General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA (DU) minority view on guns.
I'm just going to say it - it isn't a gun problem, it's a people problem.
Guns, like cars, machetes, rope, etc., are tools of mankind. They all have appropriate uses. When used inappropriately, the inanimate object is not to blame, the person is. Is that not self-evident?
That some are using this tragedy to push a political agenda while the bodies of the victims are still warm is a little disrespectful and transparent, imho. But here it comes, full court press I'm sure. And we don't know the details yet. For all we know, this was a terrorist attack. There was some motivation. Maybe it was pay, maybe it was more. But motivation matters, because it isn't about the gun, it's about the person.
Two questions:
What percentage of gun homicides in the US is of the mass killing kind?
What percentage of legal gun owners have committed mass killings?
The answers will tell you two things, at least. One, that mass killings are a tiny fraction of all US gun violence. That is why using such a rare event to crusade against something much larger is so insincere.
And two, that the vast majority of legal gun owners are not "gun nuts" out to lay waste to society. This is reality.
The truth is each of us have a right and responsibility to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. Every one of us. We have a right to self-defense. We have a right to protect ourselves. We have a right to fight back. No permission is required. America is not going to relinquish those rights to the government. It just ain't going to happen. And it shouldn't happen.
Yeah, it's a minority view here, but I can promise you I'm not the only Democrat to hold these views.
Anyway, I'm sure I'll catch hell for posting this, and that's fine, everyone has an opinion. Hopefully the name-callers who want to scream "NRA shill" will be few...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skittles
(153,138 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Skittles
(153,138 posts)I SEE THE NEWS
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)sheesh.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)and the idea that the "Home of the brave" consists of people who cannot go to a coffee shop unarmed makes me SICK
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)The reality is the world is a dangerous place. Nobody likes it, but that is the way it is. Preventing me from protecting myself from an assailant doesn't make it any safer. It only puts me and mine at greater risk.
Those who seek to ban guns (and that is what drives most of this anti-gun effort) are asking all Americans to sacrifice their most basic of rights, self protection.
It is a philosophical disagreement and I doubt we will ever agree on the matter. But the fact is America is not going to give up the right to keep and bear arms. It won't happen.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)
I am done here
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I still think highly of you, even though we disagree on this issue.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Getting coffee or going to a movie in Belgium can be a dangerous thing. That's why they all are packing over there.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Well no, it isn't, except in pockets, just as the world is only subject to firestorms (or whatever) in pockets. A forest fire can be terrible, esp. when close to or surrounding a town. A massive fire, coupled with more minor but no less devastating fires nearby, is universally understood and felt as terrible. All but sociopaths understand, and all who understand think in terms of "what can be done to prevent this in future". I would say that when most people think of a forest, they think of an empire, of sorts, that contains glades as well as formidable dangers.
When they think about forests, very few people think first about "forests" managed by silviculturalists working for international corporations. In a "forest" managed by silviculturalists the only dangers are human. I don't think anyone would prefer to wander through such a managed "forest", except someone paid to do it.
Carrying this simile forward, when pockets of human communities have very high homicide rates, a search for true causes will begin. By 'true cause' I mean that when countered, the problem is solved, so understanding a true cause = understanding a true solution, or rather a hint toward mapping a solution.
One solution the US has to high homicide rates is to further deregulate the firearms industry. No shit. This way more arms can be sold, more profits can be made, and the economy prospers. The US applies this formula to the whole range of its military production, and the US is by far the biggest arms manufacturer in the world. In fact, some say that the production of division, chaos, mixed with enough "free" guns and incitement will create a massive and addicted customer base for a country that feeds off war, like a vampire.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Especially the rest of the developed world, where we're looked at as backward idiots because of our policy on guns.
Anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together can understand that the prevalence of guns in our country makes us less safe and not more. Why are gun idiots not crying for their right to own nuclear bombs? I mean, after all, the government can't tell us not to defend ourselves, so I need a nuke in case my neighbor has a nuke as well. It's utter idiocy.
The gun morons will tell us that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. If only there were some good guys with guns at the Navy Yard. Or the entirety of the Middle East for that matter. Pure and utter idiocy.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)The discussions of gun control after them seem to get you talking more than the mass shootings themselves.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)There's no use debating with them. Their sole goal is to demoralize and make you think that we can't change the atrocious, murderous status quo that they love so dearly. They're assholes, to a last one. The time for debate is over. Their way is catastrophe, as is obvious to anyone who is not a stooge (knowing or otherwise) of the gun manufacturers.
GalaxyHunter
(271 posts)They would say there is no use debating with you because your sole goal is to demonize them as evil (when most of them have done nothing wrong) and that you are the asshole for taking their rights away from them.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)There will be a couple-three days of emotionally-overwrought venting. During that time, no one engaging in said venting is going to be even remotely receptive to a post pointing out the rarity of such events, pointing out that there are over 50 million gun owners in this country (probably way over, actually...) yet only a few thousand gun-related violent crimes, pointing out that garden variety "regular" criminals commit the vast majority of firearms homicides, not spree killers, etc. That's not what they want to hear...so they won't.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)And you probably have a point. Just needed to be said. Or I needed to say it. Or something like that. Reality matters.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Oh-well-what-can-you-do-shit-happens-luv-mah-gunz" posts. 
The question is simple - and maybe shockingly so.
Is murder - including mass murder - a real problem in the United States?
If no, then say so. Say "I don't think there's a murder problem in the United States."
If yes, this leads to another question:
Is this problem one that can be approached and fixed?
If no, then say that; "Murder's a problem, but it's untouchable."
If yes, one last question...
HOW?
bluedeathray
(511 posts)Is precisely what needs to happen. And is NOT.
Guns are a political football used to garner votes. One way or the other. Our "leaders" do NOT represent us. They do not care about us any more than a farmer cares about his cows.
And it's not just happening at the federal level.
But I've got an idea. Let's legalize grass, and use those police resources (and additional tax revenues) to combat violence in America.
And try to get to the bottom of the psychosis that is "mass killing".
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)No, attempts to enact extreme gun control measures are probably not part of that solution. Only mass, forcible confiscation would actually remove firearms from criminal hands in significant quantity, and that's simply not going to happen.
Our appalling homicide rates can be lowered, though. First off, end the ridiculous, useless War of Drugs right now. The majority of homicides in the US are said to have some sort of gang connection, and the trade in illicit drugs plays a role in this. A portion of the billions saved by ending the ridiculous interdictive strategy can be spent on bolstering our troubled educational system (and the rest on effective treatment programs for people with drug problems).
Restoring the economy to a functional, equitable state would be another key element in reducing murder rates. The connection between these rates and the desperation of poverty is utterly obvious.
On the gun front, mandate gun security measures for all gun owners (to reduce that method by which criminals arm themselves). Institute universal background check requirements. Permanently deny gun ownership rights to anyone convicted of a violent crime of any kind, and penalize violations severely. I would even be open to modifying the Second Amendment to provide for (must issue) licensing that incorporated annual demonstration of competence (like cops are required to do). Make firearms ownership something people have to take seriously.
Mass killings, while a very small component of the overall tally, receive radically disproportionate media attention, and I'm convinced that attention is a big part of what many of the perpetrators are seeking. Work with news outlets to reduce this ridiculous level of exposure for perpetrators. Start fixing our badly broken and neglected mental healthcare infrastructure. Incorporate mental healthcare records into the NICS system for background checks.
There's so much that can be done...
POBOYSAMMICH
(6 posts)Permanently deny gun ownership rights to anyone convicted of a violent crime of any kind, and penalize violations severely.
apply to the first amendment equally, subversive content = must revoke all publishing ( both private, and public as in print media.) privileges. this content to be determined by sitting government.
On the gun front, mandate gun security measures for all gun owners (to reduce that method by which criminals arm themselves)
Must apply across the board, if you car is stolen and then used in a criminal manner - you will share some degree of responsibility.
Permanently deny gun ownership rights to anyone convicted of a violent crime of any kind, and penalize violations severely
deny the vote to any convicted of the same crimes, after all, a violent crime of any kind should require the revocation of basic civil liberties.
I would even be open to modifying the Second Amendment to provide for (must issue) licensing that incorporated annual demonstration of competence (like cops are required to do). Make firearms ownership something people have to take seriously.
all reporters/journalists must show that they have had training in the use of a typewriter, wait that's outdated - our founders could not have envisioned the modern computer. they must also be licensed, screened and wait 3 days before taking possession of their new laptop.
get real - we live in a dangerous world and we must take responsibility for our own well being.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I understand the point you're making by comparing those categoricals, but I think it's a bit apples 'n oranges.
That said, I certainly agree with: "...we live in a dangerous world and we must take responsibility for our own well being."
Me = CCW permit holder, weekly range time with a good bit of focus on defensive handgun shooting, competitive target shooter... 
POBOYSAMMICH
(6 posts)is it really,
there are many more hurt with cars than guns - no arguing that point.
how much power do we want to gave to our elected representatives?
myself, I do not trust any of them (oh my, classic us versus them)
just saying, be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Stroke stroke stroke that gun.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Only seen on DU.
On the main stage! 
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I don't give a shit about Greenwald either. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Bazinga
(331 posts)so that they can dismiss your argument before they even hear it, huh?
Kinda like when those who choose to peacefully keep arms in defense of their life and their family get lumped in with some mythical group of "gun nuts" that do nothing but fellate their weapons all day.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)oppose any and reforms or argue that none should even be attempted are the problem.
I have no problem with gun owners who do not stand in the way sensible gun reform. When someone is on DU pimping the NRA talking points, they own the label.
derby378
(30,252 posts)If the recent cases of Aaron Alexis and Seung-hui Cho teach us anything, it is that our background check system, while it has been effective in the past, is showing signs of wear and tear. We need an improved background check system that keeps guns out of the hands of the violent and the mentally ill while still respecting the rights of legitimate gun owners.
Under a revamped system, Alexis wouldn't have access to a shotgun that allowed him to cut down someone else and take their weaponry so he could unload on the Navy Yard. Honestly, I don't see how our current system allowed Alexis to slip through, but it did.
Problem is, if those two state senators from Colorado had been content to agitate for improved background checks in their state, they could have survived any NRA recall effort. But they decided to push their luck with the magazine ban, and this proved to be a mistake. And the last thing we need right now is less Democrats in state legislatures across the nation, especially with all these teabaggers running around.
Something tells me that Wendy Davis will avoid a lot of gun talk in Texas for exactly that same reason, because even though she's a hero to us all and our best chance in years of unseating Rick Perry, she can't afford to have an Achilles heel.
beevul
(12,194 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)Or are you standing in the way of progress? Supporting the NRA's "Do nothing at any cost" approach?
Funny how many I see of those "who choose to peacefully keep arms in defense of their life" here who are insanely against anything approaching sensible firearms legislation. No one gives a fuck if you own a gun. But you sure as hell can't expect anyone here to treat you like a decent person if you're against any reasonable legislation to protect the public from insane gun owners. It's a rather simple issue.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Worth every penny paid... Feel free to follow up with a small penis* joke...that always adds so much to the conversation.
*very small indeed in my case, being a clitoris, and all...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Method.
First of all, if making something illegal worked, there would be no drug use, which is obviously not the case.
Second, confiscation would enrage a significant portion of the country. That level of antagonism is scary to me, might as well wave a red flag in front of a really pissed bull.
Third, that amount of rage/madness doesn't diffuse away by taking away one avenue. I think we are kidding ourselves when we say mass killings will be prevented by making a type of gun illegal.
The woman who talked the would be shooter down in Georgia figured out the solution to mass shootings. Nothing short of that caring and connection will work IMO.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Traffickers, vandals, accessories to murder, etc.
That guy who owned the gun used to kill the children in Chardon High School should be doing jail time.
Such serious enforcement would cut down on gun violence.
BainsBane
(53,027 posts)It's a problem for those who think their rights trump our dead, their guns are more important than our children. It's a problem of a kind of self absorption to leave some with no capacity to care about victims of gun violence. It's a problem of people who are in bed with the corporate gun lobby, and that allegiance means far more to them than their fellow citizens.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)with which to confront an assailant. This is a fact you ignore.
To attack the morality of gun owners by saying they don't care about victims of gun violence is just insincere bs. That's all it is. You malign tens of millions of good people while you use victims of a rare tragedy as a political tool. That doesn't impress me as a gesture born of caring and compassion, or honesty.
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)Where are the statistics for that?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)That a gun does more harm than good in a mass shooting. Not a single CCW holder stopped a mass shooting. Of all the self-defence stories I read about, innocent people are more likely to be killed in a so-called case of "self defence."
"Many lives?" I'd like to know where he got that from.
And, yes, indeed, he just pulled his statistics out from his arse.
I live in the UK, where most guns are banned (handguns and semi-automatics) and getting a licence for a gun can take a long time to process (you have to get recommendations from people who know you, plus a police interview). I was at a clinic and there was a sign basically saying that they don't give out notes of recommendation for gun licences. So it's fairly difficult to get a licence.
We do have guns on the black market (for example, Raoul Moat's firearm was an illegal sawed off shotgun) but they generally don't work and there are so few of them.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)First off, many mass shootings occur in places where CCW is illegal. So, for example, at a school shooting, there is exactly zero change for a legally-carried pistol to be used to stop the shooting. So when you say "not a single CCW holder stopped a mass shooting", you're forgetting that this is exactly what the law is doing. It may not be the intent of the law, but it is a by-product of the law in that if one person breaks the law, there is not anybody else there with a gun.
Second, if a CCW pistol is used to stop a person hell-bent on committing a mass shooting, then, logically, there is no mass shooting to report on.
Example: man walks into a McDonald's with a gun and starts screaming for the employees to empty the registers. CCW permittee promptly draws pistol and shoots the armed robber. Did the CCW permittee just stop a mass shooting?
We don't know. Probably not, but there is a percentage of times that such a robbery would have gone bad and a lot of people would have died.
I'd also like to note this:
Most times when a gun is used for self-defense, it is not fired. The mere action of being seen (or heard) to possess a gun acts as a crime deterrent.
Most of the time when a gun is fired in self-defense, the shooter misses or wounds his or her attacker.
There are about 200 or so legal self-defense murders a year in the US. Obviously, this can only be a tiny fraction of the number of cases where a gun was employed in self-defense.
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)Where can I find this info?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The report is here:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf
The BJS used to have it as a website, then at some point they rolled all of the web pages into a PDF.
There are about 400 justifiable homicides per year by police, and about 200 by civilians.
Of course, the data collection stops in 2005, but the lines trend with overall crime rates.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Not a single CCW holder stopped a mass shooting."
At about 1:00 p.m. MST (20:00 UTC), thirty minutes after the 11:00 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot, shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, hitting him in the forearm. At this point, Jeanne Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. Police say that after suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)He stopped himself.
beevul
(12,194 posts)He killed himself AFTER he was stopped.
The guy was armed with thousands of rounds and had made his intention to kill as many as he could very plain.
And he was stopped by a volunteer security with a CCW.
Murray's death
Jeanne Assam, a New Life Church volunteer security guard, shot Murray several times with her personally-owned concealed weapon. After Murray was wounded, he killed himself with a shotgun.
According to the Colorado Springs Police Department, Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Pastor Brady Boyd estimated that about 7,000 people were on the church campus at the time of the shooting.
http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/murray-matthew.htm
BainsBane
(53,027 posts)than killed. I'll be waiting.
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)and the nuts that own them:
msongs
(67,393 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)would refrain from attempting to kick, beat, stab, or blunt force gun owners?
Separate but equal killing fields, as it were?
BainsBane
(53,027 posts)You could take your own nukes. In fact, take them all, every last gun, tank, nuke, and chemical and biological weapon. You're welcome to them all.
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)I have not used violence in many years, and never will again unless an innocent person is directly in danger. If someone invaded my home I would hide or run and let them have all my stuff. I am not one of these "gun nuts" who is eager for a "bad guy" to attempt a burglary so I can have an excuse to shoot. And I understand your moon colony comment is not at all serious, but I still think it is revealing.
If we gave all of our weapons to a "moon colony," then shortly thereafter the inhabitants of said colony would almost certainly return and conquer the rest of us.
This distinction is very important because it parallels our actual situation with guns. Yes, guns are terrible because killing is terrible and that is what they are for. But the fact of the matter is if you lack any power to do violence sooner or later you will be killed or enslaved.
This is what always amazes me about so many DU posters: on one thread they will rant about how the U.S. government is becoming increasingly authoritarian, and then in another they will rant about how only the government should be allowed to own guns. The problem there is obvious, and anyone who would give all of their weapons to people they don't even trust is short sighted to say the least.
BainsBane
(53,027 posts)It was just a joke, however.
The problem is your imagining a collective DUer. You really need to look at people individually.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ballistics isn't your strong suit, is it?
BainsBane
(53,027 posts)You seem to care so much about the weapons, I thought I'd offer them all to you.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)ARE gun owners vs. gun owners, and most of those are people who are already breaking the law by owning guns. I am referring to criminals killing criminals.
otohara
(24,135 posts)and there will be the same, maybe more, maybe less tomorrow and the next day, day after that and so on...
What's the difference if these people are killed by a mass shooter or 22 separate shooters? It's massive compared
to other so-called civilized countries.
Who pays for all this gun violence?
We do to the tune of $600 million per year.
Do you have liability insurance on your gun?
Do you have liability insurance on your car?
Some Democrats in Pueblo said fuck you to education, health care, Medicaid, and a host of other issues more important
than fucking guns.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)myself. So I'm covered for non-criminal mis-use or use of a firearm.
I have liability insurance only on my vehicles that are road-worthy, and licensed for use on public roads...
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Just like zero people were killed by drunk SUV's, and.......... zero internet avatars posted misleading rants about firearms. The one thing they have in common is the person....the person responsible for the act, not the item.
People and the irresponsible nature of some, are responsible for the deaths of others. A gun never killed anyone, anymore than a drunk car ran someone over.
Drinking and driving is against the law.........yet every bar has a parking lot. it isn't the cars drinking and driving, and it isn't the guns killing.
rational, responsible firearm legislation would be championed by the VAST majority of firearm enthusiasts, but for that to happen "anti-gunners" have some calming down to do. In the meantime, like most people I know,.....I'm adding to my collection far more than I would have because of all the hysteria.
otohara
(24,135 posts)They make me sick.
I know when I get in my car something might happen, I don't expect to walk out the door and get shot
at work, school, a movie, and yet it's becoming common.
Vast majority blah, blah....responsible till not.
I don't want to die by a gun, I don't want my kid in NC where guns are never to be destroyed now to be killed
by some asshole who might take his mixed blood to be Middle Eastern and shoot his ass in the name of
Freedom. Fucking stupid American's don't know the difference between Sheik, Indian, Japanese or Arab -
Did you see the internet HATE after Miss America won?
I can't shake the image of my neighbors former 9 year old son being shot in the head by his father, I grieve for her...she is
the saddest woman I know - there's thousands of her. Dead children - because it's so God Damn easy to get
a fucking gun in this country.
We are an embarrassment a miserable angry racist country where the rule of law no longer exists.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)Can't say that about baseball bats or swimming pools.
Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.
Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.
The journal has fast-tracked publication of the study because of the shootings at the Washington navy yard. It was originally scheduled for later this week.
It follows an emotional appeal from a doctor at the trauma center in Washington where the victims of Aaron Alexis' random violence were taken. "I would like you to put my trauma center out of business," Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, told reporters in the aftermath of the massacre. "I would like to not be an expert on gunshots. Let's get rid of this. This is not America."
The fraught question of whether gun ownership protects populations from crime or makes them less likely to be killed has been debated for 200 years, say the authors, Sripal Bangalore of NYU Langone Medical Center, and Franz H Messerli of St Luke's Roosevelt hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York. They say the arguments began as soon as the second amendment stating "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was passed in 1791.
At one end is the argument that gun control laws are an infringement on the right to self-defense and on constitutional rights, and that there is no evidence that banning assault weapons would reduce crime. At the other end is the view that fewer firearms would reduce crime rates and overall lead to greater safety, they say.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
Something tells me you will chose to ignore study after study and continue on with the pathetic attempt to compare gun violence to baseball bats.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)was a joke, but it was also relevant is ways you probably don't get, your keyboard might though, maybe it has the sentient powers of firearms that act without people controlling them.
Firearms do not kill people, .....people using firearms kill people. Demonizing a firearm or more specifically accessories of a firearm and trying to ban them is for no other purpose than attracting a voter block. I'm shocked that people still go for it like fish food. I would guess the VAST majority of firearm enthusiasts like myself, would welcome and support effective and reasonable firearm legislation. Trying to ban a barrel shroud, folding stock, magazine or other such nonsense serves absolutely no purpose in the way of controlling firearm misuse.
Creating a national registry for firearm ownership is bullshit, it serves no purpose except to offer taking points after a shooting has occurred. Banning firearms is not going to stem the tide of murder committed by people using firearms, any more than setting alcohol limits has eliminated drunk driving. Penalties....that will help. Florida actually has one of the better laws regarding firearm use during the commission of a felony, which is why I'm still shocked the prosecution was able to skid mark the Zimmerman trial. The day to day firearm violence would be reduced significantly, if federal laws made stiff penalties mandatory for any crime committed with the use of a firearm. No it will not stop crazed killers from mass killings, but banning firearms won't either. I support a license program much like driving, except with stiff penalties............don't have a license to have that firearm in you possession ? bye...see you in 15 years. used that firearm in the commission of a crime ? bye...see you...never again. THAT kind of legislation would make a HUGE impact on firearm misuse. Again, no it would not stop murder all together, but it would without a doubt slash the number of people carrying firearms by half I'll bet you.
the responsibility of owning, and using firearms is tremendous, but used improperly they can be a deadly tool. Firearms offer the finest sporting, hunting and collecting opportunities of anything.. ever. the penalties for not having that mindset of responsibility should be
severe and without option. I'm not surprised your studies don't come to that conclusion, those studies are only meant to gin up hysteria for voting use. Stop being led around by your fears, think for yourself, just because you read something online doesn't make it the only way.
As far as my pathetic attempt to compare baseball bats and firearms, remember a firearm never killed anyone without a person using it for that purpose. Just like a baseball bat never hit a home run without a batter. Want to stop the firearm violence ? Then make it a lose-lose situation for criminals to abuse them.
GCP
(8,166 posts)
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)miserable angry racist, and I certainly don't see where the "rule of law no longer exists", that is the kind of baloney internet prophets say to get other internet prophets to agree with them. Things need improving but my America is still a wonderful place, bummer to be where ever you are. I assume that since you refer to "Fucking Stupid Americans" you are not American, I can't say I'm disappointed.
I not only ignore "internet hate", I couldn't tell you what, when or who Miss America is all about. Let go of your fear and hate, life is wonderful and not as dark and dreadful as you describe!
Go to an Irish bar, you'll never meet a stranger, realize that even bad singers are welcome, and you'll laugh till you remember that life is good !
Be well, or as well as you want to be anyway, Cheers !
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Not trying minimize this tragedy here, but this number of people die every 11 or so hours in our country by gun violence (if measuring by body count.)
These same questions could be asked every day because today was nothing extraordinary in the overall scheme of things.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I agree with you that sane gun legislation is not going to come to America for the forseeable future. But if they *were* adopted, UK-style gun laws would reduce the death toll per year by thousands in the short term and tens of thousands in the long term.
I think your point about mass killings rather works against you - *on top of* all the mass killings (which I agree are not nearly as important an issue as they are made out to be, because they are only a tiny fraction of gun deaths), there are tens of thousands of other gun deaths every year.
Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #18)
Name removed Message auto-removed
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is the reason we do not have access to Destructive Devices under the 2nd Amendment.
Things like bombs, pipe bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, anti-material rifles in greater than .50 caliber, etc.
Funny you should bring it up, as if it was the way the world should be, instead of the way the world actually is right now.
'UK Style gun laws' require and presuppose a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Gun "rights" most certainly do endanger others - the legislation that lets you keep a gun leads, directly and predictably, to thousands of needless deaths a year. So no, it's not the way things currently are in America.
You are right that decent gun control would need the repeal of the 2nd amendment, though. And while the repeal of that spectacularly harmful and pointless piece of legislation would be a very good thing, there's no chance of it happening whatsoever, so you will continue to be in no danger of having your gun taken, but having a roughly one in ten-thousand chance every year of being fatally shot (and a much, much higher chance of being non-fatally shot).
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Firearms CAN be used in self-defense without endangering others. They can ALSO be mis-used in a negligent or used in a malevolent manner.
But items classified by law as 'destructive devices' are so because they cannot be used in self defense. They are area effect or over-penetrating weapons. NEVER have they been held to be protected by the Second Amendment for this reason.
Still, these rights are not unlimited. Where we wander off into the weeds is in defining what 'reasonable' gun control looks like. For me, it is less about caliber or cyclic rate, and more about keeping them out of the hands of people adjudicated criminally incompetent, or for mental health reasons, medically incompetent. Also, to prevent or dissuade unlawful proliferation, such as straw purchases.
I see no reason why the 2nd amendment precludes, for instance, universal registration. The problem is, such registration has gone radioactive, because of attempts in the past in the US itself to use registration to prevent lawful owners from accessing firearms. To confiscate weapons in the case of California. Or to invent financial burdens that lead people to self-select not to own firearms. Because pro-ban people have politicized registries in the past, those of us looking to solve problems without necessarily outright banning, have little traction on these issues because our credibility is, by association, shot.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)How do you suppose "UK style gun laws" would be implemented? What happens to the 300+ million guns already in the hands of law-abiding people, and what happens to the entire gamut of jobs (both directly and indirectly related to the manufacture, sales, and regulation of guns) that millions of people rely upon for their income?
It is an easy thing to scream for, "UK style gun laws", but not so easy to make a reality. What is your plan to do this that would match the reality we all share right now?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I think there is no chance whatsoever of the majority of Americans voting for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and that any kind of decent gun control in the USA is a pipe dream, not a serious political goal.
That said, if for some reason it *were* voted in, they would be enforceable asymptotically. It wouldn't be a panacea overnight, but provided you were taking guns off the street faster than they were being put there then you'd massively reduce the problem over a generation or so.
Eko
(7,281 posts)its not guns that are the problem, it's people. That's why we are attempting to regulate the people who want to have guns. We did it with cars and I dont see where it got rid of them. Your argument is totally invalid.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Let me just ask what percentage of gun homicides happen because guns are used?
What percentage of gun suicides use guns?
How many gunshot wounds are caused by bullets fired from guns?
Get this straight no-one is saying that murders or suicides or casual injuries will vanish if guns are controlled, just that such events become harder to achieve without guns.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)as possible. They are instruments of war and not intended for hunting game. People who live with peaceful intent within their communities usually do not feel compelled to keep such weapons. In this household we choose not to live in perpetual suspicion and fear of the members of our community. We do not own guns.
In my view, the very presence of a gun implies a threat to everyone in its vicinity. The whole purpose of a gun is to intimidate those who do not have them. I really hate these conceal carry laws and believe that they create a dynamic that makes it difficult for people to walk safely in their communities. Guns do not make people safer. They make people dead.
As for rights and responsibilities, we also have the right to live without fear of those who would pack weapons.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Then you bring up conceal carry in the next sentence. If the gun is concealed, in what way can it intimidate 'those who do not have them'?
By the way, I do not have a CCW permit and have no intentions of acquiring one.
Godot51
(239 posts)OK, so a gun is "just a tool"? Like a hammer, a saw, an axe or a plow. Right, Shane?
So, take this "just a tool" and build me a house...
So, take this "just a tool" and raise me a crop...
So, take this "just a tool" and cook me a meal...
A gun is not a tool. A gun is a weapon. Tools can be weapons but that's not their first function.
A gun, any gun, is not a tool, a toy or a protector. It is a weapon and it's meant to kill.
The "people problem" all too often starts with a man with a gun.
POBOYSAMMICH
(6 posts)So, take this "just a tool" and build me a house...
without the means to defend you property, you can not build your house - the gun is a defensive tool also.
So, take this "just a tool" and raise me a crop...
same as above, while some may not understand, defense of what is yours is imperative.
So, take this "just a tool" and cook me a meal...
as I take game, harvest raised livestock - yes, this tool must be employed - the hamburger at wall-mart used to be a living animal. It doesn't show up, and is not raised as pre-packaged food.
A gun is not a tool. A gun is a weapon. Tools can be weapons but that's not their first function.
agree to a point, a gun utilized as intended is indeed a tool. the knife and the sickle were not designed to take a life either.
A gun, any gun, is not a tool, a toy or a protector. It is a weapon and it's meant to kill
I agree with this, those who would think otherwise are, in my opinion, idiots.
The "people problem" all too often starts with a man with a gun.
we must come to some sort of agreement over the "people problem", we can try to reduce the accessibility of guns to those that we deem 'undeserving', but, who can make that designation.
GCP
(8,166 posts)You seem to believe that without your possession of a gun, other people would come and steal everything you have, including your land.
If that were so, do you really want to live in such a country?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Then why have so many assholes not yet assumed room temperature?
bluedeathray
(511 posts)Isn't fully armed. Which is the situation that the quote refers to in reference to a book by the author Robert A Heinlein.
As an argument for or against guns in America, it's specious, irrelevant, and used by both sides as a trite alternative to real thought.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Japan is not an armed society...there are few guns and the penalties for misuse are so high that even organized crime opts for knives and clubs.
FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)1) A people problem
and
2) A gun problem
I mean Aaron Alexis should not have obtained a firearm in the first place due to his past record with guns. How did he obtain his gun? How did he qualify for a CCW? People sold him the gun and People gave him the CCW.
and the easy accessibility of firearms as well. I really think something like British law and Australian law should be applied to the US. If they can do it, it can be done in the US.
Seriously, this is a case of history being repeated and repeated and no one seems to learn from it. Columbine- oh well, let's move on. Aurora- oh well, lets move on. Sandy Hook- kids died... but we don't give a fuck, let's move on. NOTHING IS DONE, NOTHING. It's an endless cycle.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)the one thing that all acts of gun violence have in common is a gun.
you do NOT have a right to own a gun unless you are a member of a well regulated militia.
your post is nothing more than the usual nonsensical NRA talking points...
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)since before the BOR were written.
POBOYSAMMICH
(6 posts)you do NOT have a right to own a gun unless you are a member of a well regulated militia.
read the founding documents; militia consists of etc. etc.
We are the militia, thank you very much
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)extreme gun control talking point dies?
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...and again and again. Yet another senseless shooting that has many causes but it was the access to guns that turned this rampage into yet another slaughter. Sadly, as usual, we hear the same sides saying the same things...it's not the guns, it's the video games, it's poor security and so on. I expect lots of attempts to justify this latest carnage and soon the noise will die down and we'll brace ourselves for the next massacre where we'll hear the same things over again and then move onto to the next...our greatest hopes is that we're not caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately this is an issue that is so polarized nothing can be discussed...just the usual posturing...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
FSogol
(45,470 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't know how, in light of all the evidence, people can still believe that old lie that a murderer is going to find a way to murder, with or without a gun. In light of all the peer-reviewed studies, the fact that the US has a homicide rate several times higher than other nations of comparable wealth, despite the fact that our overall violent crime rates are not out of the ordinary.
Your view might have been plausible if we didn't have any evidence to bear on this question. But we do. And people like you continue to ignore it because if conflicts with your ideological agenda, which results in thousands of innocent lives lost every year.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Our non-gun homicide rate is as high as Western European total homicide rates.
If guns were suddenly no longer available, then the gun-related murders that would have occurred would instead, many of them, be done with non-gun weapons. Our non-gun homicide rate would rise while our gun-homicide rate would plummet, and we'd still have a much higher homicide rate than other nations of comparable wealth.
So, perhaps we'd have fewer homicides overall. But our homicide rate would still be much higher than wealthy European nations. This points to a root-cause problem that Europeans are addressing while we do not.
Now you have a choice: bring down murder rates and boost the standard of living by addressing social and economic problems like the Europeans do, or bring down murder rates but not change the standard of living by addressing the hardware problem.
Your solution seems to be to artificially repress the gun-ownership rate. It's currently about 35%, with about 900 guns per 1,000 people.
How low would those numbers need to be in order to make you happy?
And how far on your hardware-driven agenda will you get before Democrats are swept from power? How far will you get on your hardware-driven agenda before the Republicans, again, take power and shove more and more conservative shit down our throats?
I don't think you'll get far. Maybe you'll get a magazine-capacity limit again, and a reinstatement of the definition of "assault weapon". And then you'll get college-tuition hikes, union-busting, privatized schools, Keystone XL, fracking, foreign war, economic stagnation or collapse, and a pretty much complete shredding of the social-safety net.
And of course, gun sales will surge again. Maybe they won't be "assault weapons" with "assault clips", but you'll get lots more people owning a lot more guns.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's because their gun homicide rates are negligible. Our non-gun homicide rates are comparable to theirs, whereas our gun homicide rates are off the chart.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but there's no evidence whatsoever to support it. Studies examining the link between guns and homicide in the US don't find any significant substitution effect. And the instrumentality factor -- that gun crimes/fights are much more likely to result in homicide -- is well documented.
Or we can do both.
If our homicide rate were lower than one other wealthy country, as opposed to higher by a huge margin, I wouldn't say I would be "happy", but I think that's a decent goal, at least for now.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...so I assume you support at least of a few of them to one degree or another.
Magazine-capacity limits, assault-weapons bans, registration, waiting periods, smart guns, microstamping, permits to purchase ammunition... anything?
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]That's an interesting hypothesis, but there's no evidence whatsoever to support it. Studies examining the link between guns and homicide in the US don't find any significant substitution effect. And the instrumentality factor -- that gun crimes/fights are much more likely to result in homicide -- is well documented.
Well, remember, that cities like New York and Chicago put in very strict limits on guns, and they still had very high murder rates in the 70's and 80s... and their laws go back to the early 20th Century. NYC used to have about 6 people murdered a day.
It can't be assumed that 0% of what would be gun murders would instead committed with "other", just like it can't be assumed that 100% would be. The truth lies somewhere in between those, but, like you, I don't know what it would likely be.
And, no, we can't do both. Sorry. The reaction from any serious attempt to reduce the number of privately-owned guns in the country would put Republicans in power. You're talking about virtually freezing new-gun sales, at a minimum, and then either outright confiscation of guns, or a long-term plan that would prohibit people from receiving used guns under any circumstances. The latter would mean that as gun-owners died off, their guns would be taken by the government instead of being sold or inherited, thus disarming the country in about 80 years.
This would drive people nuts and energize the conservative base without a comparable reaction from the progressive side. It would be repealed, and putting the conservatives in charge of all three branches of government... yikes.
My question to you regarding numbers was in reference to gun-ownership rates.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm curious what kind of economic and social reforms you have in mind that wouldn't "drive people nuts and energize the conservative base". You can't mean things like single-payer healthcare, a living wage, clean energy, union rights, etc., because I can guarantee you that anything along those line is going to annoy the right.
Also, how do you get from here...
to here:
According to the polls I've seen, everything on your first list polls above 50%. I'm not denying that the politics are very difficult, but we're not talking about door-to-door confiscation here.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The sooner he retires to tax-free Somalia, the better the country will be.
The difference is that, while unions and clean energy and single-payer healthcare will drive the base and the corporate backers nuts, it will not be as long, as reactionary, nor as deep as passing either draconian or pandering gun-control laws.
And the rank-and-file conservatives may initially oppose such things, but over the course of a few years such things like a living wage will become simply the new normal.
In contrast, progressives, who simply don't have a deep, person, and sustained interest in gun control do have such feelings for those drug legalization and taking on the private prison industry and the MIC and such.
People that don't own guns and have to do absolutely nothing to continue to not own guns, don't get nearly as involved as people that do own guns and feel the need to get politically active in order to continue to do so. Right?
Since you desire to drastically reduce the total number of firearms in America and the total number of households that own guns (this would be bringing America more in line with Europe, yes?), you have two options.
Option one: freeze the number of guns in America (rough guess: 275 million) and wait for the population to grow to about 1.2 billion.
Option two: reduce the number of guns in America by shutting down sales of new guns (directly or through things like onerous regulation) and taking existing guns out of circulation.
Since the number of guns confiscated by police in any given year (for reasons such as arresting a person that had a gun on them) is comparatively tiny, it would take centuries to significantly disarm the population if you waited until a gun was used in a crime before confiscating and destroying it.
So, you would have to accelerate the process of removing used guns from the general population. One way is to decide that some guns are "assault weapons", and order them to be turned in. California has been making some noises in that direction; they banned new sales of "assault weapons" there a couple of decade ago but now they're considering making people that currently own grandfathered guns turn them in or sell them out-of-state.
Another way would be to prohibit guns (maybe some kinds, maybe all kinds) from being received by anybody but the police or a federal gun dealer. If a person needs to sell their guns, they could only sell them to the government. If a person died, his or her guns would be turned in to the government rather than being sold to a dealer, another private seller, or handed down to a relative.
You might decide to outlaw handguns, for example, and pass a law prohibiting a handgun from being transferred to anybody except the police. If a person owns a handgun now, they can keep it, but that person becomes the last owner of the gun. Once he dies or gets an attack of conscience and turns the gun in, the gun is destroyed by the government.
Stopping sales of new guns would stop about 13 million guns a year from being introduced into America. Outlawing transfers of guns to anybody but the government would take out... let's see...
US mortality rate is 8.1 per 1,000 people, so about 2.48 million people die a year. There's about 95 guns per 100 people in the US, so that would be about... 2.36 million? Plus voluntary turn-ins, police confiscation, losses due to fire and other accidents. Call it about 2.5 million per year.
Maybe more in the first couple of decades as older white men with lots of guns die off first.
And it may poll at 50%-plus, but how motivating is it? Remember, people that don't own guns aren't going to get their knickers in a twist about registration or paperwork or arbitrary limts, now are they?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And the rank-and-file conservatives may initially oppose such things, but over the course of a few years such things like a living wage will become simply the new normal.
That goes for everything, including gun control. I don't see any reason to think that, say, a gun registry, would be any different. Particularly since the number of people who are strongly opposed to registration is small. I'd bet that a lot of people probably believe that guns are already registered.
People that don't own guns and have to do absolutely nothing to continue to not own guns, don't get nearly as involved as people that do own guns and feel the need to get politically active in order to continue to do so. Right?
Again, this is not limited to gun control. Taking on the private prison industry, for example, doesn't directly affect anyone who is not likely to go to prison. On the other hand, the people making profit from prisons have a very strong motivation. Similarly, the oil companies are a lot more motivated than the rest of us to fight carbon emission limits, because they have a financial interest. And so on.
I agree with your story -- that the right is more motivated on gun control than the left, but I think it's the same on a lot of issues. And the fact that we don't seem to be making any more progress on prisons or climate than we are on guns supports my view.
I have no illusions of getting our gun homicide rates down in line with Europe any time soon. I agree, we've gotten ourselves into a bad situation, and it will take time to get out of it. Again, this is no different than with many other issues. Do you think there is any chance at all that our wealth distribution will come to resemble that of Western Europe in the short to medium term? Going back to Clinton-era tax rates sure isn't going to do it. Does that mean we just give up? Of course not.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)...noise.
In the town next door, a gun owner left his pistol out where his nephew could pinch it and kill three high school students.
Your characterization of fifty million responsible gun owners and scant crimes is wrong. All of the moments I cited are crimes.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The overwhelming majority of those 50+ million gun owners do none of those things. Yes, the exceptions are a huge problem, but lumping all gun owners in with those idiots is nothing short of bigotry. When it's done to Muslims, when it's done to blacks, we progressives raise holy hell. And that's a good thing. Do the same thing to 50 million Americans? To many here, that's perfectly fine.
Fuck that.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Other countries have people, that is a constant.
Only we have this high a ratio of guns to people, that is the variable.
Presenting this as a people problem is misrepresenting the facts and it is why you are wrong on this issue.
We lose ~33 people per day due to gun violence. So many that the news can't begin to cover them all. No other country goes through this. That is not because they don't have people. It is because they don't have as many guns.
This isn't about opinion. It is about the facts.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Are our people just more inherently violent, for some reason?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Check the latest UCR report from the FBI.
As a people, we seem to resort to homicide with or without guns more than other similar countries.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Our gun homicide rate is off the charts. The reason our non-gun homicide rate is similar to other countries' total homicide rate is because in many cases their gun homicide rate is negligible.
Our people don't "resort to homicide" more. They resort to violence about equally, but since there are guns everywhere, they end up killing each other more.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That's higher than or equal to..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Hong Kong 0.2
Singapore 0.3
Iceland 0.3
Japan 0.4
French Polynesia
Brunei 0.5
Bahrain 0.6
Norway 0.6
Austria 0.6
Guam 0.6
Macau 0.7
Oman 0.7
Slovenia 0.7
Switzerland 0.7
United Arab Emirates 0.8
Spain 0.8
Germany 0.8
Qatar 0.9
Denmark 0.9
Italy 0.9
New Zealand 0.9
Vanuatu 0.9
Federated States of Micronesia 0.9
China 1.0
Bhutan 1.0
Saudi Arabia 1.0
Sweden 1.0
Malta 1.0
Australia 1.0
Tonga 1.0
Tunisia 1.1
Poland 1.1
France 1.1
Netherlands 1.1
Samoa 1.1
Egypt 1.2
Ireland 1.2
United Kingdom 1.2
Portugal 1.2
Serbia 1.2
Hungary 1.3
Andorra 1.3
Morocco 1.4
Armenia 1.4
Croatia 1.4
Somalia 1.5
Algeria 1.5
Slovakia 1.5
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5
Greece 1.5
DanTex
(20,709 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)One and a half times to twice that of much of europe is 'average'?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But if you include them all (Canada, Belgium, etc.) and "average" them, then you'll find the rates are about the same.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You have to include Eastern Europe (Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, etc) to make the average close to ours.
Would you consider Macedonia or Sloviakia a comparable cohort to the US from a cultural and economic perspective?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And really I'm not sure about the 1.5 number. I just looked at UCR, and even if you count all the "unknowns" as "non-gun", you still only get to about 4K out of a population of 3M.
Still, we're talking about maybe 20 or 30% either way. About average.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
rurallib
(62,406 posts)
brooklynite
(94,489 posts)...what makes guns different is that WHEN a person chooses to use them for harm, they have a greater ability to inflict sustained harm on multiple people, in the way that a knife or a car cannot. And while gun prohibitions may not be a practical solution, the problem is that the NRA and gun advocates will resist any effort to bar such heavy harm weapons getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)-People are sometimes mentally and emotionally unstable, but it's hard to predict or diagnose accurately.
-Some people are young and immature, so they don't have good judgement as children or teenagers.
-People have accidents and make mistakes, and the more casually they take risks the more likely the error.
-Corporations seek profits so they lie and mislead people to participate in dangerous situations and buy things they can't handle.
Sooooo, you can't simply blame "people"....the logical course of action is to RESTRICT GUNS!!!
-People should go though extensive background checks (and mental health clearance) and serious training to obtain guns or ammo.
-People should have a renewable license and special insurance to possess or buy a gun. Insurance should be mandatory, and companies won't have to issue a policy (or charge a lot more) if you have any predictors of possible risks.
But...........
-Guns should be hard to buy or possess without a hassle - and only available to a few people in limited quantities and restricted designs.
-No more military weapons, no more large capacity magazines, no more mail order purchases, no more gun shows, and no more possession by anyone without a serious license (not these stupid CCP's).
-Guns should be (by law) locked at all times unless you are a police office, at a shooting range, hunting club, or approved location. Even on private property, you should have gun use restrictions.
-Guns should only be sold with trigger locks, gun safes, or other equipment; if you aren't using them, you lose your gun and license.
-If you possess a gun at the wrong time and place, use it incorrectly, or don't have it safely controlled; then you should automatically loose your license, gun, and possibly go to jail (like a DUI). You fine for misbehavior should be something that has some teeth in it.
-Guns should never be randomly carried in public, concealed, in cars, in schools, or anywhere except locations appropriate for shooting and hunting that are well marked.
-You should only qualify for "personal protection" by special application, training, and with very limited choice of guns for defense. You don't need semi-auto rifles, multi-round clips, or high-powered rounds for home protection, especially if we get guns off the streets so every teenager on drugs can't own them!!
PS: I'm a lifelong gun owner, and it's way past time to do something about TOO MANY GUNS!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
geomon666
(7,512 posts)That's it right there. Perfectly said.
TBF
(32,041 posts)but you all (whether you are a gun-toting repug or dem) need to work with me on mental health. Funding, baby. $$$$$ No more cutting mental health services.
If we can do that I think we can find middle ground.
It seems to be the root of the real problem. Psychosis. Whether chemically , or sociologically induced, we need to find solutions to problems we're not even seriously researching.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The state of mental healthcare in this country is a national embarrassment.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... didn't quite work out as you hoped, eh Skippy?
Enjoy having your ass handed to you?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,166 posts)Guns are designed with the specific intent to kill, injure or simulate killing or injuring.
You can't say that for cars. Or ropes. Or almost any other object manufactured. Guns are pretty unique in that regards.
And because they are unique in that respect, they must be subjected to higher scrutiny and higher regulation.
Guns are the most efficient and easiest way to kill somebody. That's why they are used in the overwhelming majority of murders in this country.
I'm not saying there's no place for guns in this country. There is. But that doesn't mean they and their owners shouldn't be subjected to the highest regulation because of what is implied with a gun.
Listen, I'm not going to name call you. I won't call you a "NRA shill." But I will say you are wrong.
What gun enthusiasts fail to acknowledge, or don't wish to acknowledge, is that guns are extraordinary tools. That they are one of the few objects that are manufactured with that specific intent to kill, injure or simulate killing or injuring.
The trend amongst most gun enthusiasts is to commoditize guns. To treat them just like any other object. To have "fun" with them. To collect them as if they were baseball cards. To use as their security blanket. To imagine fantastic situations wherein one would be called to use their gun.
I would posit that everyone in this country who owns a gun to take a long look at themselves and ask whether they really actually need that gun. I won't lie, some people can honestly say they do. But I would also argue that more honestly do not, and their obsession over needing to be armed in the absence of any realistic threat to their safety is causing more harm than good.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Just think of all the people who might be lacking employment if it wasn't for the gun nuts and drunk drivers 
gopiscrap
(23,733 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)admit we need universal background checks and should deny weapons to anyone with a criminal record or a record of mental illness?????
What gripes me is the second amendment folks want to argue it is people but do not want protections that would deny unfit people fom buying guns.
I live in a conceal carry state, can you at least admit it makes many people uncomfortable to be in a diner or restaraunt with someone showing a weapon like the wild west. My rights to feel safe are as important as your "right" to carry guns. Including the man who became angree with a server at a place we like to eat, he pulled his jacket back and showed her his holstered gun. We left right away when the owner refused to call the cops.
Yes, you have the right to state your opinion, and we should be respectful when we forcefully disagree with you...
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Full Disclosure I consider myself an Independent from the Center before things shifted Rightwards, and now I find myself far to the left of Obama on many cases.
I guess, even in Guns, I am as well.
So in regards to guns, yes, I consider them as tools, but they have always been a tool for killing. Always killing, be it for self defense, hunting and so forth, the primary purpose of a gun is to kill or hurt something or someone. It's usage has no other purpose than that.
As a symbol or something or another, yes it can be used as a deterrent since it's actual purpose is known.
//I am known as a sword snob, and I had people who are so in to guns get mad at me for mentioning that armor should be included in the 2nd amendment rights. Since I fully consider arms as something that strengthens or protects. I consider armor as fully part of that definition. (Not everyone agrees with that, but I consider it part of it. I have a friend that uses airsoft guns to shoot at me while I try to thwack him with a shinai. Pretty pointless but fun exercise.)//
I can also mention that many gun owners are not crazies and can be responsible. However, there are also many who are not. There are idiots that even want to bring such things in to bars and other venues. I consider that moronic.
To me, what can improve things are as follows:
1 - Registration.
-a- This means, registering guns properly. This does not mean confiscation. You have to register many things, and this is a means of being responsible for your weapon. A gun must be treated with respect, and those that don't show immaturity.
2 - Mandatory training and actual militia training for those who have guns.
-a- One has to treat any weapon with the respect it deserves. One has to be mindful of that. I think this should be treated like martial arts.
-b- It would teach which gun to use for a particular situation.
-c- It would teach proper maintenance and storage.
-d- Many gun owners, would more likely than not have their guns used against them.
3 - Mandatory Gun Insurance.
-a- It has to be tiered and affordable. However, if there are any sorts of misuse and litigation, this would help pay or defray that cost.
-b- It is another level of responsibility.
The reason this is very important is that there are many immature gun owners that really should have better etiquette on guns and safety. It would teach them to be better shots, and have accountability. That is sadly lacking at the moment. I am not asking to get rid of guns or limit what people could get. I just want people to be more responsible about it and take ownership. Knowing what to use, how to use it, and figuring out when it may be better to just keep to yourself is important.
Hell, the 2nd amendment does say that it is for a well regulated militia. If such a thing is needed, the registration and knowing individual proficiency can be important.
This is not infringing upon the 2nd amendment rights. It just means accountability and being responsible about it, since I am not asking for weapons to be taken away. I think it is far safer to have people know what they are doing rather than not.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)They are *extremely* expensive, used by highly trained drivers in controlled circumstances, and not treated like "everyday use" cars by everyone on the highway.
People drive their cars on the roads of America. They do not generally drive them into people's homes, in the supermarkets, or inside elementary schools. People train, take tests, get licensed, and maintain insurance for the privilege of driving an automobile.
Generally speaking, an extremely minute portion of the six million auto accidents a year happen in movie theaters, school buildings, and restaurants. An even smaller percentage (next best to zero) involve high performance automobiles.
Guns that are built to fire multiple rounds are not that expensive, require no additional training to operate, and are being used *everywhere* by everyone from teenagers to felons to mentally ill people who hear "voices" instructing them to "kill."
The number of "necessary kills" by guns is zero. The number of people killed UNNECESSARILY is astronomical.
The three main reasons to own a gun are Recreation, Revolution and Self-Defense. The pious claims of "responsible gun ownership" via self-imposed "common sense" are regularly refuted by thirty seconds of googling youtube videos where people who wouldn't be trusted to drive an automobile under normal circumstances shoot themselves and bystanders.
A car is a tool. A gun is a tool. One is treated with respect in this country, and reasonable laws are in place to regulate the use of them. The other is treated like a movie prop, and the results are simply tragic.
G_j
(40,366 posts)that's why responsible people need them to keep us all safe..
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Now isn't the time to talk about it. After Sandy Hook, that wasn't the time to talk about it. After Aurora, that wasn't the time to talk about it.
When in the fuck do you think it will be to talk about it, because if we wait to talk about it, there will be another mass shooting before we can fucking talk about it.
I know *exactly* why people that want to arm themselves to hell and back don't want to talk about it after a tragedy - it's called strike while the iron is hot. None of you ever want to talk about it when there could be a swell of support to change some of the laws that allow people access to guns.
It isn't a "political agenda", it's a fucking public safety issue.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,166 posts)Which resulted in a huge bump in gun sales.
These guys are the masters of pushing political agendas out of tragedies. Even worse is that they do it strictly for profit motives.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)When this sort of thing happens in Montreal, or Dunblane, Scotland, or a camp in rural Norway, it's a once-in-a-generation national tragedy. Here in the good old U.S. of A., it's one day's news cycle.
Rex
(65,616 posts)have no problem. Guns make it too easy to kill another person, there should never be any type of instant gratification killing weapon. Guns are actually the Pandora's box of our times.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)Omnith
(171 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,166 posts)Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Seung Hui Cho, and now Aaron Alexis. And many, many, many more.
All law abiding legal gun owners. Until they weren't.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)And every one of them had two arms and two legs too. The only point that matters is the one about their mental competency, which was clearly nil at the time of the killings. As the OP said, its the person, not the tool.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Certainly on a national scale its not the minority view, and to tell the truth I doubt that its the minority view among all Democrats either. All Democrats are not creatures of the city and while out here in the great wilderness our Democratic voices are often not heard in fact we share a number of beliefs with our Republican neighbors, and you expressed it quite nicely. An awful lot of people here, and I think of them as city dwellers, do not know what it means that the closest police officer is 30 miles away and not likely to show up on the day you need him let alone within the hour.
Omnith
(171 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)My lovely wife happened to be a strong supporter of tough gun control laws. Something tells me that she would have a fantastic time talking with Skittles and morningfog about gun control while I was out of earshot - Hell, even if I was within earshot. Ginny could be downright unsinkable.
But she saw something in this big lug, something that indicated I was husband material, so there's got to be some hope for me yet.
Those who know me know what sort of person I really am, and that's sufficient. This also includes more than a few DUers who have met me face to face. They might consider me "a bit off," but they know with whom I'll stand when push comes to shove.
I've always felt this song sums it up nicely - you're not alone.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and say how much they are a "proud American". 
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)And then whine about how people in rural areas are put upon, and those in population centers are totally ignorant and just don't understand that guns are the most awesome, empowering tool that a person can possess, and the happiest day of my life was the day that my cee-cee-dubya permit arrived in the mail, and it absolutely, in no way is meant to compensate for inadequacies and shortcomings.
And so it goes....
Warpy
(111,236 posts)There are too damned many guns toted by too damned many gun loving bozos.
The biggest predictor of dying by gunfire is the presence of a gun in the home.
The debate should be on how to make amassing arsenals in the suburbs less attractive.
chelsea0011
(10,115 posts)and no one could own them and everyone had to turn them all in, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep. And remove the second amendment and I still sleep very well thank you.
Squinch
(50,935 posts)spin this thing till death do all of us part, but you all know, deep down, that the gun laws in the US need to change. You know that this has become ridiculous. You know that in countries with reasonable gun control, these things seldom happen. You know that your arguments are all, to some extent, supportive of the NRA, a heinous organization that embarrasses you even as you spout their talking points.
This is all cognitive dissonance. You know this is wrong.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Hekate
(90,627 posts)... we are at war with ourselves -- not a metaphorical war, a real war, like a low-level civil war.
What the hell is wrong with the US that it goes on tolerating this level of murder from this cause? Other countries don't. Or rather, the ones that do have a serious problem with organized drug cartels, organized insurrections, and the like. What is our excuse?
The 2nd Amendment? Don't make me laugh. Various levels of state, local, and federal government are always monkeying around with the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, and the sacredness of those never stops them from being modified.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)For that I am grateful
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Guns, like cars, machetes, rope, etc., are tools of mankind. They all have appropriate uses. When used inappropriately, the inanimate object is not to blame, the person is. Is that not self-evident? "
...statistic on how many kids accidentally run over and kill a sibling with a car?
gulliver
(13,180 posts)Gun crime rates have been falling like crazy while the number of guns goes through the roof. People are far less likely to be victims of gun crimes now than ten or twenty years ago.
But then there are the pervy guns like the AR-15 and the pervy accessories like high-capacity magazines. I just think they are kind of sick, irrespective of the harm they cause physically. They cause emotional and social damage far in excess of their physical impact. If I see some idiot with an AR-15, I Know I probably won't be shot by him. But that doesn't mean I don't despise him.
I really don't have a problem with people who arm themselves for protection in potentially dangerous situations. I certainly have no problem with hunting. But I don't like the funny boy poseurs who just like that little jolt of power they feel when they fondle a deadly weapon.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
neverforget
(9,436 posts) 
quakerboy
(13,918 posts)Its not unique to one or the other solo.
Take the people out of the equation, all you have is inanimate metal.
Take the guns out of the equation, and you have some angry people who may or may not do anything, and if they do, won't do it as badly or to as many people.
As to your specific points... The hypocrisy of it is a bit stunning. "some are using this tragedy to push a political agenda while the bodies of the victims are still warm".. That is exactly what you are doing in your post, as far as I can tell. This is my first post on this topic. Im gonna try to make it my last.
One questions in return for your two:
What percentage on non gun owners in the US commit gun Homicide, of the single or mass types?
I think you should take your answers a step further, if you want to be complete and consistant... What percentage of illegal gun owners commit gun homicides, mass or otherwise? I suspect even your average illegal gun owner is not "out to way waste to society".
Then you could reasonably take it even further yet. What percentage of drunken drivers kill people with their cars? Seems like most people who go out drinking are also not out to lay waste to society.
I'm not saying you are an NRA shill. Shills get paid for their efforts, I believe. That doesn't mean you are right, or that your opinion is fact based nor that it is in the best interests of our nation.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's not either/or. It's both an "instrument" problem and a people problem.
It's not just a minority view, it's a truly myopic and intellectually barren view.
just think of it is this way: you know that every year a number of small children are accidentally shot and killed by guns in their household. Now that's a people problem: the guns should have been secured and it's a gun problem- if the gun hadn't been there the kid would be alive.
JanMichael
(24,881 posts)was small...we realized that the guns we had in the house (couple of antique rifles, a .38) were a problem-- we didn't want to buy a safe...so, our solution? We took ALL of the bullets out of the house. Every single one-- the only way the kids were going to get hurt was to drop them on their toes.
He's 30 now, and we are over irresponsible gun owners that think a loaded weapon around the house is somehow a "good idea."
Put up outdoor lights...the solar ones are cheap now....keep a phone by the bed to dial 911.... bear mace is about 25 bucks. Get a small, obnoxious terrier that freaks when a dog is being walked down the sidewalk in front of your house. (yeah, that can get noisy....but it works)
Quit living in fear, and thinking your guns are going to somehow "protect you." They won't....common sense will.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)whether it be on guns, racism or Benghazi.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)People die to gun violence every damn day.
Unrec... but that's it I will not join the "shill" group.