Great, now we have Sandy Hook "Truthers"

[Dutch]

Can we please ban the press from reporting on this?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Difference being (perhaps) there are quite a few scenarios I can come up with where there are multiple targets that need to be killed quickly & efficiently.

Zombies!!!

My conspiracy theory:

Perhaps this general "there must be a real, unifying reason for everything" is related to religious fundamentalism. God has a plan, bad things happen for His reasons, I am a solider in His army, I must arm up for His end times....

The psychosis apocryphal literature has brought on, ie Daniel and Revelations, has nearly hardwired Western Civilization into treating unjust suffering into an "us and them" hero story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

But why should the government have to make it legal to have the means to violently overthrow them?

The 2nd Amendment already does that, or at least attempted to do so.
Quite explicitly in fact.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Subby

This thread is a good example of why we can't ignore the mental health component in the Sandy Hook story.

I agree with this in theory but it can't be left at that. All the mental health services in the world can't make up for bad parenting. There is absolutely zero that we can do about that. There will always be bad parents who aren't going to get the help they need or even going to care, because there are the Casey Anthony's of the world. Mental health, gun control, neither is the silver bullet here because bad parenting will always allow for those people to slip through the cracks.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They don't have home invasions where you live?

Though it's not for me to decide, most gun owners wouldn't choose an assault rifle as the first line in home defense.

[PilotMan]

Since when did the generally accepted position of the NRA/Right be that the second amendment means that you can have as many as you want and that the government cannot regulate it? The Supreme Court has already ruled that that's not true. Furthermore, if they just argue that they don't trust the government enough to agree with what the Supreme Court says, why even bother with the Second Amendment since it's a government document? Why not just ignore law and just do whatever the hell you want because you in your hear believe it to be right, law or no law? Hell, why even have laws? Why not just proclaim general anarchy and let those with assault rifles shoot it out in a survival of the fittest battle to Armageddon?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Since when did the generally accepted position of the NRA/Right be that the second amendment means that you can have as many as you want and that the government cannot regulate it? The Supreme Court has already ruled that that's not true. Furthermore, if they just argue that they don't trust the government enough to agree with what the Supreme Court says, why even bother with the Second Amendment since it's a government document? Why not just ignore law and just do whatever the hell you want because you in your hear believe it to be right, law or no law? Hell, why even have laws? Why not just proclaim general anarchy and let those with assault rifles shoot it out in a survival of the fittest battle to Armageddon?

When did slippery slope become a debate tactic to rebutt a slippery slope argument?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I agree with this in theory but it can't be left at that. All the mental health services in the world can't make up for bad parenting. There is absolutely zero that we can do about that. There will always be bad parents who aren't going to get the help they need or even going to care, because there are the Casey Anthony's of the world. Mental health, gun control, neither is the silver bullet here because bad parenting will always allow for those people to slip through the cracks.

FWIW, all the reports show that the Sandy Hook shooter's mom TRIED to get help, and potentially get him committed, but our current mental health setup makes it very difficult for that to happen.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Though it's not for me to decide, most gun owners wouldn't choose an assault rifle as the first line in home defense.

Sawed-off no-stock shotgun seems to be pretty illegal because it's easy to conceal, despite it being about the best option for home defense.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Autumn

And do any of them involve anything but armed rebellion? Is there any other situation in which a crowd of armed individuals are going to attack your house?

I've personally witnessed an incident in Colorado not involving humans at all where if the landowner had had an automatic weapon in hand, he might have been able to protect his rather expensive property from an aggressive attacker.

Property = horse
Attacker = charging mountain lion

He shot twice. He missed. There was no time to get off a third shot. The mountain lion maimed the horse to the point where it had to be put down.

I do think people on both sides of this debate forget that Americans don't live in anywhere close to the same situations. THAT guy has a good reason to own an automatic weapon to protect his livelihood. (EDIT: And I would imagine most staunch anti-gun folks would readily concede such a point.) (And yes, the term "assault weapon" is likely very misunderstood by many.)

Unfortunately, I suspect that this is one of those areas where compromise that is acceptable to both sides is virtually impossible.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by panerd

When did slippery slope become a debate tactic to rebutt a slippery slope argument?

That's my point though. In "logical" discussions the middle point of view is simply discarded because the objecting party is simply "correct" and the opposing view is simply "wrong." I'm just wondering what happened to the Citizens of the USA that we simply dance to whoever plays the lute the loudest? I'm obviously jaded due to the loud, long rants that fly across my facebook all day long, and that living in KY we are approaching Texas standards of goofiness.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

FWIW, all the reports show that the Sandy Hook shooter's mom TRIED to get help, and potentially get him committed, but our current mental health setup makes it very difficult for that to happen.

I have to be honest, I have avoided a lot of the story itself simply because of my emotional state, but even if she did, there will be others. We live in a free country and once we hit 18 that's that. You are on your own. You can't start locking people up on a hunch that one day they might be a danger to society. It's just one of the holes we can never patch.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

FWIW, all the reports show that the Sandy Hook shooter's mom TRIED to get help, and potentially get him committed, but our current mental health setup makes it very difficult for that to happen.

She also was wealthy, and had unlimited time on her hands. "Access" and "availability" are big buzz words right now but they're kind of vague. What it is about the current health setup that made it difficult for him to get help?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You can't start locking people up on a hunch that one day they might be a danger to society.

More accurately, we're not willing to start locking people up on such a hunch.

Some of you may recall that years ago I posted on here about a former YL kid who had committed suicide. At the time I posted, it seemed "too early" to talk negatively about him or say my real feelings on the subject. But the truth of the matter is that the kid was very obviously very mentally ill. (And yes, his parents tried numerous ways to get help but weren't willing to have him involuntarily committed.) To be perfectly honest, my first internal response when I heard the news was: "I'm surprised that he didn't take anyone else with him." I'm not an expert, but well before the suicide, there was absolutely no question in my mind that the right and moral thing to do, both for his own safety and for the good of society, was to lock that guy up somewhere safe until he could be cured.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

She also was wealthy, and had unlimited time on her hands. "Access" and "availability" are big buzz words right now but they're kind of vague. What it is about the current health setup that made it difficult for him to get help?

This:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

More accurately, we're not willing to start locking people up on such a hunch.

I'm not saying we go back to this, but once upon a time all a parent / caregiver had to do was call the police, and they would come and take a dependent into custody pending a mental health evaluation. That was easy to abuse of course, and we had a very poor record of taking care of / abusing mental health patients. But we've now swung the other way where it is next to impossible to get someone committed before they do something harmful. There needs to be a middle ground, and part of it involves having a much better setup for taking care of those we do commit.

Keep in mind that we've also decided over the last couple of decades that "mental health" issues can become a get-out-of-jail-free (well, much earlier than otherwise) card, explaining away criminal behavior as "not your fault", and once cured you can go back into society. That needs to get straightened out as part of fixing the above.

[twothree]

Why Sandy Hook Massacre Spawned Conspiracy Theories | LiveScience

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This:

Ya, that, agreed. I was focusing on what the mother could have done, and about the general availability of treatment, but on that, ya, that's an ongoing struggle and a huge issue.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've personally witnessed an incident in Colorado not involving humans at all where if the landowner had had an automatic weapon in hand, he might have been able to protect his rather expensive property from an aggressive attacker.

Property = horse
Attacker = charging mountain lion

He shot twice. He missed. There was no time to get off a third shot. The mountain lion maimed the horse to the point where it had to be put down.

I do think people on both sides of this debate forget that Americans don't live in anywhere close to the same situations. THAT guy has a good reason to own an automatic weapon to protect his livelihood. (EDIT: And I would imagine most staunch anti-gun folks would readily concede such a point.) (And yes, the term "assault weapon" is likely very misunderstood by many.)

Unfortunately, I suspect that this is one of those areas where compromise that is acceptable to both sides is virtually impossible.

This is a perfect response to my question to JIMGA, and one that despite your comment at the end I think does encourage compromise and thoughtful response. If people would more often respond with real worries or examples, and less fearmongering we'd get somewhere. I now have this in my head as one example of why someone would want a gun like this. That breaks down the monolithic thinking.

[JediKooter]

Unfortunately, this is a subject that is way too easily swayed by knee jerk reactions. To me, the sensible thing would be, to look at the current gun control laws and see what's working and what isn't with them. Keep the stuff that is working and either scrap or improve the parts of the laws that don't work. After that, THEN, law makers can start looking at adding any new gun control laws, in my opinion. I just don't see how throwing more laws on top of existing laws can really solve anything without addressing the successes and failures of the current laws.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They don't have home invasions where you live?

Ones where the homeowner needs to mow down a crowd of individuals within seconds? No, not since the Revolutionary War as far as I'm aware.

Maybe I"m just not imaginative, but I can't imagine a home invasion where a semi-automatic pistol with a large magazine wouldn't be a better choice than an assault rifle.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Maybe I"m just not imaginative, but I can't imagine a home invasion where a semi-automatic pistol with a large magazine wouldn't be a better choice than an assault rifle.

And yet there is woefully inadequate justification for limiting the opportunity of an otherwise law abiding individual to make that decision themselves.

One child death doesn't do it. Two dozen don't. Two thousand don't.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've personally witnessed an incident in Colorado not involving humans at all where if the landowner had had an automatic weapon in hand, he might have been able to protect his rather expensive property from an aggressive attacker.

Property = horse
Attacker = charging mountain lion

He shot twice. He missed. There was no time to get off a third shot. The mountain lion maimed the horse to the point where it had to be put down.

I do think people on both sides of this debate forget that Americans don't live in anywhere close to the same situations. THAT guy has a good reason to own an automatic weapon to protect his livelihood. (EDIT: And I would imagine most staunch anti-gun folks would readily concede such a point.) (And yes, the term "assault weapon" is likely very misunderstood by many.)

Unfortunately, I suspect that this is one of those areas where compromise that is acceptable to both sides is virtually impossible.

This guy could have gotten a transferable automatic M16, but the cost would be something like $15k. They are still available to buy, however.

Shitty story though, I'm glad I don't have mountain lions around to worry about

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And yet there is woefully inadequate justification for limiting the opportunity of an otherwise law abiding individual to make that decision themselves.

One child death doesn't do it. Two dozen don't. Two thousand don't.

NY Post Headline:

"JONINMIDDLEGA TO WORLD: ILL GIVE YOU MY GUNS ONLY AFTER YOU MURDER 2000 CHILDREN"

[Passacaglia]

2001

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by twothree

Why Sandy Hook Massacre Spawned Conspiracy Theories | LiveScience

Wow - read the comments section.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Wow - read the comments section.

I'm sure the comments are full of insightful, well thought out, logical conclusions that are supported by empirical data and evidence.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Wow - read the comments section.

And they're not even anonymous trolls, these are facebook comments. These are people who stand behind their views in front of all who know them.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

More accurately, we're not willing to start locking people up on such a hunch.

Some of you may recall that years ago I posted on here about a former YL kid who had committed suicide. At the time I posted, it seemed "too early" to talk negatively about him or say my real feelings on the subject. But the truth of the matter is that the kid was very obviously very mentally ill. (And yes, his parents tried numerous ways to get help but weren't willing to have him involuntarily committed.) To be perfectly honest, my first internal response when I heard the news was: "I'm surprised that he didn't take anyone else with him." I'm not an expert, but well before the suicide, there was absolutely no question in my mind that the right and moral thing to do, both for his own safety and for the good of society, was to lock that guy up somewhere safe until he could be cured.

My wife is a mental health RN working at a transitional care facility for the seriously mentally ill -- sort of a holding area for people who are bouncing back and forth between the state hospital and managed care housing. She has the interesting perspective that she's also a med-compliant bipolar patient (manic-depressive for those of you in your 60's and 70's.)

She tells me that the biggest problem with the mental health system from the perspective of her clients is that unless the legal system gets involved, they can't compel the seriously mentally ill to be med compliant...and the legal system really doesn't want to be involved. She's more than ready for the pendulum to swing back the other direction where medical personnel can force some categories of patients into chemical restraint for the long term.

In her words, some people are beyond help, and the only way they eventually get "help" (where we define "help" as removing them from society) is to hurt other people to the point that the legal system is forced to take notice. Since I don't work in the field, it's hard for me to tell how serious she is, and how much is just frustration from working with a difficult clientele, but it seems to me that part of the issue was a national decision that was made several years ago to eliminate a great many of the psychiatric state hospitals and start pushing some of the seriously mentally ill back into their communities to integrate with the population. The resources to monitor them simply are not there, and it puts the onus on the sick individual and their family to make things happen.

I don't know about you, but I've been around enough mentally ill folks over the years that with most of them, I completely lost interest in helping them and started saying, "You know what? I don't really care what you do -- you're just not welcome to do it in my vicinity anymore." And I don't think I'm alone. I tend to believe that more and more people are more or less abandoning their mentally ill relatives to their own devices because they're *tired*, and getting them the help they need on a regular basis is a full time job.

Hell, if my wife decided to go off the deep end again and chose to be non-compliant with her treatment, our contact would last just about long enough for me to pack up my shit and the kids before heading for the hills. I've been through it too many times, and it's just exhausting.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Sawed-off no-stock shotgun seems to be pretty illegal because it's easy to conceal, despite it being about the best option for home defense.

The Taurus Judge is your legal option there. A revolver that shoots .410 shotgun shells.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, that, agreed. I was focusing on what the mother could have done, and about the general availability of treatment, but on that, ya, that's an ongoing struggle and a huge issue.

Maybe parents should be going to jail for this sort of stuff. While the Mother wouldn't have to worry about it in this situation, maybe the Harris and Klebold parents should be in jail right now.

You should be responsible somewhat for the people you bring into the world and how they turn out.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Taurus Judge is your legal option there. A revolver that shoots .410 shotgun shells.

The Judge is a sweet weapon

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But is that the right way? Isn't society just making a correction based on evidence? The line right now is assault weapons OK, automatic rifles/grenades bad. Society has made a calculus that there is a certain amount of danger we're willing to allow from assault weapons being possessed by certain individuals in order to feel protected.

Now society seems to be saying that the line should be moved, that the danger posed by these types of assault weapons and their owners now outweighs the protective benefit of them.

First by definition assault weapons are and have been for a long damn time illegal for anyone to own without an ATF tax stamp.

Definition an assault weapon is one with selectable fire between fully automatic and semi automatic. Any full auto weapon requires very select and long drawn out acquisition processes.

The repeated mantra of assault weapon ban becomes a non starter for a conversation for me, they are already banned.

For example I possess the legal right to own silenced high powered rifles. I'm going to be vague here for some privacy, but one of the reasons is we shoot on our farm and we used to get complaints about the neighborhoods that bloomed around us. Despite the fact that we shot into a 25' high burm that is over 40ft thick of packed dirt. and the nearest house is over a mile beyond that structure. If we were shooting we would get complaints.

So I went through the nearly 2 year process and I am legally allowed to make and purchase "silencers"...


I think there may be some logic in clip limits...but Im not sure where. I can tell you the first time my wife expressed an interest in wanting to shoot I took her to an interactive range and placed a pistol in her hands. A sprinting attack target covered 25 yards before she landed a fatal hit on shot 12...she isnt alone in that accuracy range.

I got to be honest the thought of an inside job crossed my mind the day it happened...but I dont believe that is what happened. But when Obama cried on TV and said "There will be a time for dialogue in the near future"...it seemed mighty contrived to me.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They don't have home invasions where you live?

I think the question should be "they don't have people with incredibly small dickswhere you live?". Lets be honest, no one needs a bunch of high powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition to fend off a home invasion. Whether you agree with the gun laws or not, this has less to do with protection and more to do with people overcompensating for something they lack in their life.

And I'm not arguing for a ban on stuff. I think it'd be as futile as the war on drugs. Just find the protection and overthrow government reasons for owning all these high powered weapons comical. They'll never be used for either. It's as bad as the people who totally need marijuana to cure their anxiety or whatever. Lets just admit these people like to shoot guns and think it makes them look tough or something and the guys who want weed legalized want to be able to smoke pot for recreation.

[stevew]

Oh wow....reading some of this truther shit now about this. Claiming a mossad hit squad did it? Hilarious shit.

[Autumn]

Yeah, in the end people don't want their toys taken away. This is true not only in guns, but in video games, drugs, internet, porn, etc. Whether there was a great ironclad reason to regulate any of these things, whether it would make the world safer or better, the people who like these things are going to resist. They may come up with good reasons for it, but the real reason is we all like our toys, and human beings are just not generally inclined to go without something they like for anybody else's benefit. This is not to say that it would necessarily help to limit guns, or violent video games, or alcohol, or pornography. It's just to say that no matter if we solved those debates or not, no one really likes to inconvenience themselves for some abstract concept. We all want individually to be able to do whatever we want, while other people probably need to be regulated.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

First by definition assault weapons are and have been for a long damn time illegal for anyone to own without an ATF tax stamp.

Definition an assault weapon is one with selectable fire between fully automatic and semi automatic. Any full auto weapon requires very select and long drawn out acquisition processes.

The repeated mantra of assault weapon ban becomes a non starter for a conversation for me, they are already banned.

For example I possess the legal right to own silenced high powered rifles. I'm going to be vague here for some privacy, but one of the reasons is we shoot on our farm and we used to get complaints about the neighborhoods that bloomed around us. Despite the fact that we shot into a 25' high burm that is over 40ft thick of packed dirt. and the nearest house is over a mile beyond that structure. If we were shooting we would get complaints.

So I went through the nearly 2 year process and I am legally allowed to make and purchase "silencers"...


I think there may be some logic in clip limits...but Im not sure where. I can tell you the first time my wife expressed an interest in wanting to shoot I took her to an interactive range and placed a pistol in her hands. A sprinting attack target covered 25 yards before she landed a fatal hit on shot 12...she isnt alone in that accuracy range.

I got to be honest the thought of an inside job crossed my mind the day it happened...but I dont believe that is what happened. But when Obama cried on TV and said "There will be a time for dialogue in the near future"...it seemed mighty contrived to me.

No offense meant to your wife or you, but I have a hard time justifying "this person isn't very good with this tool, so you can't limit them to 2 or 4 rounds. It needs to be 20 or 40"

How's that any different than "my wife...she's not a great driver...she has a hard time not drifting into other lanes."

One gets their license taken away, or is no longer insurable.

I just have a hard time saying we need to make options available for people who maybe shouldn't be carrying a gun/driving in the first place.

(and yes, I know gun owership is a "God given right", and driving is merely a "privlege").

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Lets be honest, no one needs a bunch of high powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition to fend off a home invasion.

I didn't say that was the primary purpose, I mentioned that in response to whether there was a scenario other than overthrowing the government (paraphrasing).

Just find the protection and overthrow government reasons for owning all these high powered weapons comical.

Whether or not they're used to successfully effect an overthrow, it's beats a slingshot for the potential to take down multiple targets in a short period of time. If that means nothing more than taking as many of the (multiple categories of) bastards when you when you go, it's still an improvement over not having the option.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the question should be "they don't have people with incredibly small dickswhere you live?". Lets be honest, no one needs a bunch of high powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition to fend off a home invasion. Whether you agree with the gun laws or not, this has less to do with protection and more to do with people overcompensating for something they lack in their life.

For a bunch of these folks (not all), they're just jerking off to Red Dawn fantasies.

We really need to be sitting down and look at the big picture. Assault weapons, mental illness, violence in video games and movies (yet we're afraid of a nipple), the death penalty and abortion. All those things add up to a society that doesn't really place a very high value on human life...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yeah, in the end people don't want their toys taken away. This is true not only in guns, but in video games, drugs, internet, porn, etc. Whether there was a great ironclad reason to regulate any of these things, whether it would make the world safer or better, the people who like these things are going to resist. They may come up with good reasons for it, but the real reason is we all like our toys, and human beings are just not generally inclined to go without something they like for anybody else's benefit. This is not to say that it would necessarily help to limit guns, or violent video games, or alcohol, or pornography. It's just to say that no matter if we solved those debates or not, no one really likes to inconvenience themselves for some abstract concept. We all want individually to be able to do whatever we want, while other people probably need to be regulated.

And I think there's an element of "my toys are necessary and valuable and yours are stupid and worthless". It's pretty easy to oppose a right that you yourself don't value, I think we see that in all kinds of contexts. When people see gun owners as "compensating for small dicks" and "jerking off to red dawn fantasies", you can see how this debate is as much about cultural superiority as it is about policy. We want to keep our toys but take away other peoples' toys that we don't approve of, or whom we feel superior too. Or at least, that becomes the perception, so you can see why the other side digs in - it's not a policy argument, it's really an attack on them personally.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the question should be "they don't have people with incredibly small dickswhere you live?". Lets be honest, no one needs a bunch of high powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition to fend off a home invasion. Whether you agree with the gun laws or not, this has less to do with protection and more to do with people overcompensating for something they lack in their life.

And I'm not arguing for a ban on stuff. I think it'd be as futile as the war on drugs. Just find the protection and overthrow government reasons for owning all these high powered weapons comical. They'll never be used for either. It's as bad as the people who totally need marijuana to cure their anxiety or whatever. Lets just admit these people like to shoot guns and think it makes them look tough or something and the guys who want weed legalized want to be able to smoke pot for recreation.

Some of us are pissed that real criminals get let out of prison to make room for evils like possession or selling marijuana, some of us our pissed that our government and police kill innocent people in our country and in other countries fighting to keep our streets free of drugs, that it is easier to get pot than it is to get alcohol in America's high schools but sounds like the real reason the war on drugs pisses me off is just because I want to get high. Thanks for enlightening us though on the truth behind people who disagree with the establishment's position on guns and drugs. We just lack what you super smart liberals have in your life and just want to be tough and get high! No holes in that argument at all!

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

And I think there's an element of "my toys are necessary and valuable and yours are stupid and worthless". It's pretty easy to oppose a right that you yourself don't value, I think we see that in all kinds of contexts. When people see gun owners as "compensating for small dicks" and "jerking off to red dawn fantasies", you can see how this debate is as much about cultural superiority as it is about policy. We want to keep our toys but take away other peoples' toys that we don't approve of, or whom we feel superior too. Or at least, that becomes the perception, so you can see why the other side digs in - it's not a policy argument, it's really an attack on them personally.

Yeah, exactly. I mean whenever any kind of internet regulation comes up all the internet users start crying about freedoms. And usually that means "Don't take my Napster Mp3s/torrents/freeporn away from me!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

All those things add up to a society that doesn't really place a very high value on human life...

If you live long enough, that tends to happen.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

idk. our society is obsessed with the apocalypse and that's not emanating from the far right. every other tv show video game movie etc is about societal collapse. it's not hard to understand why people are a little nervous about handing over their guns

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

idk. our society is obsessed with the apocalypse and that's not emanating from the far right. every other tv show video game movie etc is about societal collapse. it's not hard to understand why people are a little nervous about handing over their guns

I agree.

Which is why I think we need to pull back and examine our culture as a whole. Maybe death in pop culture needs to be a little more taboo and the booby a little less.

[JediKooter]

I think people need to be cautious of the "law of unintended consequences". I have to agree with some of the people here that have said (paraphrasing here): "It's ok to take away something from someone else, but, when the time comes for someone else to take away something of yours, then it's a bad idea". I'm not really for any kind of new gun control laws until the current ones are examined and determined to be either good, but, need to be enforced better or they are not good enough and need to be amended/strengthened. Once that's done, I'd be more open to discussing any kind of new gun control laws. The only 'new' thing that I would be willing to support now is a federally mandated safety and training course that every gun owner must pass every year or two. Anyone wishing to purchase a gun, must have passed the course first before they can be sold a gun. I see it no different than having to have a fishing or hunting license or even a drivers license.

I think both sides, in general, are putting up some piss poor arguments for why they should get their way though. You have (if you go by facebook and some of the stuff I've read on various news sites) the conservative side of things with all of their chest thumping, ape grunting, and comparing Obama to Hitler (for the 345,834th time), daring people to take their guns away from them. Then you have the liberal side of things thinking that if they could just ban AK-47s (which I thought weren't legal to begin with to own in the US), background checks for everyone and people magically got mental health care, there would never be another shooting. I really haven't seen any or heard much of any rational, well thought out arguments for either side. And that's very disappointing.

[BlackJack]

Originally Posted by Bisbo

I believe the 'inMiddleGA" part explains this post.

Exactly. Maybe we should revisit the whole secession thing.

[Groundhog]

*bites tongue*

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by panerd

Some of us are pissed that real criminals get let out of prison to make room for evils like possession or selling marijuana, some of us our pissed that our government and police kill innocent people in our country and in other countries fighting to keep our streets free of drugs, that it is easier to get pot than it is to get alcohol in America's high schools but sounds like the real reason the war on drugs pisses me off is just because I want to get high. Thanks for enlightening us though on the truth behind people who disagree with the establishment's position on guns and drugs. We just lack what you super smart liberals have in your life and just want to be tough and get high! No holes in that argument at all!

Are you suggesting it should be easier to get alcohol in high school's?

[Danny]

I work with the emotionally disturbed population of an entire school district. I think a situation like this is a lot closer to happening in a lot of places than most people think. I've generally been in favor of second amendment rights, but I have to say my view has definitely adapted to one much more in favor of stricter gun control after seeing how easy it is for these types of individuals to get access to weapons.

[Dutch]

MrColionNoir: How to Stop MASS SHOOTINGS - YouTube