given thought to it, just not part of my daily life. It's a completely foreign concept to me and my friends.

I hunt. I have 2 rifles and then for home protection I have a pistol. Both rifles are locked up and in a gun safe separated from their ammo.

My pistol has a trigger lock on it, but it ready for protection if needed. I never anticipate the use, but it is there if needed.

I have the "right" to hunt, I have the "right" to protect my home, I don't think I need much more than I have, but I want the ability to have it if the need arises.

[HerRealName]

All the talk about guns coming from across the border seems misguided. Everything I've read suggests that it is far more likely that illegal guns originate from gun stores selling legally and then those guns sold to gun runners.

[Jukeman]

According to ATF straw purchase of guns are the most common... Also get less than a year in the feds if convicted.

[Ben E Lou]

regarding the rancher needing an automatic weapon to stave off mountain lions, i have faith that *if* a ban on automatic weapons were put in place, a market would quickly develop for a device or mechanism that could be just as effective in quickly neutralizing charging predators. so that particular argument falls flat with me.
Fair point. I think my point there is that it just stuck out to me because prior to that, I'd always thought the only two reasons a private citizen would "need" an automatic weapon were:

1. "I want to commit a crime."
2. "The criminals in my neighborhood have them, so I need one to protect myself."

I've never lived in a place where mountain lions were an issue. ;)

[Subby]

It is not a false equivalence though. In both cases the misuse or mis-combination of legal and beneficial tools causes injury or death to otherwise uninvolved parties.
It is. Guns do not equal cars, despite the fact that they both share a characteristic.

[Peregrine]

All the talk about guns coming from across the border seems misguided. Everything I've read suggests that it is far more likely that illegal guns originate from gun stores selling legally and then those guns sold to gun runners.

Agree here - also keep in mind the gun flow across the border is often FROM the US to Mexico - as organized criminals can get rid of their "hot" guns and sell them to Central America. The epidemic of illegal straw purchases at gun stores is something that should really be dealt with.

[molson]

So assuming we're not talking about a total gun ban (and I think a lot of people do want that), there's three types of gun control.

1. Restrictions on the type of firearm that can be purchased or possessed
2. A broadening of the category of people that are not allowed to lawfully posses guns.
3. Making the gun purchasing and ownership process more onerous with more paperwork and red tape.

I think in the U.S., pursuing any of these solutions further would result in MORE guns on the street. The Obama years have been the greatest ever for gun manufacturers, and a lot of that is just based on a mistaken belief that Obama was going to effectively try to "take away our guns". Government isn't really good at changing culture, at least when they try to do it in moderation. I think historically, when governments anywhere try to smash out a particular part of their citizens' culture, they just end up emboldening that culture. I definitely think that's the case with guns, we already see it just when more government figures TALK about gun control.

I think in a lot of other countries which had drastic changes in gun control laws after big shooting incidents, the gun culture was not as ingrained, and the peoples' attitude changed. I think it would have to be that way in the U.S. In a country this big and diverse and rural, it's the people who will decide our gun culture, the government won't be able to stamp out that culture when millions don't want them to, and when firearms are a part of everyday life in so much of rural america in a way that people who don't live in those areas would never understand. And when you throw in all the rhetoric that vilifies guns and gun owners as being stupid backwoods hicks or whatever, that's only going to embolden the culture and create more possessiveness of gun rights.

Edit: I'm not comparing gun owners to terrorists obviously, but this all does remind me of the ISIS thread, where you had the "you have to do SOMETHING" crowd, and the "just doing SOMETHING could be really counter-productive if it's the wrong thing" crowd. Except the groups of people who have those viewpoints are generally flipped around in this context.

[Peregrine]

Great post Molson - doesn't mean we shouldn't try something but I agree that those measures (as with any government laws) have unseen side effects.

[bhlloy]

It seems to me that the middle ground should start with massively punitive sentences for people caught with illegal firearms and the people facilitating that. Legal and responsible gun owners have nothing to fear in this scenario. It helps with gangs and the gun trade from Mexico (because less people are willing to handle these weapons if you are looking at 20 years for being caught with one). And it almost certainly makes a lot of these massacres much harder to pull of - although this one appears to be legally bought many are not

The UK is far from a utopia but the one thing from my experience that makes gun crime exceedingly rare is the fact that getting caught with one probably means 8-10 years in jail.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm more than a tiny bit amused by being pretty much the only guy in my circles to be suggesting that we wait for the evidence instead of just assuming the motivation here was what it appears to be & likely is.

I mean, it's not like anything is going to change by guessing correctly anyway so why not let the investigation run its course?Barack, is that you?????? :D

(For those that didn't see it, just a few minutes ago the President said pretty much the same thing that JIMGA posted here.)

[heybrad]

What we have is a culture problem, not a gun problem. We have a percentage of people who believe it's ok to kill a group of people that "wronged" them.
This is what's been running through my mind today. It seems like as a society we have more people who just don't value life. If the plan is to completely ban guns, does the problem of devaluing life itself still exist and evil people find new creative ways to kill? I think they do. As with just about any debate I think a common sense approach lies in the middle but we're so quick to pick sides and spout extremes. One side wants zero guns. One side thinks they're entitled to a tank if they want it. It so frustrating that there rarely seems to be common sense middle ground discussion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Honest question, because i really don't know.

Do gun owners and supporters feel like they need guns to feel safe, or is it entirely just a "i have the right, so i want to continue to have the right" issue?



I'd say there's significant elements of both present. I think you'd probably find some that are weighted more heavily toward one or the other but the majority likely feel strongly about both.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Barack, is that you?????? :D

(For those that didn't see it, just a few minutes ago the President said pretty much the same thing that JIMGA posted here.)

Count me among those who hadn't seen it.

Dude must be following my FB, damned NSA ;)

[CU Tiger]

According to ATF straw purchase of guns are the most common... Also get less than a year in the feds if convicted.


Yes but...straw purchases are the most common but part of the reason for this is bureaucratic excess.

Let me give an example to demonstrate.
I live on a small farm and I like guns. I enjoy shooting and I use them to protect my family, pets and livestock from coyotes (I've killed over 50 coyotes this year on my property after one killed my daughter's puppy last September). I also hunt.

But I like guns. Much like people like all kinds of things. I have several guns that are antiques or otherwise collectible that have never been fired. Much the same way someone may collect baseball cards, or figurines, or video games, etc.

There is one specific handgun that was a limited production that I anted simply to collect and place in the safe. I had looked high and low for this gun. It retails (MSRP) around $700 those available online were selling for over $5,000. Limited run.

Now I live in SC. About 18 miles from the NC border. Literally if my family ants to go out to dinner at anything more upscale than an Outback we have to go 45 minutes into Charlotte or 90 minutes to either Columbia or Greenville, SC. Want a mall, you are going to Charlotte, NC.

So anyway a few months back I am in a Gander Mountain sporting goods store store in Charlotte and they happen to have this exact firearm I want. I've looked all over for it and here it is. I have the money in my pocket to buy it. But...I am a SC resident and they are in NC. Because of ATF interstate commerce laws they are not allowed to sell it to me as an out of state resident. I am allowed and even licensed to buy a firearm and carry it concealed on my person. I have completed annual background checks for 20 years to have this privilege. The only way to legally sell me this gun is to do what is know as a FTF (federal transfer firearms) to a SC licensed store. No worries Gander Mountain has SC stores, despite the nearest one being 2 hours away I will drive there. But it gets more difficult. Since it is the same entity they have to do some additional paperwork and go through a holding period to transfer it to another store. They dont want to wait 45 days to receive their money for the product, and I can understand that. The ATF prohibits them from taking my money in this store or the SC store until such time as the holding period is complete. (Actually they can take my money and park it in a federal escrow account and that requires additional permits and regulations)... Basically they take the stance they are not transferring this merchandise to another store because it is in demand and they want their money.

My dad lives in Charlotte. I all him up he drives over, buys the gun. hands them money, and walks out. In the parking lot I hand him the money and he gives me the registration we register the firearm transaction with the state of SC and NC and everyone is happy.

Except, we have just committed a straw purchase by the legal definition.

There has to be another option between what we have, which is onerous and ineffective, wild west where everyone carries grenade launchers in their trunk, and total gun ban and confiscation.

Until the far left backs off "no one needs a gun" and until the far right backs off "The 2nd ammendment protects my right to an M1A1 Abrams" progress can not be made. I think we all recognize this.

Where we differ is left to choose I'd rather the 2nd scenario where I have my own option to protect myself, than the 1st where I trust and depend on others to protect me. To me, it is all about personal responsibility. I will take 100% responsibility for myself and my family and will hold harmless all others for their actions so long as I am allowed to express that accountability. Others need to be (or to feel) protected, and I understand that as well. The question is, how do we co-exist?

[Kodos]

As with just about any debate I think a common sense approach lies in the middle but we're so quick to pick sides and spout extremes. One side wants zero guns. One side thinks they're entitled to a tank if they want it. It so frustrating that there rarely seems to be common sense middle ground discussion.

Yet when you suggest a middle-ground solution, you're told that you secretly want all guns gone, and that the middle ground can never work.

[JPhillips]

If you want to talk culture, what about our foreign policy? We have military in nearly every other country on Earth. We spend more than the next handful of countries combined. We practically worship our service members.

We've created a national ethos that killing people is the way to solve problems. I think that's a lot more destructive than a video game.

[BillJasper]

I'm not against private ownership of guns. I grew up around guns, my dad is a hunter and I still have a .22 caliber rifle at his house that he gave me about 35 years ago.

I do tend to believe that it should be more difficult to obtain a weapon than it is to get a drivers' license. People should have to have training in handling a weapon, they should have to show that they are financially responsible enough to have a weapon and they should be licensed.

Regardless of what we see on Tosh.O or Ridiculousness or various internet videos. These aren't toys and shouldn't be treated as such.

All in my opinion.

[BillJasper]

Yet when you suggest a middle-ground solution, you're told that you secretly want all guns gone, and that the middle ground can never work.

That's just a shell game. Designed to keep people who want moderate reform on the defensive.

[molson]

Random note about the differences in culture depending on where you live, I live near an area of the country where police officers commonly call private citizens at home and tell them to bring their weapons to where the police are. Because there's a lot of open grazing, cows on the highways, and occasional accidents which vehicles. Officers call the ranchers to put down their injured animals. It's not a big deal, usually, because officers know whoever they come into contact with is probably armed, so that itself isn't a red flag.

Though, maybe this whole policy should be revisited because the reason that scenario has been in the news lately is that one of these ranchers ended up getting shot by officers. The rancher's weapon was discharged too, and nobody knows what the hell happened, but there's multiple investigations going on now. In all the mini-protests and outrage since then, you of course have the independent rancher v. government dynamic going on in the community, but nobody's talking about gun control. It's not even something people think about, that these people shouldn't have guns. Guns are just tools in rural Idaho that almost everyone has. The ordinary gun owner is not a paranoid loner preparing for government oppression. They're just people who have had guns around their whole lives and who resent people who live in completely different areas who judge them for that ownership and want to take that right away or limit it.

Edit: Like CU Tiger, they're also well-connected to the gun industry and know how to maneuver within or outside the law, if necessary, to get what they want. Gun stores are great at helping through the legal process to make sure you can buy lots of stuff from them as easily as possible. I'm not sure you have that same kind gun-owner support in other countries which don't have the same gun culture as the U.S. It's just another big challenge if your goal is tighter gun control.

[Ben E Lou]

Back to the original story: LE sources are now saying that the male shooter was radicalized. Press conference coming in San Bernardino shortly.

[panerd]

Back to the original story: LE sources are now saying that the male shooter was radicalized. Press conference coming in San Bernardino shortly.

What's crazy is that a random mass shooter is just "life as usual" but an Arab shooter will be "Carpet bomb the entire Middle East!". Seems like a response should be somewhere in the middle of that regardless of deranged white guy or radicalized Arab guy.

[molson]

I got it, let's ban Muslims from owning guns! Then the left will argue that we shouldn't unfairly deprive people of that important right on that basis, and the right will argue that sensible gun control makes sense after all, and we'll all understand each other a little better!

[AENeuman]

If you want to talk culture, what about our foreign policy? We have military in nearly every other country on Earth. We spend more than the next handful of countries combined. We practically worship our service members.

We've created a national ethos that killing people is the way to solve problems. I think that's a lot more destructive than a video game.

Very interesting point. Is this a side effect of having such a strong and influential military culture (domestic and abroad)?

[Marmel]

If this is terrorism, have we seen terrorism like this before?

Normally the targets are public places with random innocent people designed to scare the entire populous. This was at a private party with at least some people the shooter knew. I don't think this scares the populous the same way, does it?

[jeff061]

If this is terrorism, have we seen terrorism like this before?

Normally the targets are public places with random innocent people designed to scare the entire populous. This was at a private party with at least some people the shooter knew. I don't think this scares the populous the same way, does it?

It does if it's labeled "terrorism". Action matters less than how it's labeled. Our government has worked hard to get that handy tool in place.

[RainMaker]

One of the problems with any gun control is that the people pushing the hardest for it are the same people who don't want to lock people up in jail for breaking laws. Locking up felons in possession of guns for a long time would likely reduce the murder rate.

[TroyF]

There are far too many people that are saying because there is no easy fix, that no effort should be put forth to work on it.

As I sqid in my missive, please, get some tougher gun laws. I will support them. I personally feel they will not make a difference. That does not mean we shouldnt try. The part that bothers me is that everyone wants to jump on their "pet" topic.

Mental health, gun laws, relaxed gun laws, tighter gun laws, etc. . . My point is that it is going to take a lot of changes and one change to say we did something is not going to do a damned thing.


Let us look at one probelm:

Far left - ban guns
Left - strict gun laws
Leftcenter/middle/rightcenter - tweak gun laws, tie up loose ends
Right - do nothing
Far right - everyone should own a gun


Kodos, you and I are in that left middle group. The two most vocal sides are at the edges. Those are the ones who are engaged in the fight.

If we really want to do something, it is going tjo take a multi faceted approach, it will cost a lot of money and everyone will have to compromise. Read that last sentence again. Now tell me how likely that is in an election year and in our political climate.

[nol]

Let us look at one probelm:

Far left - ban guns
Left - strict gun laws
Leftcenter/middle/rightcenter - tweak gun laws, tie up loose ends
Right - do nothing
Far right - everyone should own a gun

http://i2.wp.com/www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gun-opinions.jpg?resize=400%2C686

Except you're framing it as if there is an equal number of people in each of the groups when that's assuredly not the case. In a democracy, things 80+ percent of people support get passed.

[Kodos]

One of the problems with any gun control is that the people pushing the hardest for it are the same people who don't want to lock people up in jail for breaking laws. Locking up felons in possession of guns for a long time would likely reduce the murder rate.

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime

[timmae]

I need to buy Kodos a beer sometime. I agree with all 6. Although #1 gets a little murky with being judged by peers type thing. Good post.

[TroyF]

http://i2.wp.com/www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/gun-opinions.jpg?resize=400%2C686

Except you're framing it as if there is an equal number of people in each of the groups when that's assuredly not the case. In a democracy, things 80+ percent of people support get passed.

I sm not framing it in anyway.it is the loudest groups who win. In a true democracy, you would be right. We do not have one, so that argument is dead before it starts.

[TroyF]

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime

1. Im against the death penalty, agree with the other point
2. Agree
3. Disagree, but I could be swayed
4. Agree
5. Complicated.more gun laws are needed, you will never get that last point passed
6. Do not disagree

[King of New York]

If this is terrorism, have we seen terrorism like this before?

Normally the targets are public places with random innocent people designed to scare the entire populous. This was at a private party with at least some people the shooter knew. I don't think this scares the populous the same way, does it?

Seems like it's a strange terrorism/workplace violence hybrid--he and his wife are planning a terror attack, but he gets mad at a holiday party and decides to shoot his coworkers with all the weapons that he had already collected.

Statistically speaking, at least, I would think that people should be more concerned by the "workplace gun violence" aspect of this story than with the "Islamic terrorist" aspect. Disgruntled employees outnumber Islamic radicals by a fair margin in the US.

[RainMaker]

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime

I am nearly identical to your views. I'm just saying we aren't in the majority. There is a lot of rhetoric about overcrowded jails and "school to prison pipeline". How we're taking fathers away and locking them up for long periods of time.

Having a bunch of gun control laws mean nothing if the offenders get probation and some community service each time they are caught.

Just to give you a quick example. This guy got convicted of a gun charge and was put on parole. He got caught while still on parole again for weapons charges and got 18 months probation. It'll take him getting caught 4 or 5 times with a gun before he gets any real jail time.

Rapper Lil Durk gets probation on gun charges | Chicago Sun-Times (http://chicago.suntimes.com/uncategorized/7/71/201285/rapper-lil-durk-gets-probation-on-gun-charges)

[RainMaker]

I sm not framing it in anyway.it is the loudest groups who win. In a true democracy, you would be right. We do not have one, so that argument is dead before it starts.

It's a democracy. The people who care about having guns vote based on that. The people who care about more gun control don't.

Obama was right when he said that none of this changes until people actually make it an issue when they vote.

[kingfc22]

5. Complicated.more gun laws are needed, you will never get that last point passed

And this is the point I just don't understand. Why does an ordinary civilian need the ability to access a weapon that can fire off a high rate of bullets in a short period of time?

I'm so sick and tired of seeing this shit happen all the time when there are other countries out there who simply don't have this problem. Culture, mental health and other items certainly contribute to the problem here in the states. And while I am certainly fine with providing individuals with the right to own a fire arm, why is this bullet point always met with so much pushback?

You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.

[Kodos]

You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.

What if you are hunting a pack of squirrels.

[Solecismic]

I'm probably somewhere in the middle of the debate, personally. I don't want a gun myself and I think loopholes should be closed.

We do have a different mindset from Europe about defense. When I traveled in France, in particular, it struck me how many middle-class homes were protected by gates out front and bars on the windows. In the '70s, living in London where gates are less practical, there were bars on almost every first-floor window.

Even visiting Iceland last year... electronic gates protecting neighborhoods in the middle of the countryside in a country you'd think has almost no crime problem.

If someone were to break into your home and you killed that person, not much chance you'd stay out of jail. Property crime is considered a nuisance. It's assumed there are criminals everywhere and it's your job to secure your stuff. Pick-pocketing is more an issue in larger European cities than it is here.

In other words, you make yourself safer by making it a little more difficult to steal from you than steal from your neighbor.

The so-called "career criminal" is rarely violent and probably not on drugs.

The UNODC says we have a murder rate of 3.8 per 100,000 people in the US. The Western European average is closer to 1 per 100,000.

It's hard to frame this argument without resorting to straw men. What happens to our murder rate if we take drug-feuding out of the equation? Mexico has a murder rate of 21.5, Honduras leads the world at 90.4. How much of that is drugs?

On the other hand, look at Asia, which generally has much stricter laws about drugs and guns... India is at 3.5, Iran at 3.9, Pakistan at 7.7, but Indonesia at 0.6 and China at 1.0.

I'm not convinced there's any one set of answers here.

I'm also not convinced that if someone is "radicalized" within Islam and has decided that this type of mass shooting is appropriate, that we can keep that person from obtaining guns.

Certainly, strict gun laws didn't protect Paris a couple of weeks ago, and that was hardly a sophisticated attack that required lengthy planning.

We can lower our murder rate by locking up lots of people. It's been done before - most notably with Reagan's "war on drugs" and Clinton's federal funding of police hiring. But this means larger prisons - and we already lock up more people than any other country.

I lean toward that type of action myself, but I realize many people don't agree with me.

I wish debate could be framed these days without all the strawmen and without this genuine feeling that if someone is on the opposite side of an argument, that person is somehow stupid or mean-spirited.

[BillJasper]

And this is the point I just don't understand. Why does an ordinary civilian need the ability to access a weapon that can fire off a high rate of bullets in a short period of time?

I'm so sick and tired of seeing this shit happen all the time when there are other countries out there who simply don't have this problem. Culture, mental health and other items certainly contribute to the problem here in the states. And while I am certainly fine with providing individuals with the right to own a fire arm, why is this bullet point always met with so much pushback?

You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.

If you don't have an assault rifle, the gubmint might come get you! :eek:

[wustin]

Reminder that this happened in California, a state that has some very strict gun control laws (Because it leads the country in total gun murders year by year). Throwing money at the government isn't going to fix incompetency. Our laws are fine, it just needs to be enforced better. There are plenty of states which are top 5-10 in gun ownership but rank among the least in total and rate of gun murders.

Mass shooting doesn't happen all the time, the rate over the span of 15 years is quite low. But you can spin it and select whatever timeframe box you want and make the frequency seem high as hell.

[kingfc22]

What if you are hunting a pack of squirrels.

They are pretty quick so...you got me ;)

[BishopMVP]

What's crazy is that a random mass shooter is just "life as usual" but an Arab shooter will be "Carpet bomb the entire Middle East!". Seems like a response should be somewhere in the middle of that regardless of deranged white guy or radicalized Arab guy.I suspect that increased background checks for spouses applying for green cards will be the end result. Maybe the right will push for an 18-24 month process that involves the FBI, DoD, State, in-person interviews by DHS and biometric scans before they feel safe someone attempting to enter this country legally isn't a terrorist! (Nah, just kidding, they'll just propose banning all muslims.) But I do think that's the place you'll see legislation come out of this incident.They are pretty quick so...you got me ;)

Or, you know, the mountain lion example that Ben brought up. I think it's exceedingly obvious that different parts of the country (and different jurisdictions within those states) should have very different gun laws, but assuming that the federal government will be the solution here pretty much prevents any debate. I also think that anyone who wants to ban "assault rifles" or a "weapon that can fire off a high rate of bullets in a short period of time" should actually put down numbers for what that means. You clearly see how hard that is to define, or you would've put actual numbers in your post.You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.Otherwise you'll end up with legislation like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that made certain guns illegal while leaving other guns with equal or higher potential in a spree killing legal.

[ISiddiqui]

So assuming we're not talking about a total gun ban (and I think a lot of people do want that), there's three types of gun control.

1. Restrictions on the type of firearm that can be purchased or possessed
2. A broadening of the category of people that are not allowed to lawfully posses guns.
3. Making the gun purchasing and ownership process more onerous with more paperwork and red tape.

I think in the U.S., pursuing any of these solutions further would result in MORE guns on the street.

In the short run, perhaps. But not in the long run. Some people would freak out and stockpile, but over time, that would dissipate, esp as people would notice that no one is taking people's guns. In order to tackle this sickness in the US, I think we need to look at long run solutions and 'nudge' (a la Thaler and Sunstein) like policies.

Yet when you suggest a middle-ground solution, you're told that you secretly want all guns gone, and that the middle ground can never work.

Yep. Which is why, Troy, I stand by my assertion that the right wing has blood on their hands (read closely, I said, 'right wing' not all gun owners, you who would move the goalposts to make a point). No middle-ground solution is possible because of fear mongering and they are happy to see hundreds die before they budge even a little on moderate restrictions to ownership... because, after all, being able not to be burdened at all in your gun ownership rights is more important than other people's lives... yep, blood on their hands.

[nol]

Reminder that this happened in California, a state that has some very strict gun control laws (Because it leads the country in total gun murders year by year). Throwing money at the government isn't going to fix incompetency. Our laws are fine, it just needs to be enforced better. There are plenty of states which are top 5-10 in gun ownership but rank among the least in total and rate of gun murders.

Mass shooting doesn't happen all the time, the rate over the span of 15 years is quite low. But you can spin it and select whatever timeframe box you want and make the frequency seem high as hell.

1st paragraph: the state with a population 50% higher than the next-most populous state has the most total murders, so stricter gun control laws are ineffective.

2nd paragraph: "you can spin the numbers any way you want"

[TroyF]

In the short run, perhaps. But not in the long run. Some people would freak out and stockpile, but over time, that would dissipate, esp as people would notice that no one is taking people's guns. In order to tackle this sickness in the US, I think we need to look at long run solutions and 'nudge' (a la Thaler and Sunstein) like policies.



Yep. Which is why, Troy, I stand by my assertion that the right wing has blood on their hands (read closely, I said, 'right wing' not all gun owners, you who would move the goalposts to make a point). No middle-ground solution is possible because of fear mongering and they are happy to see hundreds die before they budge even a little on moderate restrictions to ownership... because, after all, being able not to be burdened at all in your gun ownership rights is more important than other people's lives... yep, blood on their hands.


It does not matter how many times you say it, it is still BS.

What law fixes yesterday? Longer waiting period? It is clear they planned this for a long time. Background check? He had no criminal record. Assault ban? He bought a gun in one of the most difficult states to buy a gun. (An incredibly liberal state by the way)

So tell me, what law do the republicans agree to six months ago that prevents this that doesnt also involve the total ban of firearms?

It is incredibly easy to spout the blood on their hands arguement, but if they had closed all the loopholes people wanted closed, there are zero indications this act would not have taken place.

Again, you are arguing with the wrong person. I want to see more laws passed. But my head is not in the sand pretending that legislation is going to fix this problem.


A graph at the top of this thread shows more than one a day. Ok, lets see the facts. How many of those guns were bought at gun shows? How many were purchased by people with known mental issues? What is the most common type of weapon used?

It is time to stop acting like we know it all. Lets get down to facts before we start talking about blood and blaming one party over the other. There were residents who said they saw strange things, but didntreport them because they didnt want to stereotype. Which party is responsible for that exactly? Hint. . . You should turn your head left.


Im at the point where the blaming game does nothing for me. I want to not only see proposed solutions, i want to see the basis those solutions are based on. How much of that have I had a chance to read about today? Nothing. And it doesnt surpise me at all, it is easier for both sides to slam the other.

[ISiddiqui]

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

[tarcone]

Gun control in the US is like trying to solve the Middle East. Its a no win situation. Guns are our culture. It has always been. Its why there is a right to bear arms.
Honestly, if you wanted to fix the situation, you outlaw bullets and shells. Let people keep their guns. Make the ammo illegal. Solves all the issues.

[NobodyHere]

Gun control in the US is like trying to solve the Middle East. Its a no win situation. Guns are our culture. It has always been. Its why there is a right to bear arms.
Honestly, if you wanted to fix the situation, you outlaw bullets and shells. Let people keep their guns. Make the ammo illegal. Solves all the issues.

Banning ammo is no more constitutional than banning weapons.

[JPhillips]

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

+1 Well said.

[BillJasper]

I say we live like it's 1789. Ban everything except single shot muskets. That was what the Founding Fathers were working with when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

[tarcone]

What about all the guns out there that are illegally obtained? What about those? How do we regulate those? So Joe Hunter legally gets his gun and registers it and passes the mental health test and jumps through all these hoops. But Joe Mass Shooter goes into the city and finds a couple automatic weapons from some guy in a warehouse and goes out and shoots up a public place. How did all that regulation prevent that from happening?

What you said IS.... is all good and fine. But it doesnt hit the real problem. If someone wants a gun bad enough they will find it. And the legal gun owners are the ones being punished.

Whats your solution to that problem?

[BillJasper]

<a href="http://s1187.photobucket.com/user/BillJ66/media/Untitled_zpssd2278bn.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z387/BillJ66/Untitled_zpssd2278bn.png" border="0" alt=" photo Untitled_zpssd2278bn.png"/></a>

[nol]

It does not matter how many times you say it, it is still BS.

What law fixes yesterday? Longer waiting period? It is clear they planned this for a long time. Background check? He had no criminal record. Assault ban? He bought a gun in one of the most difficult states to buy a gun. (An incredibly liberal state by the way)

So tell me, what law do the republicans agree to six months ago that prevents this that doesnt also involve the total ban of firearms?

It is incredibly easy to spout the blood on their hands arguement, but if they had closed all the loopholes people wanted closed, there are zero indications this act would not have taken place.

Again, you are arguing with the wrong person. I want to see more laws passed. But my head is not in the sand pretending that legislation is going to fix this problem.


A graph at the top of this thread shows more than one a day. Ok, lets see the facts. How many of those guns were bought at gun shows? How many were purchased by people with known mental issues? What is the most common type of weapon used?

It is time to stop acting like we know it all. Lets get down to facts before we start talking about blood and blaming one party over the other. There were residents who said they saw strange things, but didntreport them because they didnt want to stereotype. Which party is responsible for that exactly? Hint. . . You should turn your head left.


Im at the point where the blaming game does nothing for me. I want to not only see proposed solutions, i want to see the basis those solutions are based on. How much of that have I had a chance to read about today? Nothing. And it doesnt surpise me at all, it is easier for both sides to slam the other.

This is pretty self-contradictory. Are you trying to say that *zero* of the attacks that occur more than once per day would have been prevented with common-sense laws?

[ISiddiqui]

What you said IS.... is all good and fine. But it doesnt hit the real problem. If someone wants a gun bad enough they will find it. And the legal gun owners are the ones being punished.

Do you feel punished by having to get a driver's license and registering your car? Why exactly would anyone feel punished by that?

If people want to commit crime badly enough, they will indeed do so, but we can lessen the availability of the things they want and in doing so lessen the ease they can obtain things. A good amount of people will simply give up their desire for the illegal good if they run into any obstacle. A few more people will give up with a little more obstacles, and a few more people will give up with more obstacles. This is basic economics. There are going to be some folks who aren't going to care about any obstacles.

This is about reducing gun violence. No one thinks it's going to be eliminated. Reducing it even by just a little is a victory. And lessening gun availability is something that will result in dividends in the long run (see smoking, lessening the amount of cigarettes around has resulted in a change of the culture where once they were seen as essential and now decidedly not so).

Why is this considered so black or white rather than gradient steps? The cynic in me thinks people want to have folks think about it in this way so they can continue to not have any restrictions at all because any middle-road restriction can be painted as the road to confiscation.

[TroyF]

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

I've seen "solutions" Those solutions have as much merit as me saying that full moons cause more shootings and we should put a curfew in effect on those nights. Even so, I AM FOR THOSE SOLUTIONS.

That said. . . Please, show me the studies that show how much those solutions would drop gun violence. You mention mental health and I agree with those laws 250%. Just show me how many shootings that would have stopped. Sandy Hook? I think the mom bought the guns. James Holmes? probably, but that assumes it would have been reported.

Do searches for How many guns bought at gun shows are used in crimes and find what you get.

Saying "you have blood on your hands" doesn't move this forward in any meaningful way. I also doubt it's all that accurate. I guess it's easier to say "My side is right, people wouldn't be dead if I had my way" If that allows you to sleep better, say what you want.

I think the laws should be passed, but see exactly why they are fought so hard against. I'm out. I would love to be in a thread that talks about the issues of the day. I have very little desire to be in a "you pansy liberals just want us all to die" vs "if you disagree with my opinion, you have blood on your hands" Screw that, I have better things to do.


Edit: I'll add one more thing that I've said before. The reason it is black and white is because that's where the lobbyists on both sides take it. Neither side wants to get together to have a serious discussion. The far left wants guns banned. That ends the debate and makes the "slippery slope" argument have merit. I really, really, really want the laws being talked about to be passed and I think it is a travesty they haven't been. I can't state that enough. But I understand both mindsets and don't think people who disagree with me are covered in blood.

[BYU 14]

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

Agreed

[molson]

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

Does this apply to liberty v. security balancing in other contexts, like the NSA and the 4th Amendment or policing generally? Is "blood on your hands" if you err in the side of rights v. security in those contexts?

And if you truly only want "reasonable" or moderate gun control - isn't the blood on your hands too? Where's the cutoff?

I think we can different opinions on this stuff without accusing people of being responsible for the violence. Your rant here is the liberal equivalent of conservatives calling people "terrorist sympathizers" if they're too soft on national security issues.

[ISiddiqui]

Troy, so you want to see proof of how much gun violence would drop if we passed middle-ground gun laws before we pass them? Seriously? What, should statisticians get time machines?

How about using the vast amount of statistical work that shows that more guns = more death ( Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/) is one), and then peruse policies that may lessen the amount of guns freely available. I'm guessing that's better than magically being able to predict the future.

You are accomplice to this evil.

[Neon_Chaos]

Are the mass shootings a cultural problem in the US, though?

I mean, guns are prolific in the Philippines, and we are definitely more crowded, we have around 100 million people in an area less than the landmass of California, and we haven't had any mass shootings in the scale of what has been happening in the United States.

And believe me, if someone wanted to rack up a high kill-count, Manila would be more than ideal with the population density.

The frequency is very disturbing, as well the political reaction (or lack thereof).

[tarcone]

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.

And with your smoking example. It was education and PR that drives the results you see today. Not lessening the availability.

But Im not sure education and PR is something that will work with guns. Because honest, moral, law abiding citizens do get educated and do know how to use guns.

You are not going to lessen crime. There are too many illegal ways to get guns. I think it is black and white. You either get rid of all guns or you dont.

No matter how many laws you create, it wont lessen the gun violence. Until all guns are gone in this country, there will be these type of incidents. And the hundreds of murders in each US city every year. That is the culture of this country. It started with the revolutionary war. And continues today.

[TroyF]

Troy, so you want to see proof of how much gun violence would drop if we passed middle-ground gun laws before we pass them? Seriously? What, should statisticians get time machines?

How about using the vast amount of statistical work that shows that more guns = more death ( Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/) is one), and then peruse policies that may lessen the amount of guns freely available. I'm guessing that's better than magically being able to predict the future.

You are accomplice to this evil.


I am an accomplice to evil because I don't agree with you? Go fuck yourself

While you are at it, learn to read. I said I wanted the mass shootings this year researched. I said i wanted numbers to show how much a specific law would have reduced the crimes in the past. I don't even need hypothetical things. Lets look at the 351 shootings that wounded 4 or more this year and look at where the gun was bought, who bought it, and what each proposed law would cut down.

Then, ya know, we debate with facts instead of insinuating people are EVIL or blood driven because they have a differing opinion than you have.

I've said multiple times in this thread I'm for the laws you are for. But I'm the guy you want to call evil because I happen to think they won't do a lot of good? If this is how you treat those who agree with your point of view, it is no wonder you aren't getting your way.

[ISiddiqui]

Does this apply to liberty v. security balancing in other contexts, like the NSA and the 4th Amendment or policing generally?

So... we don't discussions about middle of the road issues on 4th Amendment issues? I must have missed that. I mean even the ACLU is fine with some 4th Amendment restrictions.

[TroyF]

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.

And with your smoking example. It was education and PR that drives the results you see today. Not lessening the availability.

But Im not sure education and PR is something that will work with guns. Because honest, moral, law abiding citizens do get educated and do know how to use guns.

You are not going to lessen crime. There are too many illegal ways to get guns. I think it is black and white. You either get rid of all guns or you dont.

No matter how many laws you create, it wont lessen the gun violence. Until all guns are gone in this country, there will be these type of incidents. And the hundreds of murders in each US city every year. That is the culture of this country. It started with the revolutionary war. And continues today.


You are EVIL

[molson]

So... we don't discussions about middle of the road issues on 4th Amendment issues? I must have missed that. I mean even the ACLU is fine with some 4th Amendment restrictions.

Troy is OK with 2nd Amendment restrictions and you think he's an "accomplice to evil". So I'm just trying to figure out where the line is so I know if I should turn myself in.

Edit: What make your hands so free of blood if you're only calling for what - gun licenses and labeling of more people as "mentally ill" to disqualify them from gun ownership? If your moderate proposals wouldn't have stopped the carnage yesterday, maybe that shooting was as much your fault as Troy's.

[ISiddiqui]

I am an accomplice to evil because I don't agree with you? Go fuck yourself

It is time to call a spade a spade. Go fuck yourself for your mealy mouth defense of doing nothing in service to the evil of the status quo. You are the "moderate liberal" white guy who was for civil rights, but didn't like all these protests and hullabaloo with the marches and protests. What exactly did you think that Martin Luther King, Jr. quote was about? He actually disliked those "I'm on your side but you don't agitate" people more than those openly against him.

It's time to stand up to this evil. If you would rather sit around and let it happen, then you are part of the problem and perpetuate that evil. And you are just as much the enemy as those yelling loudly against any regulations. Yes... enemy. On this issue we need to call out those sitting around while people die.

[nol]

While you are at it, learn to read. I said I wanted the mass shootings this year researched. I said i wanted numbers to show how much a specific law would have reduced the crimes in the past. I don't even need hypothetical things. Lets look at the 351 shootings that wounded 4 or more this year and look at where the gun was bought, who bought it, and what each proposed law would cut down.

That's cool, but just trying to allow federal funding for this very sort of research is viewed as one step too far down the slippery slope of the government personally taking every gun away from law-aiding citizens.

[ISiddiqui]

That's cool, but just trying to allow federal funding for this very sort of research is viewed as one step too far down the slippery slope of the government personally taking every gun away from law-aiding citizens.

In case you think nol is exaggerating, btw:

GOP keeps restrictions on gun-violence studies - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-gun-violence-cdc-study-charleston-south-carolina-119384)

[TroyF]

It is time to call a spade a spade. Go fuck yourself for your mealy mouth defense of doing nothing in service to the evil of the status quo. You are the "moderate liberal" white guy who was for civil rights, but didn't like all these protests and hullabaloo with the marches and protests. What exactly did you think that Martin Luther King, Jr. quote was about? He actually disliked those "I'm on your side but you don't agitate" people more than those openly against him.

It's time to stand up to this evil. If you would rather sit around and let it happen, then you are part of the problem and perpetuate that evil. And you are just as much the enemy as those yelling loudly against any regulations. Yes... enemy. On this issue we need to call out those sitting around while people die.


This seriously blows me away.

I agree with the laws you want even though I have ZERO facts that those laws will actually do a damned thing. I want FACTS to show how those laws will impact gun violence and I'm not standing up to evil?

Then you want to throw in my civil rights viewpoints which you know nothing about and say Dr. King would hate me? My defense of doing nothing is an understanding of the other side of the debate. That's, ya know, kind of important if you want to find real solutions.

Let me ask you this: If those laws cut down mass shootings by 15% next year, will you consider them a success or will you want more laws. When will you be happy? As you are putting words in my mouth, I'll throw them in yours. You won't be happy until all guns are banned. And that's my point. The NRA and gun lovers know that's your final goal. So you are damned right they are going to fight you on any single step that pushes you closer to that goal.

[ISiddiqui]

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.

Do you think that more or less people would be on the roads if licensing was removed? If you think less, then you'd fail economics.

People like bringing up the Drug War and how it is a failure. Or Prohibition. But if you intent was to lessen the amount of drugs or alcohol during Prohibition, both were an unmitigated success - look at Prohibition, the amount of alcohol fell incredibly during it and rose quickly afterwards. It's failures are, of course, a side consequence. Of course, no one is saying ban guns here, but adding licensing and/or registration will indeed reduce the amount by some amount.

[CU Tiger]

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime


Kodos,
First I want to say that I agree almost completely with your 6 points above. I say almost because of a caveat on #5 which is actually going to be the focus of my post.

We "e-know" each other a bit mainly through our joint participation in the NCAA dynastys and get along fairly well, at least from my perspective. So I was amazed when I read your post, agreed with most of it and then felt my emotions bristle at #5. Then I re-read it and realize we probably agree with our intentions but your word choice means something totally different than I think you intended.

The more I have thought about this this afternoon I think a working vocabulary could be the cause of much (certainly not all) disagreement in gun threads. As a gun enthusiast I am familiar with types, brands, actions, etc. Where as I have to remind myself many people cant differentiate the magazine from the chamber from the muzzle of a firearm. Yet thats something ingrained that I could do by age 5.

So for this reason I want to make a post and clarify some terms that are thrown around incorrectly interchangeably as I think a working vocabulary is a must for any decent debate to take place.

I'll start with the word you (I suspect mis-)used that prompted my thoughts
Semi-automatic - This means a gun that will fire multiple rounds without requiring any more human action than repeated single pulls of the trigger. In theory these weapons can fire multiple rounds as quickly as someone can pull the trigger. Mechanically this is rarely the case. Note the nae semi-auto means nothing about capacity. There are 2 shot semi-auto shotguns and hand guns on the market.
An example of a gun that is not semi-auto is a pump action shotgun, a bolt action rifle, or a lever action rifle (like the old cowboy movies)

Automatic or Fully automatic - This is a gun that can fire multiple rounds without removing the finger from the trigger. Pull the trigger hold it depressed and round after round will fire. Fire rate varies from what you see in the movies to a round every second or two but the key differentiator is it only requires 1 pull of the trigger.
NOTE: The only way to legally own a fully auto weapon in the US is an EXTENSIVE background check, a federal tax stamp that is issued individually by the ATF, a signed letter from the local police chief or county sherrif, and an annual review. These fall under what is commonly known as class 3 items along with silencers/noise reducers and several other such items.

Assault Rifle - An assault rifle is a weapon that is capable of firing either semi-automatic or fully automatic with the flip of a mode switch. Again since this has the capability to fire fully auto it requires a Federal tax stamp and Class 3 registration.
Note: No mention of capacity. Neither for Assault rifle nor for Fully auto. Also there is no mention of material of composition or color for either. This is a key piece because many people see a black long gun and assume it is an "assault rifle"...most hunting rifles made today are black composite stocks, because these stocks do not show scratching as easy as traditional wood stock plus they are immune to wet weather unlike a traditional wood stock.

What I realized was that when you say banning semi-auto weapons I bristled internally because you are talking about taking away literally every hunting gun I own.

Now where your argument gets interesting is the comment about number of rounds or magazine capacity. From a purely hunting standpoint this is a moot point because just about every state has specific max round capacity that can be carried into the field. For example when dove hunting (a federally regulated migratory bird) hunters are restricted from possessing a gun in the field capable of holding more than 3 shells. However nearly ever shotgun made holds 5 (or more) rounds as a rule. So a hunter must have whats known as a "plug" installed in the gun which prevents more than 3 total rounds to be loaded into the gun (1 in the firing chamber and 2 in the magazine) installing said plug requires partially disassembling the gun adding it and then re assembling.

So the question of hunting is pretty much moot. The question of capacity comes more from a personal protection standpoint. So how many rounds do you need? How many is enough? 5? 10? 15?

Who decides?

BTW one point on the above. Getting a Class 3 item requires the individual to have a legal trust created as class 3 licenses are issued to trusts and not individuals. This isnt a walk down to the store and get one.

FWIW I am currently in process of getting a class 3 stamp to obtain a silencer to help with the coyote situation mentioned above. I am currently 5 months into the application process. I am hopeful it will be completed in the next 90 days. Then I can order it. This isnt a quick process.

If you don't have an assault rifle, the gubmint might come get you! :eek:


Then you have statements like this when combined with the above info you can see how ridiculous it is.

Fewer than .5% of all gun owners own a class 3 weapon or more appropriately stated fewer than .5% of all gun owners have ever obtained a single class 3 tax stamp whether or not they ever filled that stamp with a purchase.

And btw each purchase requires a new stamp. With a new application process.


Sorry for the long winded nature here but again it something that is very critical to an intelligent debate.

The only comparison Ive been able to draw thinking about this for a good while this afternoon is to my grandmother and computers. My grandmother is 89 and pretty tech savvy for an 89 year old. She has an iphone and ipad and now a macbook. She has facebook, instagram, twittter and pintrest account and uses them regularly. Before the recent macbook purchase she had an older desktop.

I got called to "fix this broken computer"

Turns out after much research the motherboard had failed. She was convinced the "Tv screen thing" was bad because "it doesnt flash like it normally does when I turn it on". She couldnt understand why I insisted on opening the box when the "tv screen thingy" was clearly the problem.

My then 9 year old daughter was with me and after we left she was laughing at her great grandmother who's lack of vocabulary made her opinion invalid to my daughter no matter what she said. Nevermind that I was actually able to benefit by knowing that since the monitor didnt even "flash" that meant it was getting no output signal at all.

I feel like reading some of the posts here about guns, some posters are convinced "those ling stick thingys that make noise kill people and need to go away"

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with the laws you want even though I have ZERO facts that those laws will actually do a damned thing. I want FACTS to show how those laws will impact gun violence and I'm not standing up to evil?

Because you put your fingers in your ear. Or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are just that fucking stupid. Plenty of studies have shown more guns = more death. But that isn't good enough? Comparisons of banning guns leading to less death in the UK and Australia. But that isn't good enough?

Please, your notion that you want gun control regulations is a fucking lie. You just want to say "I just want more facts before I do anything" regardless of the vast trove of information out there.

You are a fucking coward or a fucking liar or a fucking moron.

[molson]

Go fuck yourself for your mealy mouth defense of doing nothing in service to the evil of the status quo.


So doing nothing is the problem? What do you actually do in your life to curb gun violence?

Edit: When Martin Luther King was talking about being on his side and acting, did he mean calling people names on the internet?

[tarcone]

I dont want to quote CUs long post. But the more regulation people really need to read it. Very well done.

[CU Tiger]

In 2013, the total number of car deaths, of which DUI is only a subset of, killed as many people as guns. My source, the CDC. (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33, 636 died from firearms.

I do believe the number is higher for guns now in 2015.

Please get your facts straight.

Also, at least 2 of the guns used yesterday were legally purchased.

Nice argument.
Of those 33,169 firearm deaths 21,175 were suicides, so if guns were outlawed would these people find other ways to kill themselves?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)

But that is besides the point, using your own CDC stats:

In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Get my facts straight?
2013 - Gun deaths - 11,994
2013 DUI deaths - 10,076

Ok I am wrong DUI didnt kill as many people but it was uch closer than the numbers you threw around.

[TroyF]

Because you put your fingers in your ear. Or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are just that fucking stupid. Plenty of studies have shown more guns = more death. But that isn't good enough? Comparisons of banning guns leading to less death in the UK and Australia. But that isn't good enough?

Please, your notion that you want gun control regulations is a fucking lie. You just want to say "I just want more facts before I do anything" regardless of the vast trove of information out there.

You are a fucking coward or a fucking liar or a fucking moron.


I'll say it again as you have a learning disability.

I'm for the laws you have proposed so far. Mental health, gun shows, people on the no fly list. . . all of them. If you think that is a lie, that is your right. . . but it doesn't make you right.

As for England (I do not know enough about Australia), They had very few mass shootings BEFORE the heavy regulations started. They didn't have a high murder rate with firearms either. In fact, if memory serves, the rate of gun violence actually rose for about 10 years until they put more police on the ground and it started to decline.

The US states and cities that have put in gun laws have also failed if my memory of the stats helps me. I think it's a culture problem here. The last Harvard study I read on the problem didn't corelate to what you say AT ALL.

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn't Decrease Violence (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/)

Now, the study was from 2007, and I have ZERO idea what the bias in the study is. (obviously, I don't want to look at an oil companies study on climate change)

I know I'm an evil moron who is also a coward, but this is a subject I've read a lot about. I guess the moron part of your statement just means I'm too stupid to understand what I have read.

[wustin]

Because you put your fingers in your ear. Or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are just that fucking stupid. Plenty of studies have shown more guns = more death. But that isn't good enough? Comparisons of banning guns leading to less death in the UK and Australia. But that isn't good enough?

Please, your notion that you want gun control regulations is a fucking lie. You just want to say "I just want more facts before I do anything" regardless of the vast trove of information out there.

You are a fucking coward or a fucking liar or a fucking moron.

Crime and murder rate in general has risen in eastern european countries with strict gun laws. I think it's the same for Australia too but I'd have to double check that.

Most gun deaths in the US are via suicide (I think they account for over 50%). Sure less guns will give you less gun related deaths (it makes sense logically and there're studies to prove this) but it wouldn't do anything about the people with suicidal tendencies. So you have to look at other potential consequences than just "More guns = more gun deaths, less guns = less gun deaths" in the US because the country leads the world in rate of people with mental disorders and is top 5 in substance abuse.

[nol]

Most gun deaths in the US are via suicide (I think they account for over 50%). Sure less guns will give you less gun related deaths (it makes sense logically and there're studies to prove this) but it wouldn't do anything about the people with suicidal tendencies.

Not so. A few numbers:

About 1 in 12 suicide attempts are successful.

Suicide by firearm has a 90% success rate.

About 10-15% of people who survive a suicide attempt ultimately take their own lives.

[molson]

It's difficult to compare violent crime and murder rates in different countries because every country doesn't define those terms identically. For example, some European countries only report a "murder" if there's a homicide that results in a murder conviction. The FBI uses raw crime data.

The U.S. still has a higher "real" murder rate than most European countries, but I believe the U.S. murder rate has declined as fast or even faster than most of those countries. 2013 and 2014 had the lowest U.S. murder rates in at least 55 years. And the number of U.S. guns purchased has hit all time highs every year in the last decade. There's obviously more going on than the "More guns = more gun deaths, less guns = less gun deaths" narrative.

If you don't like guns and you don't like gun owners, it makes 100% sense to want restrict those rights. It doesn't take a Martin Luther King to advocate for the limiting of a right you didn't value in the first place. That doesn't make you a good person, and that doesn't give you the right to blame violence on those who might value those rights for whatever reason.

I think that whole dynamic gets clear when you consider other rights that you do care about. Some people really value internet privacy. So of course those questions about NSA or local police tracking cell phones are much more compelling and troubling to those people. But if I don't personally give a shit about those things, or about taking my shoes off at the airport, of course I'd be willing to limit those rights in exchange for a safer world, even if it isn't exactly clear how much safer we'd be. It might even be bewildering to me why someone gets so hot and bothered about metadata and taking your shoes off, and why people oppose those things on the ground that they don't guarantee a terror-free world. Because if those rights don't matter to me in the first place, then who cares, it's worth a shot. But I don't think it'd be fair to me to say that terror attacks are "blood on their hands" just because they ask difficult questions about how effective those things are, or because they value the rights that are being threatened in the same of security more than I do.

Just because you don't value a right, that doesn't automatically make the right invalid for everyone else. I keep seeing the word "need" thrown around here with regard to the 2nd amendment. Whether someone "needs" a gun. But you don't usually see "need" as the prerequisite for the exercise of any other constitutional right. Because it's not, legally. That's kind of the whole point of rights, you don't have to justify their utilization on a case-by-case basis.

[NobodyHere]

Not so. A few numbers:

About 1 in 12 suicide attempts are successful.

Suicide by firearm has a 90% success rate.

About 10-15% of people who survive a suicide attempt ultimately take their own lives.

There are suicides and there are cries for help.

Personally I think those that would choose death by firearm would choose an equally deadly method if firearms weren't available.

YMMV

[Solecismic]

Nice argument.
Of those 33,169 firearm deaths 21,175 were suicides, so if guns were outlawed would these people find other ways to kill themselves?


Who knows? Strangely, our suicide rate is lower than France's, and around average for the world.

When people are serious about killing themselves, they find a way. Guns being easier to purchase in the US. Not so much in South Korea, which has about the highest suicide rate in the world.

Like most of these arguments, there isn't an easy explanation. Part culture, part environment, part government. I've never felt less safe in my life than the year I lived in London (house break-ins everywhere, it seemed, plus the IRA bombings), but I doubt if gun ownership were easier that would make any difference one way or the other.

I find the car analogy compelling, though not exact. When you choose to drive while impaired or distracted, you put others' lives at risk. Certainly, living in a suburban area, you are far more likely to be the victim of irresponsible vehicle use than gun use.

[nol]

There are suicides and there are cries for help.

Personally I think those that would choose death by firearm would choose an equally deadly method if firearms weren't available.

YMMV

OK, read this carefully. The fact that about 90 percent of people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die of something other than suicide indicates that the 'cries for help' are several times more numerous than the people who are firmly committed to killing themselves by any means necessary. If there were a method equally as deadly as a firearm, people would use that instead. To say otherwise is as obtuse as saying that the San Bernardino terrorists could have just as easily killed as many people by going on a stabbing spree or acquiring a toxic gas and pumping it into the building's ventilation system.

[NobodyHere]

OK, read this carefully. The fact that about 90 percent of people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die of something other than suicide indicates that the 'cries for help' are several times more numerous than the people who are firmly committed to killing themselves by any means necessary. If there were a method equally as deadly as a firearm, people would use that instead. To say otherwise is as obtuse as saying that the San Bernardino terrorists could have just as easily killed as many people by going on a stabbing spree or acquiring a toxic gas and pumping it into the building's ventilation system.

I've personally been suicidal. I've met people of like minded, several of whom "caught the bus" as terminology goes. There are people who really want to end their lives and there are people who just want the attention of other human beings but don't know how to get it.

Suicide by gun is easy, thus many people choose that way to die. However there are just as lethal ways to die other than firearms. If you ban firearms these other methods are still available. Ban firearms and these other methods will become more prevalent.

[nol]

I've personally been suicidal. I've met people of like minded, several of whom "caught the bus" as terminology goes. There are people who really want to end their lives and there are people who just want the attention of other human beings but don't know how to get it.

Suicide by gun is easy, thus many people choose that way to die. However there are just as lethal ways to die other than firearms. If you ban firearms these other methods are still available. Ban firearms and these other methods will become more prevalent.

OK, but I'm at a loss as to what those particular methods would be. In the literature I've read, methods such as ingesting pills and suffocation (e.g. carbon monoxide inhalation) are a little more than 50 percent effective. With 40,000 suicides in the US last year, it would not take a very high percentage of those to decide to try another method to result in a significant number of saved lives.

[AENeuman]

In the literature I've read, methods such as ingesting pills and suffocation (e.g. carbon monoxide inhalation) are a little more than 50 percent effective.

Thats true in the literature I've read too!

How if, when I am laid into the tomb,
I wake before the time that Romeo
Come to redeem me?

[NobodyHere]

OK, but I'm at a loss as to what those particular methods would be. In the literature I've read, methods such as ingesting pills and suffocation (e.g. carbon monoxide inhalation) are a little more than 50 percent effective. With 40,000 suicides in the US last year, it would not take a very high percentage of those to decide to try another method to result in a significant number of saved lives.

There's a lot of literature you haven't read then. There are many ways of catching the bus that your aren't fluent in.

[Solecismic]

Thats true in the literature I've read too!

How if, when I am laid into the tomb,
I wake before the time that Romeo
Come to redeem me?

Thank you for that. There are times when it seems no one has a sense of humor anymore.

That time of year thou mayst in me behold,
when yellow leaves or none or few do hang
upon those files which snake amongst the code,
bare ones and zeroes, where late John Madden sang.

[nol]

There's a lot of literature you haven't read then. There are many ways of catching the bus that your aren't fluent in.

http://lostallhope.com/lah_images/us_methods_of_suicide_2012.png

Whatever they are, they certainly aren't nearly as common, expedient, or lethal as a gunshot.

[RainMaker]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">4 guns used in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SanBernardino?src=hash">#SanBernardino</a> shooting were purchased legally, law enforcement sources tell <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC">@ABC</a> <a href="https://t.co/LKg01YMaiL">https://t.co/LKg01YMaiL</a></p>&mdash; ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC7/status/672445546846556160">December 3, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The rifles they used are illegal in California.

[Butter]

I want FACTS to show how those laws will impact gun violence and I'm not standing up to evil?

Troy, I'm not quite as hyperbolic as ISid. was above, but how can you seriously say that you want to see facts on how certain laws would impact gun violence before enacting them? How can you ever think that would work in the real world? It just won't. You have to enact them and then see what happens.

There's going to have to be a leap of faith at some point that some more controls WON'T lead to the total repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Because studying other countries just won't work. I don't think any other country has the culture around guns that we have. So we either have to try some things, or cross our fingers and hope that we're just in an anomalous time, like an El Nino for mass shootings or something.

I don't think hoping is a great idea.

[jeff061]

If they have no effect will they be repealed? Or will stricter laws go in to "see what happens".

[Kodos]

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.


If the penalties included substantial time in jail, there would be a lot less people driving without a license. The problem is the laws have no teeth.

[Coffee Warlord]

If the penalties included substantial time in jail, there would be a lot less people driving without a license. The problem is the laws have no teeth.

And it's very nearly impossible to catch someone driving without a license unless they happen to do something stupid in the vicinity of a cop (who is also paying attention). Very low risk.

Considering our ridiculous incarceration rate for non-violent crimes as it is, throwing people in jail for driving without a license is certainly not the answer. There's really not much you can realistically do about this one.

[MrBug708]

The rifles they used are illegal in California.

Purchased from a CA gun shop though. At least what the news is saying. I'm guessing they were guns that were grandfathered in from the 1989 ban and were able to be owner transferred?

[Kodos]

Crime and murder rate in general has risen in eastern european countries with strict gun laws. I think it's the same for Australia too but I'd have to double check that.

Most gun deaths in the US are via suicide (I think they account for over 50%). Sure less guns will give you less gun related deaths (it makes sense logically and there're studies to prove this) but it wouldn't do anything about the people with suicidal tendencies. So you have to look at other potential consequences than just "More guns = more gun deaths, less guns = less gun deaths" in the US because the country leads the world in rate of people with mental disorders and is top 5 in substance abuse.

There have been studies done that many suicidal people go through a crisis period where if they have a means to kill themselves, they will use it, but if there is no option to kill themselves in that window of time, many of them will not attempt to kill themselves later.

[Kodos]

And it's very nearly impossible to catch someone driving without a license unless they happen to do something stupid in the vicinity of a cop (who is also paying attention). Very low risk.

Considering our ridiculous incarceration rate for non-violent crimes as it is, throwing people in jail for driving without a license is certainly not the answer. There's really not much you can realistically do about this one.

If they're driving without a license because they lost it due to a DUI, then they are a danger to other drivers and absolutely should see significant jail time. Not just a slap on the wrist.

And let's face it, if you've lost your license, you probably do stupid things while driving on a regular basis.

[Ben E Lou]

Purchased from a CA gun shop though. At leeast what the news is saying. I'm guessing they were guns that were grandfathered in from the 1989 ban and were able to be owner transferred?I'm not picking on you in particular here, as this whole line of discussion seems to be a frequent one, but I do find it a little silly when both sides make their "gotchas" over whether a particular firearm is/was legal in a particular locale. In this country in this age, any firearm that's legal anywhere in the United States can be acquired fairly easily if someone wants it badly enough. A particular locale's laws are merely inconveniences.

[Kodos]

CU - Thanks for the breakdown. I described the type of gun I wanted to limit because I knew that I didn't know the specific names and types of guns that are out there. My main premise is I want a shooter to have to have to manually pull the trigger in a slow process instead being able to go in Rambo-style with guns blaring. I want them to have to reload after a small number of shots, or switch to a different gun. Give people around them a chance to escape or tackle the shooter down to the ground.

I want people to be able to hunt. I'll never hunt personally, because I couldn't ever bring myself to kill an animal for sport. I'll kill a fish to eat it, but I feel bad if a catch-and-release fish dies on me. I understand that it's necessary to thin the herds for deer and whatnot. Shoot all the squirrels and pigeons you like. No problem with me.

Unfortunately, our country brews a lot of crazy individuals, and we need to find ways to limit the damage they do. I'm sorry if that desire puts me at odds with people who want to hunt or protect their family. My proposals aren't meant to inconvenience people who want to use guns responsibly. I want to slow down the crazies. I realize they can never truly be stopped. But we have to at least try to slow them down and make things more difficult for them.

[ISiddiqui]

I guess the moron part of your statement just means I'm too stupid to understand what I have read.

You said it here better than I would have.

I'm for the laws you have proposed so far.

Aside from the wanting specific proof as to how those laws would reduce gun violence going forward in the future before you even want to begin implementing them. Yeeeeahh... Is that really being for those laws, or is that saying you are for them and looking for an excuse not to pass them so you can straddle both sides?

[Bobble]

Once you guys figure out gun control, don't these assholes just use a bomb? Seems like we're not addressing the problem -- which is that someone actually wants to kill a bunch of people.

[ISiddiqui]

Once you guys figure out gun control, don't these assholes just use a bomb? Seems like we're not addressing the problem -- which is that someone actually wants to kill a bunch of people.

Do you believe that the US just has more lunatics than any other country? Is it something in our food? GMOs mutate us into killers?

[Bobble]

Do you believe that the US just has more lunatics than any other country? Is it something in our food? GMOs mutate us into killers?

Do you believe that the only reason these people did this was that they found a gun and couldn't figure out anything else to do with it?

I don't think I'm understanding your point.

[MacroGuru]

Do you believe that the US just has more lunatics than any other country? Is it something in our food? GMOs mutate us into killers?

I said it earlier and I will say it again. We as a culture glorify violence. We push it upon people in all areas TV Shows, Video Games, Music, Books..etc and we are desensitized to it. When you can play a video game, walk up to someone pull the trigger, kill them, and walk away...where is the ability for a kid to understand that it is wrong. Or they get into a shootout in the game with cops, kill them and run away and then get away free? (Yes I know, I play these games)

Movies show the same thing and some of the music enforces it, so we as a culture are the root cause to this.

As a parent I noticed a big difference in my kids when I let them play their "violent" video games and the non violent ones to the point I actually traded in almost all my FPS for sports games. (I am a hypocritical father and like my HALO games)

I also feel the rest of the world respects guns as most countries have their people of age serve in the military. They learn to respect their weapon, they learn a lot about it and some of them have experienced the damage one can leave first hand.

[ISiddiqui]

Do you believe that the only reason these people did this was that they found a gun and couldn't figure out anything else to do with it?

I don't think I'm understanding your point.

So is your argument actually is that the US has more lunatics than anywhere else. My point is that if you think these individuals would have resorted to bombs and killed people regardless of the easy of availability of weapons, then the US has more wackos than countries where guns are banned or heavily restricted and they don't have even close to this level of death and destruction.

My point is that ease of access to lethal weaponry makes it far easier for an angry person to actually kill people as opposed to having to deal with their rage in other ways because they can't find any readily available weapons. I'm sure we've all been so mad that we wanted to hurt someone else in our lives... some people go even farther than that... having a gun around makes it easier to enact that hurt upon others. Not having a gun around makes one resort to maybe starting a brawl or raging out somewhere else rather than killing someone.

It's like what was earlier stated upthread about crisis period for suicide - there is a certain period where if people can get their hands on something lethal, they will use it, but when that period goes away, they likely will not try again.

[ISiddiqui]

I said it earlier and I will say it again. We as a culture glorify violence. We push it upon people in all areas TV Shows, Video Games, Music, Books..etc and we are desensitized to it. When you can play a video game, walk up to someone pull the trigger, kill them, and walk away...where is the ability for a kid to understand that it is wrong. Or they get into a shootout in the game with cops, kill them and run away and then get away free? (Yes I know, I play these games)

Movies show the same thing and some of the music enforces it, so we as a culture are the root cause to this.

I hear this "explanation" and my mind boggles at it. So the UK doesn't watch the same movies, TV shows, have the same video games, listen to the same music? Australia? Heck, Canada?

So why is the problem here when the 'culture' is all over the place?

[Dutch]

So what is the plan for the 270 million guns once the government repeals the 2nd amendment?

[jeff061]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/health/san-bernardino-swat-doctor-profile/index.html

Thought this was a cool article. I don't mean this to have anything to do with this gun debate, so don't read into it. Interesting to hear about medical doctors who are members of the SWAT team and trained for urban combat. In this case he got the call, suited up and went in before any other members of SWAT were onsite.

[cartman]

So what is the plan for the 270 million guns once the government repeals the 2nd amendment?

Please stop

[Kodos]

Dutch: You keep coming back to that, but who here is saying we're going to repeal the 2nd amendment and come for the 270 million guns? (Maybe ISiddiqui?) You constantly retreat into claiming the gun control people in this thread are demanding something nobody (or at least almost nobody) is asking for to try to invalidate the gun control side.

WHY DO YOU WANT EVERYBODY TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF A GUN-WIELDING MANIAC?!?

See? We can do that too.

[Bobble]

My point is that ease of access to lethal weaponry makes it far easier for an angry person to actually kill people as opposed to having to deal with their rage in other ways because they can't find any readily available weapons.

Ah, I think I understand.

My point is that I don't think it's possible to remove all sources for a person to harm themselves and others. The focus should be on WHY that person wants to harm people. Seems to me that there's too much focus on the symptoms (or in this case the means) and not the disease.

[TroyF]

You said it here better than I would have.



Aside from the wanting specific proof as to how those laws would reduce gun violence going forward in the future before you even want to begin implementing them. Yeeeeahh... Is that really being for those laws, or is that saying you are for them and looking for an excuse not to pass them so you can straddle both sides?

Ok, maybe I had too much to drink over the last few days and I am having some sort of a blackout because I think I have said about thirty times I am for passing the gun laws you are talking about.

Please, seriously, someone please show me where I have said, "We should not pass any laws until we do more research" I am being called evil by you, the least you (or anyone else) can do is show me where I have said that.


Here is the post that seems to have caused people to lose their fucking minds:

*****It is incredibly easy to spout the blood on their hands arguement, but if they had closed all the loopholes people wanted closed, there are zero indications this act would not have taken place.

Again, you are arguing with the wrong person. I want to see more laws passed. But my head is not in the sand pretending that legislation is going to fix this problem.


A graph at the top of this thread shows more than one a day. Ok, lets see the facts. How many of those guns were bought at gun shows? How many were purchased by people with known mental issues? What is the most common type of weapon used?

It is time to stop acting like we know it all. Lets get down to facts before we start talking about blood and blaming one party over the other. There were residents who said they saw strange things, but didntreport them because they didnt want to stereotype. Which party is responsible for that exactly? Hint. . . You should turn your head left. ********

My point in that is that I dont believe these laws are going to fix this problem. While we pass these laws that I think make perfect sense, why dont we also see how many of the past shootings they would have solved so we have an idea how how much they will help and what other things we need to do beyond those laws. Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp? If we come to the conclusion itll stop 25% of the mass shootings in this country, that means we get a whopping one day off in four. (By the way, I think this is a very high number, my guess is well see a nominal reduction) Thats progress, but it doesnt solve the massive culture problem we have in this country.

I said earlier in the thread we had to do a lit of things beyond gun laws. This problem will not be fixed by only gun laws, by only better mental health, by only screaming at each other.

Outside of another shot at me, did you even bother to read the Harvard study i posted that showed your comments to be false? Or what about the other people who said they were wrong? Are they all stupid and evil?

[Kodos]

Ah, I think I understand.

My point is that I don't think it's possible to remove all sources for a person to harm themselves and others. The focus should be on WHY that person wants to harm people. Seems to me that there's too much focus on the symptoms (or in this case the means) and not the disease.

Why not attack from both angles? Why not use every tool in the shed?

We have some people who do things due to mental illness, some people who do things for religious reasons, some people who hate others based on their skin color or their gender or sexual preference or because they like to use birth control or want to get an abortion. People have all sorts of reasons for killing each other.

[lighthousekeeper]

Dutch: You keep coming back to that, but who here is saying we're going to repeal the 2nd amendment and come for the 270 million guns?

Well I for one would be in favor of abolishing the 2nd amendment and confiscating all guns. I'd also be in favor of waging war against any who resist.



*edit: mental note to self...delete this post before running for president...*

[Kodos]

Okay, well, there are exceptions. :)

I view that as not realistic, so I don't consider it to be an option. If I could magically make all the guns disappear with the wave of a wand, yes, I'd do it. But we don't live in a world where magical wands work. So we have to try to find practical solutions that might help in the real world. We have to try to meet in the middle somewhere between no guns for anyone and all guns for everyone.


Kang: Abortions for all. [crowd boos]
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone. [crowd boos]
Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

[timmae]

ISid... I am not sure if I agree with you or not but I am 100% sure I am completely turned off by your responses the last few pages. Please review how your posts may be taken by others and you may start to have a 2 way discussion.

[MacroGuru]

Well I for one would be in favor of abolishing the 2nd amendment and confiscating all guns. I'd also be in favor of waging war against any who resist.



*edit: mental note to self...delete this post before running for president...*

A war would be had..and it would rival the Civil War and send this country into a complete tail spin more than it already is and I doubt you would be able to get most of the military to support it....

[CU Tiger]

I want people to be able to hunt. I'll never hunt personally, because I couldn't ever bring myself to kill an animal for sport. I'll kill a fish to eat it, but I feel bad if a catch-and-release fish dies on me. I understand that it's necessary to thin the herds for deer and whatnot. Shoot all the squirrels and pigeons you like. No problem with me.



FWIW Every animal killed by me and my family*** is eaten either by us OR through a local Hunters for the Homeless program. Where you can donate animals and pay the processing fee to a number of local meat shops and they will clean and cut up the meat (into burger, sausage, chops, steaks for venison for example) and serve it at homeless shelters and actually provide it free of charge to people who just come by and say they are having trouble affording food to feed their family.


*** The lone exception is the aforementioned coyotes. Heck they are so rank the buzzards wont even eat them. We have begun to drag them to fire ant piles, as that's the only thing that will eat the nasty SOBs.

[ISiddiqui]

ISid... I am not sure if I agree with you or not but I am 100% sure I am completely turned off by your responses the last few pages. Please review how your posts may be taken by others and you may start to have a 2 way discussion.

And I have gotten more than a few PM's thanking me for fighting the good fight. At some point, a la Network, "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore".

And Troy, damn do you love your strawmen. First it was my contention that the right wing have blood on their hands meant I was saying that all gun owners had blood on their hands and now it's my calling you an accomplice to evil meaning I called you evil. I find it interesting. Do you normally strawman this much in other discussions? Because it's like a strawman a post here. (at the same token, I like how the Harvard study - which yes, I have read and there is tons and tons of more studies showing the exact opposite, btw, indicating I think the 2007 Harvard study to be an outlier... kind of like the studies that show that Climate Change doesn't exist - so much is pointed in the other direction that you have to question those - goes from doesn't correlate and you don't know of the bias to it shows your comments to be false. I find it to be an interesting phenomenon among some sides that something starts out with "well, this may be something" and by saying it over and over again becomes "this IS something" - and it isn't just you, but you seem to have totally done it plenty here)

[BillJasper]

If this is a mental health instead of a gun issue, then where is the money and legislation to deal with the problem?

I keep hearing this from conservatives but haven't seen them come forth with any solutions. If they want to keep a free flow of guns, it seems like they'd come up with ways to address the issue of mental health.

[lighthousekeeper]

Okay, well, there are exceptions. :)

I view that as not realistic, so I don't consider it to be an option.

A decade ago, if someone would have proposed that the US should implement a system whereby the federal government secretly records the electronic communications of all Americans, for the purpose of aiding in prosecution against said Americans, I would have said the same thing. "No way do they have the means, and absolutely no way the People are going to let that happen." The Patriot Act and its ilk have demonstrated that the Feds are a lot more capable (when they have the willpower) than we give them credit for, and that people are a lot more open to an authoritarian government than you would think.

[Ben E Lou]

Meanwhile....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

[jeff061]

By pledge allegiance, they mean they made a Facebook post. Any angry idiot can do that regardless of the motive, doesn't mean they were sponsored or trained.

Media and President are itching to link it to ISIS.

[ISiddiqui]

If this is a mental health instead of a gun issue, then where is the money and legislation to deal with the problem?

I keep hearing this from conservatives but haven't seen them come forth with any solutions. If they want to keep a free flow of guns, it seems like they'd come up with ways to address the issue of mental health.

Here. Here. In addition, it seems to be that conservatives in this country appear to be saying that the US has more mentally ill than other countries. Or we've simply failed in mental health issues, which would stem all the way back to Ronald Reagan closing the mental hospitals. So the conservatives are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place - either they claim we have more mentally ill people than anywhere else (interesting sell), or they claim that more government was a decent solution to the mental illness problem.

[CU Tiger]

A decade ago, if someone would have proposed that the US should implement a system whereby the federal government secretly records the electronic communications of all Americans, for the purpose of aiding in prosecution against said Americans, I would have said the same thing. "No way do they have the means, and absolutely no way the People are going to let that happen." The Patriot Act and its ilk have demonstrated that the Feds are a lot more capable (when they have the willpower) than we give them credit for, and that people are a lot more open to an authoritarian government than you would think.

Here is the difference.
You can electronically record my conversations without ever interacting with me physically.

To physically confiscate real property takes an human interaction. This will be carried out by whom? Military?

Funny thing is most ex-military (and I think last time I saw the stats it was in excess of 95%) are gun owners. The ones who have seen the most fear the most. They arent coming for mine and your guns because they know theirs are gone as well.

I'm not being at all hyperbolic when I say this, "An executive order to disarm all private citizens would be the complete downfall and ending of the United States of America's existence as a sovereign entity".

[molson]

Just one co-workers opinion, but it's an interesting template from which to carry out terrorism in the U.S.

San Bernardino shooting suspect's sister, Saira Khan, breaks her silence - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-syed-rizwan-farook-sister-saira-khan-speaks-out-disbelief/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17)

Christian Nwadike was shocked when he learned the man accused of gunning down over a dozen people turned out to be the coworker he sat only feet from for nearly four years. He said Farook was different after he returned from Saudi Arabia.

"Do you believe that he was radicalized?" Begnaud asked him.

"Yes, by the wife, I think he married a terrorist," Nwadike said.

"He married a terrorist?"

"Yes, he was set up through that marriage," Nwadike responded.

[ISiddiqui]

The CNN link though is interesting as most people who knew them appear to be befuddled - the guy even spoke out against ISIS and radical Muslims.

[Sun Tzu]

I'm not being at all hyperbolic when I say this, "An executive order to disarm all private citizens would be the complete downfall and ending of the United States of America's existence as a sovereign entity".

Ah, FOFC. I see you haven't changed.

[Ben E Lou]

The CNN link though is interesting as most people who knew them appear to be befuddled - the guy even spoke out against ISIS and radical Muslims.One report is saying that they are now going down the road that it seems very possible that she (the wife) is the one who radicalized him.

[stevew]

Is JihadiMingle a dating site?

[molson]

And I have gotten more than a few PM's thanking me for fighting the good fight. At some point, a la Network, "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore".


Again, what exactly are you doing in this "fight" except for insulting people and comparing yourself to Martin Luther King? You're not some huge patriot because you're willing to stand up and speak against a right you don't value anyway.

[Ben E Lou]

i love how you keep trying to bring us back to reality. hey we're trying to have an angry argument about gun control over here.:D

[lighthousekeeper]

Funny thing is most ex-military (and I think last time I saw the stats it was in excess of 95%) are gun owners. The ones who have seen the most fear the most. They arent coming for mine and your guns because they know theirs are gone as well.

maybe. though i'm unable to recollect an example of where someone has defied the US federal gov't and walked away the winner...especially soldiers.

regardless, i'm not arguing this is realistic. a more realistic scenario (thinking long term) may be that the gov't/darpa develops technology to aerially detect and track all firearms located within buildings/homes in real time. then use AI to automatically notify when the firearms are transported to an unusual location.

http://i.imgur.com/2clmyWb.jpg

[cartman]

Is JihadiMingle a dating site?

You don't have to be lonely, at Fatwa Only dot com.

[Kodos]

Don't forget Infidel-ity.com

[Abe Sargent]

One of the issues I think with the gun control debate is that America is too big to have national laws that work everywhere. The gun culture in WV is a powerful, important part of its heritage and culture. Guys grow up learning how to hunt, how to respect and care for them, and everyone is trained with them. We also have among the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. So a national gun control law probably restricts WV too much.

There are places in America where gun violence is rampant, they are not respected except as tools of power, and they are used against other people way too much. Any given gun control law that pulls them off the street and reduces violence from guns is a very important tool.

So we're too big a nation. The culture of places like WV, Alaska, the mid-west, the UP of Michigan, and more are very different than the cultures pf Detroit or the east coast cities. And it's impossible to pass a law restricting weapons nationally that can help the places that need the help without reducing the rights of people in others that don't need it.

And that's naturally where a lot of debate on this issue happens. Some people think a Constitutional restriction for everyone when it's not needed is ultimately bad. Others think the need trumps the restriction. To my mind, at the end of the day, that's the source of a lot of debate on gun control, and that's healthy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

it seems to be that conservatives in this country appear to be saying that the US has more mentally ill than other countries.

The election of Obama pretty much sealed that deal.

[nol]

That said. . . Please, show me the studies that show how much those solutions would drop gun violence. You mention mental health and I agree with those laws 250%. Just show me how many shootings that would have stopped. Sandy Hook? I think the mom bought the guns. James Holmes? probably, but that assumes it would have been reported.

This is rich because the argument for doing nothing is "we just need more good guys with guns in schools/hospitals/theaters/malls/etc. to save the day," which relies on nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Edit: I'll add one more thing that I've said before. The reason it is black and white is because that's where the lobbyists on both sides take it. Neither side wants to get together to have a serious discussion. The far left wants guns banned. That ends the debate and makes the "slippery slope" argument have merit. I really, really, really want the laws being talked about to be passed and I think it is a travesty they haven't been. I can't state that enough. But I understand both mindsets and don't think people who disagree with me are covered in blood.

This is what gets you called mealy-mouthed and accused of setting up strawmen. What is the name of this "ban all guns" lobby? I need something specific so whenever a politician says that we need to try to do something to prevent mass shootings, I can say "Liar! You're just in the pocket of _________!"

I'm aware of the Brady Campaign, for example, but that's definitely not trying to ban all guns. Here's a link (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/gun-lobby-outspends-gun-control-advocates) stating that the Brady Campaign spent just under $6,000 on campaign contributions during the 2012 election cycle compared to over $24 million by the NRA. So there must be some shadowy gun-banning Super PAC out there making up the difference and shifting the conversation away from more sensible gun laws.

[bob]

Re: Mental health

I tend to lean right on fiscal issues, but unless we as a country reduce defense spending drastically (and I'm not really sure if that's the best idea), we are going to have to raise taxes. Too many things and people are falling through the cracks.

One issue seems to be that it is a lot harder to force someone into mental care until they have done something. And there is no way to force someone to take their medication. I don't know how / if you can solve this issue.

Re: Gun control, etc

I don't feel like there are any easy answers to this. I'm surprised there isn't at least a federal gun registry already given things like vehicles and (soon) drones are registered. And I do understand the perspective of those that thing any attempt to curtail gun rights as a slippery slope. Pro-choice people say that same thing when any restriction is made there as well. But there has something that can be done.

Dumb question - if a gun legally belonging to person A is used by person B in a crime, is person A at all responsible? I ask because if my dog bites someone, I can be held responsible. Just curious about this.

Re: This specific incident

I don't believe this one will result in anything happening. Too many factors mixed together (terrorism, guns, mental health, workplace violence, etc) for it to be used as a rallying point for the nation for any sort of change.

In short, I'm sad and depressed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dumb question - if a gun legally belonging to person A is used by person B in a crime, is person A at all responsible? I ask because if my dog bites someone, I can be held responsible.


Can you be held responsible for your dog if I show up at your house & take your dog without permission?

{point being that isn't really an absolute scenario}

[stevew]

You don't have to be lonely, at Fatwa Only dot com.

PlentyOfHouri.com

[molson]

What is the name of this "ban all guns" lobby?

Whether you want to ban guns, restrict their ownership severely, or just impose more moderate additional restrictions, your immediate political aim is still going to be the same - to take one more step. It would make no sense to have a "ban all guns" lobby when you have to get to step 1 before you can get to step 3.

So you have a lot of distrust about what the real motives are. So there's resistance to any step in either direction. Some people are truly "one more step is enough", but obviously plenty would love to go much further.

But there are ways to tell the difference though and bridge those gaps of distrust. Just basic Jimmy Carter style-negotiation, Getting to Yes kind of stuff. Like Clinton did in the 90s. The way to convince people that you sincerely care about crime, and you're not just motivated by a general opportunistic hate of guns, gun owners, and conservatives or rural people generally, is to back that up with proposals that address crime in other ways in addition to the gun restrictions. Clinton got an assault gun ban by funding more police and more prisons, getting harsher drug laws, and restricting habeas relief with AEDPA (and the idea there was to also speed up executions, of course that part hasn't worked out, but AEDPA has still effectively eliminated habeas relief except in the most extraordinary circumstances).

Of course today the issue isn't crime generally, crime is in a free-fall, it's instead a narrow, rare, but impactful TYPE of gun crime, but the general idea is the same.

Today's congress is probably tougher to deal with than it was in the 90's, but that blueprint is much more effective than whatever the hell Dems are attempting now that has resulted in massive increases of gun sales. But I want to see that kind of legislation in gun control and other areas, which is why I'm pro-Clinton and anti-tea party and anti-Sanders. Congress is a mess now, but just like with gun control, it has to be a one-step-at-time deal.

Edit: I think there is potential room for agreement between a moderate president and a more moderate legislature. Obama hit on one potential area - he was talking about how people on no-fly lists can legally buy guns. I think plenty of gun-owning conservatives would be OK with restricting gun ownership for people on no-fly lists and more general terrorist watch lists. Especially if you combine it with other national security stuff. Of course, that's not foolproof either, there's innocent people on those lists, but like everyone is saying here, just because something isn't guaranteed to work perfectly, that doesn't mean nothing should be attempted. That goes for legislation and the makeup of congress too....Another area where there's room for agreement is harsher penalties for gun crimes and illegal weapon ownership, and more aggressive policing regarding those things.. There are SO MANY illegal weapons out there right now, and prosecution in those areas is mostly an afterthought. A huge crack down there would take a ton of weapons off the street and put a ton of illegal gun owners in prison.