NRA is a Domestic Terrorist Group

[Rolyo85]

I'll keep my gun, thank you. The government or you will not take it away.

People have been taught that they don't need to have personal responsibility. We need to respect others, ourselves and the law.

Um, I won't, but if the government chooses to, it most certainly WILL take it from away Personal responsibility is paying taxes, not taking the law in your own hands.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you aware that Americans who are gun owners tend to overwhelmingly trust the NRA on voting matters despite their party affiliation?

I find this to be more than a little horrifying.

[eastofeden]

I do not support banning guns across the board for two reasons. The first is that I know how deeply many responsible gun owners believe they are protecting their lives and to turn millions of law abiding citizens into law breaking criminals is completely unacceptable to me. The other reason...criminals will STILL find and use guns as they always have no matter what law you put into place and you simply cannot and should not depend on the Police to protect you...I agree with Kulindhar on that point.

I believe in the right to do what you wish with your body and advocating laws that gives us the right to do with our bodies as we wish and that includes protecting it from harm and sometimes that requires a gun. I don't like that it sometimes requires a gun...but it DOES.

PS...not all liberals are anti gun.

[Rolyo85]

Banning guns across the board would be devastating for sure. I am not for it. I am for a severe set of regulations though...

[Stardreamer]

We need to keep in mind that the Supreme Court has established in the Heller decision that you have a right to have a gun for self defense in your own home. That is NOT changing without a decades of changes in the court or a constitutional amendment changing the 2nd Amendment. So even if the majority would like some of the poor to lie down and die at the hands of criminal gangs so there will be less deaths overall, they have an established RIGHT to have a gun in the home to defend themselves and that is not going to change.

The court does allow for reasonable restrictions on types of guns. The real question is what is reasonable? Unfortunately, basic handguns are the most reasonable weapon for self defense. They are also the most practical weapons for crime so we are faced situation, you cannot ban handguns and crime prevention you hope to gain cannot be achieved without doing so.

To make things worse, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore vs Madigan has just extended the Heller right to self defense in your home to the right of defense outside the home as well, if the Supreme Court upholds that ruling then shall issue concealed carry laws may become the national standard. The judges ruling put it this way:

A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.

The attorney's arguing for the Illinois law forbidding the carrying of guns in public used the public safety issue as part of their argument. The judge dismissed it saying that the fundamental right of self defense cannot be deprived to a law abiding citizen due to the 'causality counts' caused by others activities. The judge has made it plain that even if you could conclusively prove that banning guns would reduce the number of gun deaths overall, you cannot constitutionally use that to deny a law abiding citizen the right to have a gun for self defense.

An Important Victory for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Which brings us back to the question, you are not going to get rid of guns in US society so instead we should focus on what are 'reasonable' restrictions which could be allowed without baring the ability of self defense.

A restriction of magazine capacity would be one I think,

[JayHawk]

I think it is entirely reasonable to require training. But then I also think it entirely reasonable to register guns and if your weapon is involved in a crime and you haven't reported it stolen then you bear responsibility.

Although i really do think the major issue here is mental health, mental health services and the rampant over prescription of SSRIs for issues that are not required to have SSRIs. So either legislate that over prescription away (Never gonna happen... if you think the NRA has juice try fucking with big pharma who have their own administration in government) or require a one year hiatus from gun possession for those who are undergoing SSRI treatment. To include access in their familial environment.

I also know there are plenty of loopholes in gun procurement. Such as going to a gun show in Arizona. Those should be closed and enforced.

[opinterph]

when you kill a person, you are a murderer. Self-defense or not.

I disagree. Citizens are entitled to use lethal force to repel unprovoked threats of imminent personal harm.

[Rolyo85]

No, I agree with that. I was talking morality. The act of taking another human's life should be the absolute last resort in absolutely every situation, and it can never be even remotely morally right.

[JockBoy87]

No, I agree with that. I was talking morality. The act of taking another human's life should be the absolute last resort in absolutely every situation, and it can never be even remotely morally right.

Statutory definitions of murder usually require malice aforethought. So killing doesn't always make people a murderers, not even in "last resort" situations.

[xbuzzerx]

You're claiming the shooter there was happy and stable beforehand? That's what I was addressing.

I never claimed any such thing. I'm saying he was known to be in need of anti-psychotic medication but the gun nut portion of this country that insists on absolutely no regulation of any sort allowed a guy off his meds to walk into a store, no checks, and walk out with the weapons to carry out the deadliest school shooting spree in American history.

Nothing you've said in these 6 pages of the thread has thus far REMOTELY justified how this is a good thing. I would have to share your paranoid fear that the government is behind every corner waiting to catch me without my gun (I don't have one btw) to start oppressing me for the things you've said to be a good explanation for this state of affairs.

It's no different than pointing out that one does not use a hand grenade to kill a cockroach.

So you're basically sharing the position of Jack Springer that "well if people would just be good and mature..?" I don't see how that's a practical solution.

The police have no legal duty to protect anyone -- the courts have said so over and over, all the way up to the Supreme Court's multiple declarations about it.

People carrying weapons do seem to be "shining knights": they have a seriously lower crime rate than the general population. And I'd rather trust people to be responsible than be a coward hiding behind a system that pretends to protect but can't.

I have no idea where you get this. You go ask the parents of school age children if for security purposes they would rather have a police officer stationed on campus or volunteer random people with guns, see what they think.

It's not fear, it's pride in being free.

Right. That's why after Obama was re-elected gun sales soared through the roof. Somehow people's perception of their need for more guns always veers uncomfortably close to being highly associated to dark people moving in nearby.

Sorry Kul-- you are an odd bird on this topic. You are. You are trying to present your position here like your views represent gun ownership monolithically in this country. I don't see it as representing anything at all except you, one odd bird with a really fundamentalist view on gun ownership and its relationship to the Constitution and the ever-present fear of a government waiting to stomp on you. When I think of the reasons most gun nuts I've ever known want guns it has absolutely nothing to do with their desire to run off and join a militia to make sure the government never oppresses them and has everything to do with racial and socioeconomic diversity being intimately tied into their own internal perception of "danger." That's the bald truth.

[JayHawk]

Main reason the idea that you have your weapons to defend against the government are pretty useless these days:



Folks who attempted before drones were not very successful:


WACO

hmmmmm...





Just Saying Kuli... I really don't think it matters how many rifles, semi-auto or even full auto weapons you have. Since the bombing in Oklahoma City if this government determines you are a threat then you go away.

So since that excuse is completely annihilated can we get on with protecting the 6 year olds?

[JockBoy87]

I agree a citizen militia, even with good firearms and armor, could not hold a candle to technological weapons.

[rareboy]

I have mixed emotions on this. I'm sad for the children, parents and everyone intimately involved in the slaughter, or anyone that's suffered from such events in the past and is haunted every time a massacre occurs. Yet I find it exhausting, these atrocities are so commonplace in American media I think I've become desensitized to them. Massacres occur in some countries on a weekly if not daily basis, yet American media will drag on one specific event on American soil for months on end.

American gun culture is something I've never understood. I took a course on American history once and I pretty much concluded America is founded on a culture of fear, from the 1760s onward. I don't think they've ever overcome the whole 'the British are coming' mentality. Weird, but hey...makes it unique. The NRA just promotes that hardwired fear, and vast swaths of America are okay with the promotion because a firearm is a teddy bear...but for reasons unclear to me they're literally up in arms over any discussion on gun regulation (which incidentally is typically the argument from the Southern States, which are notoriously uneducated and likely don't even know the other amendments to their constitution).

Guns are fine if they're regulated. Their constitutional right is to take up arms, so they shouldn't have to discard them...yet they should be intensely regulated. If you want a gun you should have to pass a series of evaluations. Buying one at Wal-Mart is just insane. The fact that if I don't take my medications and can run into Wal-Mart, purchase a gun, leave the store, walk into a school/movie theatre/church and systematically slaughter people is mind-boggling. I understand America has wonderful freedoms, but the death of twenty schoolchildren in CT is one of the many prices Americans have to pay for that 'gun freedom'.

And the "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" mentality is something I also don't understand. It's rooted in the argument that if someone sought to kill, they could use any object. Which is reasonable. Could we logically deduce that "SMOKING DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" is a valid argument, knowing medicine is aware secondhand smoke is lethal? A smoke is more insidious, no doubt, but it also kills you. Again, a lack of regulation yet overwhelming freedoms is something Americans dearly pay for.

This is a conversation America should have been having since its inception, not the day of a massacre.

Well posited.

[kallipolis]

I note research from Harvard University has produced conclusions which are mind boggling suggesting that conventional wisdom assuming a reduction in the murder rate when tougher gun controls are introduced is not supported by their research:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

I quote:

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

Neither am I certain that in a society with high ownership of guns that a psychopath personality cannot work their way around tough gun ownership laws to further their insane objectives, such as in Norway a country with high ownership of guns, very tough gun control restrictions despite which some 18 months ago there was a shooting spree executed by a politically motivated extremist.

Australia would appear to have benefited from tougher gun control laws enacted after a shooting spree in Tasmania leading to a significant reduction in the murder rate contrary to the findings in the Harvard University study:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

I quote:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of
firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate. JEL (I12, K14)

[CTF]

As an American, I've intentionally avoided posting in this thread because in my view it's not much more than hysteria.

Now before everyone starts getting their panties in a twist, I've shared with my friends out here in the real world my same views.

I've been met with anger, and tears, and acknowledgement.

One of things that I love about being able to connect with so many of you here on JUB are the different perspectives that we're able to bring to the table, and from perspectives outside of the Continental United States.

But in North America we speak three primary languages; English, Spanish, and French.

If you think that I'm lying, the next time you purchase something where "some assembly is required" chances are good that you're not going to be able to read two out of the three pages of instructions.

From the Edmonton Journal:

EDMONTON - The saddest, sickest, bleakest comment one can make about the latest school spree shooting — this one in Sandy Hook, Conn. — is that such events have become so common that they’ve developed their own cliché pattern of responses.

It's true. Who amongst us, here in America, can deny that?

I'll tell you who.

What appears to the outside world as being the Majority of Americans, and as indicated in this thread.

Just over the past few months; Aurora, Colorado, Portland, Oregon, and now Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

Not to mention the killing spree in Canada, and in Norway.

What's the one thing that ties all of them together besides guns, and innocent lives lost?

From the same link:

In almost every instance, such spree killings, whether carried out in the United States, or Canada or Norway, have involved young men with mental health issues, young men who showed abundant signs of needing psychological help before they struck, whether they were suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar mania or depression or paranoia.

Arguing about "gun laws" is the easy way out.

We can all drag out statistics, and talk about regional safety, and crime versus lax or strict gun laws by state.

We can talk about "murder by capita" of which countries have the most guns, as opposed to those with a whose citizens virtually have none, and it still doesn't change a dang thing.

I've thought long and hard about this over the past several days.

And to me, the truth is no one really wants to talk about "mental illness" and our attitude towards it.

How our health care plans, regardless of country, deal with it.

Why?

Because as Americans, and in some cases Christians, it goes against freedom of choice, and freedom of expression.

One gift from God, and another from the U.S. Constitution; both gifts from God depending upon who you talk to.

There is so much more worthy of discussion here but we're not going to have it, and that's what is really sad about these tragedies.

So y'all carry one with they hysteria, and I'll continue to pray for the deceased and hope that neither one of us are ever victims.

[kallipolis]

I agree a citizen militia, even with good firearms and armor, could not hold a candle to technological weapons.

The Viet Cong proved that a hotch potch militia equipped with AK47s could successfully confront an enemy - the United States, equipped with technologically advanced weapons - and succeed in obtaining their objective sending the United States Army packing from Vietnam.

[kallipolis]

As an American, I've intentionally avoided posting in this thread because in my view it's not much more than hysteria.

Now before everyone starts getting their panties in a twist, I've shared with my friends out here in the real world my same views.

I've been met with anger, and tears, and acknowledgement.

One of things that I love about being able to connect with so many of you here on JUB are the different perspectives that we're able to bring to the table, and from perspectives outside of the Continental United States.

But in North America we speak three primary languages; English, Spanish, and French.

If you think that I'm lying, the next time you purchase something where "some assembly is required" chances are good that you're not going to be able to read two out of the three pages of instructions.

From the Edmonton Journal:



It's true. Who amongst us, here in America, can deny that?

I'll tell you who.

What appears to the outside world as being the Majority of Americans, and as indicated in this thread.

Just over the past few months; Aurora, Colorado, Portland, Oregon, and now Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

Not to mention the killing spree in Canada, and in Norway.

What's the one thing that ties all of them together besides guns, and innocent lives lost?

From the same link:



Arguing about "gun laws" is the easy way out.

We can all drag out statistics, and talk about regional safety, and crime versus lax or strict gun laws by state.

We can talk about "murder by capita" of which countries have the most guns, as opposed to those with a whose citizens virtually have none, and it still doesn't change a dang thing.

I've thought long and hard about this over the past several days.

And to me, the truth is no one really wants to talk about "mental illness" and our attitude towards it.

How our health care plans, regardless of country, deal with it.

Why?

Because as Americans, and in some cases Christians, it goes against freedom of choice, and freedom of expression.

One gift from God, and another from the U.S. Constitution; both gifts from God depending upon who you talk to.

There is so much more worthy of discussion here but we're not going to have it, and that's what is really sad about these tragedies.

So y'all carry one with they hysteria, and I'll continue to pray for the deceased and hope that neither one of us are ever victims.

Rather like so called traffic accidents there is always going to be the insane factor, such as drunk drivers and in this particular tragedy the mentally challenged person with an appetite to extract a pound of flesh which no amount of legal restrictions can prevent.

[JockBoy87]

The Viet Cong proved that a hotch potch militia equipped with AK47s could successfully confront an enemy - the United States, equipped with technologically advanced weapons - and succeed in obtaining their objective sending the United States Army packing from Vietnam.

The Vietnam War was 40 years ago.

There is no way that can compare with the changes in missile and drone technology that have transpired since.

Fun Fact:

Intel now has a processor the size of a cracker that is mightier than the fastest supercomputer in 1997.

[kallipolis]

The Vietnam War was 40 years ago.

There is no way that can compare with the changes in missile and drone technology that have transpired since.

Fun Fact:

Intel now has a processor the size of a cracker that is mightier than the fastest supercomputer in 1997.

During the Vietnam War the United States and its allies lost to a third world raggle, taggle enemy despite being equipped with the most advanced technology on planet earth including helicopters, jet fighters, missiles etc.

Drones have a well established reputation for killing more innocent bystanders than those being targeted.

[rareboy]

Back on topic please.

Although, given that we all know that not a single thing will be done to change the rules around gun ownership in the US...we might as well talk about the American people having to rise up against the guvamint some day.

A few weeks of prayerful platitudes and sound bites about the threat to liberty and then it will be time for the New Year's day parades and football and no one will be talking about this anymore.

Guaranteed.

[JockBoy87]

Drones have a well established reputation for killing more innocent bystanders than those being targeted.

So do guns.

And by the way, technology has absolutely helped keep Al-Qaeda suppressed in Afghanistan and terrorist attacks from success in the United States since 9-11.

If it were 1970, the Taliban may very well have been able to overcome US forces. Not any longer.

[kallipolis]

So do guns.

And by the way, technology has absolutely helped keep Al-Qaeda suppressed in Afghanistan and terrorist attacks from success in the United States since 9-11.

If it were 1970, the Taliban may very well have been able to overcome US forces. Not any longer.

Military strategists in Washington, London and Paris have acknowledged that once Western forces are withdrawn matters in Afghanistan will return to normal with the various war lords, and The Taliban returning to power.

To win the war is one reality, to win the objective and peace very much another as the situation in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan continues to illustrate.

All very sad.

[palemale]

During the Vietnam War the United States and its allies lost to a third world raggle, taggle enemy despite being equipped with the most advanced technology on planet earth including helicopters, jet fighters, missiles etc.

Drones have a well established reputation for killing more innocent bystanders than those being targeted.

The Viet Cong also had the support of most of their 60 million or so fellow countrymen.

[palemale]

I note research from Harvard University has produced conclusions which are mind boggling suggesting that conventional wisdom assuming a reduction in the murder rate when tougher gun controls are introduced is not supported by their research:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

I just glanced at the article you cite. It refers to a law review article and mistakenly calls it a study. Moreover, I did not find the law review article particularly persuasive. It compares countries in Europe with strict gun control laws and low gun ownership but high murder rates with countries with high gun ownership and low murder rates and concludes that gun control doesn't lead to low murder rates. The problem is that the former countries were part of the Soviet Union and the latter are western European democracies. Flabby thinking that doesn't support the conclusion.

[Lostlover]

Just heard on Fox News that the killer played videos games and couldn't look people in the eye -- with the latter being a text book definition of autism. Autism doesn't kill people. But, a gun culture does.

We've seen gay marriage okayed and the usage of marijuana decriminalized. Soon, with time, the shackles of having unlimited access to guns will be broken and America will be a country again.

Time. Time is the key.

[eastofeden]

As an American, I've intentionally avoided posting in this thread because in my view it's not much more than hysteria.

Now before everyone starts getting their panties in a twist, I've shared with my friends out here in the real world my same views.

I've been met with anger, and tears, and acknowledgement.

One of things that I love about being able to connect with so many of you here on JUB are the different perspectives that we're able to bring to the table, and from perspectives outside of the Continental United States.

But in North America we speak three primary languages; English, Spanish, and French.

If you think that I'm lying, the next time you purchase something where "some assembly is required" chances are good that you're not going to be able to read two out of the three pages of instructions.

From the Edmonton Journal:



It's true. Who amongst us, here in America, can deny that?

I'll tell you who.

What appears to the outside world as being the Majority of Americans, and as indicated in this thread.

Just over the past few months; Aurora, Colorado, Portland, Oregon, and now Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

Not to mention the killing spree in Canada, and in Norway.

What's the one thing that ties all of them together besides guns, and innocent lives lost?

From the same link:



Arguing about "gun laws" is the easy way out.

We can all drag out statistics, and talk about regional safety, and crime versus lax or strict gun laws by state.

We can talk about "murder by capita" of which countries have the most guns, as opposed to those with a whose citizens virtually have none, and it still doesn't change a dang thing.

I've thought long and hard about this over the past several days.

And to me, the truth is no one really wants to talk about "mental illness" and our attitude towards it.

How our health care plans, regardless of country, deal with it.

Why?

Because as Americans, and in some cases Christians, it goes against freedom of choice, and freedom of expression.

One gift from God, and another from the U.S. Constitution; both gifts from God depending upon who you talk to.

There is so much more worthy of discussion here but we're not going to have it, and that's what is really sad about these tragedies.

So y'all carry one with they hysteria, and I'll continue to pray for the deceased and hope that neither one of us are ever victims.

ITA...If we don't address the need for mental health care it won't matter how strict the gun laws are...the people who are bent on doing these things will find the guns...or worse. It may be harder for them to find the guns with stricter regulations but they will be available on the black market. Mental illness is the deciding factor IMO...more than guns. This phenomenon is not going away so a discussion on the state of access to mental health care in this country is essential.

[palbert]

Cases from different circuits are headed to SCOTUS, which will have an opportunity to clarify Heller:

A provocative ruling by a panel of federal appeals court judges in Chicago struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois. The ruling is somewhat at odds with those of other federal courts that have largely upheld state and local gun laws, including restrictions on concealed weapons, since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling declaring that people have a right to have a gun for self-defense.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-fig...100107234.html

[JockBoy87]

Military strategists in Washington, London and Paris have acknowledged that once Western forces are withdrawn matters in Afghanistan will return to normal with the various war lords, and The Taliban returning to power.

To win the war is one reality, to win the objective and peace very much another as the situation in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan continues to illustrate.

All very sad.

That's even further proof that Western technological superiority matters.

LOL

[loki81]

I thought this was an interesting read -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...es/?tid=pm_pop

cliffs:

-high profile cases like this not withstanding, assault rates have been falling dramatically for years (though the US is clearly still high above countries other than Mexico)



-gun ownership is on the decline



-many regulations are pretty popular



regarding that first graph... I really wonder what the US overall would look like if we factored out states that share a border with Mexico.

[loki81]

more cynically,

[rareboy]

Not surprising at all.

And the politicians will run and hide, because no one is going to risk the votes of the gun owners of America.

[palbert]

Not surprising at all.

And the politicians will run and hide, because no one is going to risk the votes of the gun owners of America.

From Meet The Press 0n Twitter this morning:

BTW, we reached out to ALL 31 pro-gun rights Sens in the new Congress to invite them to share their views on @meetthepress - NO takers.

No surprise here.

[JockBoy87]

Not surprising at all.

And the politicians will run and hide, because no one is going to risk the votes of the gun owners of America.

Only because it's a media storm, and not a persistent nagging problem. News channels are laughing all the way to the bank with people glued on the TV and watching their ads. So 20 kids died, peanuts. That's nothing compared to those young ones murdered in individual incidents by aggravated family members such as crackhead mothers or step parents, or by drunk driving accidents. The only difference is the media doesn't keep a spotlight on when every child dies. Therefore, the sustained pressure by the NRA will win out.

[chance1]

Only because it's a media storm, and not a persistent nagging problem. News channels are laughing all the way to the bank with people glued on the TV and watching their ads. So 20 kids died, peanuts. That's nothing compared to those young ones murdered in individual incidents by aggravated family members such as crackhead mothers or step parents, or by drunk driving accidents. The only difference is the media doesn't keep a spotlight on when every child dies. Therefore, the sustained pressure by the NRA will win out.

more cynicism - more every day - shame

it's not about the media

it's about our elected officials

they don't and shouldn't need cnn on a story to make it important

i actually believe we will have movement and progress here and a rep from the Brady Project was on with Andrea Mitchell the day of the massacre saying the same thing

so despite our Canadian friend's "nothing happens in america" chant (with apparent glee) I disagree

this incident will move the needle - perhaps further than it should be moved - because of the specific nature of the massacre

and i for one hope it does

[CTF]

ITA...If we don't address the need for mental health care it won't matter how strict the gun laws are...the people who are bent on doing these things will find the guns...or worse. It may be harder for them to find the guns with stricter regulations but they will be available on the black market. Mental illness is the deciding factor IMO...more than guns. This phenomenon is not going away so a discussion on the state of access to mental health care in this country is essential.

Thank you.

And that's should be the real point of discussion here.

As loki81 pointed out opinions about "gun control" aren't truly swayed hard in one direction or another EVEN after these tragedies.

The media will start to focus on something else like the ADD searching for advertising whores that they are, and we'll all wait until the next mentally deranged young man takes out another group of innocents, and the debate will began where this one left off with the same results.

[chance1]

"gun control" is a term

and no one knows what it means

to some it means "you're gonna take the gun i have a right to have and need to protect myself?" No fucking way
to others it means making it harder/longer/more expensive to get one
to others it means making it less easy for bad guys to get guns
etc.

there's no clear document of "this is what it means" that people can all read and interpret accurately

it's like $250K taxes - it's every dollar ABOVE $250K, not dollar 1-250K

misinformation

misunderstanding

position taken prior to knowledge

[rareboy]

more cynicism - more every day - shame

it's not about the media

it's about our elected officials

they don't and shouldn't need cnn on a story to make it important

i actually believe we will have movement and progress here and a rep from the Brady Project was on with Andrea Mitchell the day of the massacre saying the same thing

so despite our Canadian friend's "nothing happens in america" chant (with apparent glee) I disagree

this incident will move the needle - perhaps further than it should be moved - because of the specific nature of the massacre

and i for one hope it does

There is no glee. Only sadness.

The story will completely shift to the mental health aspect and then everyone will be able to throw their hands up in the air because after 4000 years of recorded history no one has ever been able to solve that one.

...and there will be the usual outcry about the violence in video games and movies and how it has damaged the children.

But two weeks from now, no one will even likely remember the name of the gunman or what the fuss was about this week.

Guaranteed.

[zoltanspawn]

There are people who are suggesting we ought to address the crisis as a mental health services issue and not a gun-control issue.

Is there anyone here who would suggest we ought to address the crisis as a gun-control issue and not a mental health services issue?

[-Callum-]

Murdering children with guns is acceptable though, rareboy, as some Americans here seem displeased at the idea of gun regulation. So, kids will continue to die from bullet wounds. That's the mentality at hand because they want their 'freedom'. If they want to kill children that's fine - they'll go to prison or die as a result.

[JockBoy87]

more cynicism - more every day - shame

it's not about the media

it's about our elected officials

they don't and shouldn't need cnn on a story to make it important

i actually believe we will have movement and progress here and a rep from the Brady Project was on with Andrea Mitchell the day of the massacre saying the same thing

so despite our Canadian friend's "nothing happens in america" chant (with apparent glee) I disagree

this incident will move the needle - perhaps further than it should be moved - because of the specific nature of the massacre

and i for one hope it does

There are no solutions, political or otherwise, that can respond to isolated incidents.

Mass murder is not an epidemic or contagious crime. It is still an extremely rare phenomenon, like plane crashes.

Also, people do not treat drunk driving with similar concern, even though hundreds die from it every day, because the media does not zoom in on it.

[CTF]

There are people who are suggesting we ought to address the crisis as a mental health services issue and not a gun-control issue.

Is there anyone here who would suggest we ought to address the crisis as a gun-control issue and not a mental health services issue?

Have you heard any real debate in that direction of this being a mental health crises?

I haven't.

It's been about "gun control."

What happens when those with mental health issues start using pipe bombs, or pepper spray and butcher knives?

No one really wants to talk about that because the topic is really much more uncomfortable.

[chance1]

Murdering children with guns is acceptable though, rareboy, as some Americans here seem displeased at the idea of gun regulation. So, kids will continue to die from bullet wounds. That's the mentality at hand because they want their 'freedom'. If they want to kill children that's fine - they'll go to prison or die as a result.

this sentiment is in sync with the OP's thread title

simplistic - cynical - unproductive

and untrue

other than that, it's grand

[-Callum-]

this sentiment is in sync with the OP's thread title

simplistic - cynical - unproductive

and untrue

other than that, it's grand

The logic in my post is what the opposition has been throwing around (aside from Kuli) this entire thread. So, yes. Those opposing gun regulation aren't being reasonable and throwing mental health issues at the matter. Mental health issues are common, yes, but going on a homicidal rampage isn't. People with psychotic breaks aren't necessarily murdering other people.

It would be most logical to assume the mentally ill, per capita, are committing violent crimes at a far lesser rate than atypical gun violence.

[opinterph]

hundreds die from [drunk driving] every day, because the media does not zoom in on it.

Your number seemed too high, so I found a link to share.

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

[JockBoy87]

Your number seemed too high, so I found a link to share.

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

I see the error in dividing 10228 by 36.5 instead of 365...

Yet the point still stands...

10228 fatalities in 2010 due to drunk driving, and people are spinning heads over 20 in a mass murder?

It's ridiculous.

[Stardreamer]

The Viet Cong also had the support of most of their 60 million or so fellow countrymen.

Which is actually the point, any popular armed uprising in the US will only succeed if the majority of the people favor it, if that is the case it will NOT matter how advanced technology wise the military is because the military itself will be unreliable.

[Lostlover]

There are no solutions, political or otherwise, that can respond to isolated incidents.

Mass murder is not an epidemic or contagious crime. It is still an extremely rare phenomenon, like plane crashes.

Also, people do not treat drunk driving with similar concern, even though hundreds die from it every day, because the media does not zoom in on it.

Well, there comes a time when people stop carrying no matter how horrific the crime (such as drunk driving and killing sprees). There was a point during Bush's war that there were suicide bombings every day in Iraq and I can guarantee that not every bombing made it to the press; people just stopped caring.

[Nishin]

Also, people do not treat drunk driving with similar concern, even though hundreds die from it every day, because the media does not zoom in on it.

The media don't need to zoom in on it... the matter is being addressed = google cars

The majority of causes of death in society (illnesses, devices causing domestic accidents, products causing poisoning etc...) are being addressed, why not the gun problem?

Is any gun maker working on a gun that will only work with the fingerprints of it's legal owner?

[rareboy]

I see the error in dividing 10228 by 36.5 instead of 365...

Yet the point still stands...

10228 fatalities in 2010 due to drunk driving, and people are spinning heads over 20 in a mass murder?

It's ridiculous.

And many will agree.

With only 8775 murders caused by guns in 2011....the likelihood is that they fall into that range of acceptable casualties to the majority of US citizens.

[loki81]

was the DoJ too busy arming Mexican drug cartels to pursue this?

After the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and others at a supermarket in Tucson in early 2011, the Justice Department drew up a detailed list of steps the government could take to expand the background-check system in order to reduce the risk of guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people and criminals.

Most of the proposals, though, were shelved at the department a year ago as the election campaign heated up

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/us...-database.html

[palbert]

I wonder to what extent much of the current discussion -- off and on JUB -- is being spurred by occurence of the shooting in Connecticut in the heart of gun resistant Northeast. One is so used to these occurences in the Midwest and West -- gun rights bastions -- one has almost a resigned acceptance. This event strikes in the heart of the Northeast media and power establishment. It will be interesting to see if this tragedy resonates longer in the Northeast and spurs lawmakers to begin addressing all of the issues and possible solutions addressed here.