I have to wonder... At what point will we admit it's the guns?

[Ohio Joe]

Time after time... Murder after murder... Mass killing after mass killing... The excuses point at everything except the guns.

Are there other factors that come into play? Sure... And in different cases, there are different factors.

But it never seems to be the guns... Anything but the guns.

WTF?

[gopiscrap]

1. Yup but as long as we let the NRA and others with huge amounts of money

whore the political process nothing will change

[rurallib]

3. don't forget the PR machine and the gutless,compliant, corporate media

[gopiscrap]

4. yup, you're right

[Iggo]

2. I already have.

[SharonAnn]

26. And it seems to be MEN with GUNS! Not saying that it couldn't be women, but it isn't.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I think the danger is in thinking that it's *just* the guns.

And a lot of effort is spent addressing the guns to the exclusion of underlying causes of violence, which are a lot more complex and challenging.

So while guns are key to gun violence, they are in no way the problem, they don't shoot themselves, they don't get angry at people, they don't design and sell and collect and protect themselves.

All of these actions, violent urges, anger, design and sales and collection, are all human actions and to ignore this element is, IMHO, an error.

Far easier to focus on more than the guns, and more likely to be effective too.

Enact more uniform laws from state to state, including background checks.

Require comprehensive gun safety classes for all gun and ammo transfers.

Restore the middle class, address wealth inequity.

Restore treatment for mental care.

Only a combination of these will really make the difference that we all want to make.

[Ohio Joe]

6. So... Do lots of things that are not getting rid of any guns

Did I not mention there were other factors? I thought I did but perhaps not, let me check... Yes, I did.

As I said... Anything but the guns.

[NYC_SKP]

20. "Enact more uniform laws from state to state, including background checks."

Did you miss that part?

Would that not prevent some guns from falling into the wrong hands?

Like you, I'm citing multiple challenges and cures, so we agree.

I've written elsewhere that his guns should have been taken away in 2004 and 2010, but I wouldn't expect you to have seen that.

I don't understand the hostility.

[Ohio Joe]

24. No, I did not miss it... It addresses who can own the guns, not what guns are allowed

So it is still... Anything but the guns.

[NYC_SKP]

28. Which guns do you wish to disallow?

I live in California so the laws we have here are pretty restrictive.

Would you like even more restrictive laws than the most restrictive state in the union?

If you do, then we probably disagree on what's the right balance.

Also, nowhere do I write that I oppose removal of guns, I only say that it is dangerous to only look at guns.

This directed not particularly at you but at a lot of very passionate gun reform people.

Let's look at guns AND the rest of it, this is what I'm saying, this is what I've said.

[Ohio Joe]

34. The question is not what I would get rid of...

Anything I suggest would be shot down by gun rights supporters... 'What about this situation' or 'what about that type of collector' and on and on. The problem is, that there are simply far too many guns out there and any suggestion that the number needs to be reduced is considered draconian... And taking away peoples freedoms and shit.

"Let's look at guns AND the rest of it, this is what I'm saying, this is what I've said."

The rest of it is gone over ad nauseum and I agree with a lot of it (not all)... Lets get down to reducing the number of guns that can kill lots of people in a very short amount of time. Just once I'd like to see someone on the gun rights side propose anything about reducing them instead of deflecting onto 'lets look elsewhere'.

[NYC_SKP]

39. I see your point but I've never been on to support those types of arguments.

Here's the thing. Most of the laws I see promoted deal with gun types, magazines, etc., which is fine-- nobody needs a 30 round clip, nobody.

But I don't see many laws that would for example confiscate guns from a person who accidentally discharges one, or who shoots out someone's tires, both incident's that occurred with this shooter in 2010 and 2004.

Laws like that would have eliminated his guns and literally thousands of other guns over the years.

[Ohio Joe]

41. No... Gun rights supporter never see reducing the number of guns as something to do

And confiscation is not the only way to reduce the number of guns but it always gets thrown out to keep people scared.

They are coming to get my guns!

Sheesh.

[NYC_SKP]

47. Confiscation is just one way. Don't provide them in the first place.

I have the same pet peeve about boats where I live, lots of boats, lots of accidents, lots of deaths, still no sensible laws about it except for a DUI equivalent.

Right now, anyone of age can drive a boat, any boat up to 65 feet, I think, capable of any speed. No license, no training required.

Now I wouldn't advocate for removing boats, but I might advocate for speed governors and other mechanical limitations.

But most importantly, I'd REQUIRE comprehensive training in boat operation.

I might even confiscate boats used in very unsafe ways.

I think it's a fair analogy: Most on both sides don't want to eliminate guns, and most on both sides want gun law reforms. And, for democrats especially, we all want to address the roots of violence including inequity, health, safety, etc.

So there's more in common than there is to divide the two camps.

And if the argument is just over which factor is most important, then it might not be worth the effort since everyone's going to have a different personal experience and a differnent point of view.

My original reply to you would more accurately been started with "Yes!, And...", and that's what I thought would be heard but I guess it wasn't.

So yes, you are right, guns are the problem in gun-related violence... Without guns there would be no gun violence.

[Ohio Joe]

53. Guns and boats... A fair analogy...Really?

I've never seen a boat rampage story.

[NYC_SKP]

57. Analogies need not be perfect to be useful. I'll break it down:

Here, the boat part applies to California as I don't know about laws elsewhere.
Conversely, the gun parts apply more aptly to, say, Texas, as California is pretty restrictive.

Ready?

Boats are generally available to too many people. Guns are generally too available to too many people

Boats may be legally operated without any training whatsoever. So can guns.

Boats that are too powerful are too freely available. Same with guns.

Boats used by careless, reckless, witless or angry people can kill lots of people in a single event. The same is true of guns.

Something needs to be done about deaths and injuries due to boating. The same is true for guns.

I brought up boats as a way of indicating to you that I support more comprehensive regulations with respect to guns.

No, it's not a perfect analogy but analogies rarely are.

Thanks.

[Boom Sound 416]

8. +1

[madinmaryland]

10. -1

[madinmaryland]

9. Hmm. Blame everything but the guns. That is absolutely nothing to be proud of or even patriotic.

[RetroLounge]

13. Every gun thread, there you are, making sure your precious is protected

USA! USA! USA!

RL

[madinmaryland]

7. Guns don't kill, people kill...

Blah, blah, fucking, blah. FUCK THE NRA.

I'm sure the gun-humpers/gun-nuts/NRA-apologists will be piling in on this post. FUCK THEM

[RetroLounge]

14. They're already here.

RL

[madinmaryland]

15. Yes. The delicate flowers are here again.

Disgusting, isn't it.

[RetroLounge]

17. Same ones as the last time there was a mass shooting

and the one before that...
and the one before that...
and the one before that...
and the one before that...
and the one before that...
and the one before that...
and the one before that...
and the one before that...
and the one before that...

RL

[NYC_SKP]

25. Yes, carry on with namecalling and ignore the idea of addressing multiple issue including guns.

It's not helping.

If you would re-read my reply above you'll see that I advocate for better, stronger background checks and elsewhere on DU have advocated for expanding CA's laws to all 50 states, and more.

Some would rather use names, it's a form of bullying IMO and it doesn't work on me and it doesn't help the cause.

It really really just hurts the cause and make the namecallers look very childish.

[madinmaryland]

32. Until gun-(whatever you want to fill in the blank with) folks understand and realize that GUNS

are the central problem here in addition to other issues, nothing is going to change.

Advocates have sensible gun control reform have been bullied, abused, and called names for a very long time, and once again the NRA'ers here are using typical NRA tactics to switch the conversation away from sensible gun regulations. A lot of us feel absolutely no sympathy for the NRA and the tools the support the NRA which has inflicted this nightmare onto this country.

Maybe if those of us looking for some sensible gun regulation actually get angry and stand up to the NRA and the tools (or should I say, FOOLS) who support the NRA, then maybe we will make some progress.

[NYC_SKP]

36. "NRA'ers here"?

More pretty pointless name calling that's not going to lead to any sort of reform.

I don't have any sympathy for the NRA either but it's so trite to tie everything to them and it's beyond rude to tie DU members to them.

If there are any NRA members on this board, I've never met them.

If you're looking for sensible gun regulation, then we are on the same side, man.

Shit, I need to write an OP and post it to my journal-- I support gun legislation reform, the kind that would have disarmed this guy and Zimmerman, permanently.

This SOB should have had his guns and gun rights permanently revoked in 2004, same for anyone who used firearms in that way.

For the accidental discharge in 2010, remove his guns.

So right there are two pieces of sensible gun legislation that should be enacted universally.

[madinmaryland]

43. And why do you think that none of those sensible regulations passed? It was not me referring to

NRA members as "delicate flowers". It was the NRA and their members spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure those sensible regulations (the ones you say you support) did not pass.

We have laws that can send someone who smokes a plant that grows in nature away for dozens of years, yet we can have anyone walk into a store and buy something that kill multiple people without nary a thought to the implications.

More sensible gun regulation would be to reduce all firearms to single-shooters. NO multiple rounds. All fire-arms must be loaded with gun-powder separately. Yeah. Let's go back to the 1800's.

[NYC_SKP]

49. "NO multiple rounds. All fire-arms must be loaded with gun-powder separately."

I could only agree with that if it was possible to similarly limit all police agencies and criminals.

In other words, that's a pipe dream. A pleasant one, but a dream nonetheless.

But that's not the point, we will always disagree on what constitutes "balance".

We do agree about the NRA and we agree that our laws are fucked up: Pot should be legalized, prisoners on non violent drug convictions should be released, and guns should be MUCH harder to acquire.

We agree more than we disagree.

[madinmaryland]

55. "and guns should be MUCH harder to acquire"

I agree with that comment. That is all that I want, though we obvious disagree on how to get there.

[NYC_SKP]

56. Thanks for the reply.

I know we've had our differences but I have always respected you and enjoyed your DU contributions.

[JEFF9K]

11. Only if Republican pundits and/or politicians ...

... are personally affected will they blame it on the guns.

[Taitertots]

12. If we destroy all the guns, there will just be more bombs

People who have the desire to hurt innocent people wouldn't be thwarted by draconian firearms regulations.

[Ohio Joe]

18. ahhh... The 'but they can kill using other things' bullshit

Coupled with the 'innocents that just want protection' non-sense.

Anything but the guns.

[Taitertots]

19. Tell that to all the people murdered with bombs...

And all the people who had no problem murdering without guns.

It is a nothing but a fantasy that draconian gun laws can magically make our problems go away.

[Ohio Joe]

21. By that "logic", we should also make bombs legal... Right?

I mean... They will just use something else if they can't make bomb...

"It is a nothing but a fantasy that draconian gun laws can magically make our problems go away"

Who said anything about draconian gun laws? How about some common sense ones? This foolish all or nothing bullshit is what makes gun nuts... gun nuts.

[Taitertots]

33. "Common sense" is not banning almost every gun designed in the last 75 years (assault weapons ban)

And it doesn't include keeping a big list of everyone who has guns. What changes do you actually propose?

Common sense-
Strict regulation of Machine guns - Already a law
Background checks - Already a law
18+ to buy guns - Already a law
No guns for felons - Already a law
No guns for crazy people - Already a law
Strict regulations for dealing firearms - Already a law
Guns that can get through metal detectors - Illegal
Oh, it looks like YOU are the nut.


". By that "logic", we should also make bombs legal... Right?"
If you need me to explain why that isn't a logical inference from anything I've posted, than your thought process is fundamentally flawed.

[Ohio Joe]

35. And not one item to reduce the number of guns...

What a shock... or not.

[Taitertots]

38. Darn, I was too busy thinking about things that would actually reduce crime

Not wishing we could uninvent guns by taking them from people.

[Ohio Joe]

40. ahhhh, they are coming for my guns!

The UN is on the way... You should hide.

[Taitertots]

46. The only person hiding is you... From rational discourse about the topic.

I guess when your opinions are fundamentally baseless, you have to descend to mere teasing.

[Ohio Joe]

50. I'm not hiding... Certainly not in fear behind a gun...

All you have come up with here is how I want draconian laws to take all your guns... It's not even been suggested but hey... I get the paranoia.

[tblue37]

16. Of course other factors differ from incident to

incident--but the one factor that remains constant is guns.

[NYC_SKP]

22. Yup. If you're looking at gun violence the one factor common to all of them is.... guns. (nt)

[Shankapotomus]

23. At what point?

At gunpoint, perhaps?

[tridim]

27. We need to shame the NRA relentlessly.

I'm not going to live under the chaos they create. I have rights too. Fuck the NRA.

[etherealtruth]

29. I have no problem admitting it is the 'guns' and the nuts that love them

[babylonsister]

30. We have admitted it's the guns.

Too many people shrugged.

AP Exclusive: Obama offers new gun control steps

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of a cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's point-man on gun control after the Newtown tragedy thrust guns into the national spotlight, was set to unveil the new actions Thursday at the White House.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_CONTROL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT#245acc75-ff76-4bc6-851f-e76c7dabf88d

[Skittles]

31. gun nuts will NEVER admit it

their fear and ignorance TRUMPS ALL

[Walk away]

37. They all mentally hugged their guns as soon as they heard about the shooting.

They know that their bullet filled babies will be blamed and it really disturbs them.

[Ohio Joe]

44. heh... This is very spot on...

I live with a gun nut and his very first reaction was that this would just encourage 'them' to come get his guns.

[ecstatic]

42. It's mind boggling! But seriously, nothing changed after Sandy Hook so...

I don't expect things to ever change. People need to wake the f*ck up!

[felix_numinous]

45. The enemies of democracy

have been increasingly saturating the airwaves, movies and games with a violent gun culture. Decades ago I knew that the resultant violence in society would result in the loss of the 2nd amendment, as a result of a stressed out, violence programmed populace 'proving' an inability to govern ourselves.

Combine violent conditioning with hate radio and fear propaganda, a stressed out economy, cuts in education and increasing religious extremism -- and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the results.

Obviously, we need to regulate guns. But without acknowledging how violent conditioning is a major contributor to violent behavior, violence will continue!! Because AS WE KNOW, poison gas, knives, and drones, as well as negligent corporations, stockpiling bombs and war profiteering are ALL examples of a violent culture-- much of which is considered by many to be perfectly normal.

Guns are NOT the only thing that needs regulation-- they are a SYMPTOM of a much larger scale problem.

[Ohio Joe]

48. So again... It's lots of things except the guns...

Sheesh... I should not be surprised.

[felix_numinous]

52. We both agree guns need regulating.

I presented a wider view you are free to agree with or not. My intent is increased understanding.

[ZombieHorde]

51. The military admits it's the guns.

The reason soldiers don't carry firearms on bases is because it is very dangerous.

[The Straight Story]

54. I find such posts rather sad

Posted a story earlier about a woman who killed who two kids, didn't use a gun. No traction. No one cared.

People stab, drown, run over, beat to death others daily - and yes, shoot people too.

No one cares about reasons in cases with guns, most don't even remember the name of the shooter, talk about them, their motivation, etc. We fixate on what they used (but only in one case) while ignoring the actual tragedy around why so many in our world kill others so freely.

When less than 1% who guns use them to harm others I wouldn't say it is the fault of guns. I would have a real time wrapping my head around that logic.

If we want to prevent murders then let's work on doing just that and not trying to whip up people into an emotional frenzy using every story possible to pimp an agenda. But where is the joy in that? Drunk drivers, people who drink and kill others (strangle them, beat them, etc), and so on - all have the same ending but we just shrug and move on because those deaths are not useful and just don't matter.

Less than 1%. If it is the guns shouldn't it be more like millions being shot every year? 50 million+ gun owners, over 200 million guns in the US and yet we are forbidden from showing how people with them have used them in either self defense or never use them to harm others.

Maybe we should take that less than 1% and apply it to other things. But then we would be told we are fanning the flames, biased, promoting hate, etc because we are only focusing on the negative.

Funny how we abandon that idea when it suits us.