15 Years After Columbine, How "Never Again" Became "Oh Well"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/columbine-15-years-later

15 Years After Columbine, How "Never Again" Became "Oh Well"

Welcome to America, the land of blue jeans, rock & roll, and sporadic meaningless mass murder.

—Ben Dreyfuss on Sun. April 20, 2014 2:31 PM PDT

On April 20, 1999, two teenagers walked into a suburban high school outside of Denver and shot 13 people to death. The massacre at Columbine was not the first mass shooting in America. It was not the first mass shooting at an American school. Indeed, Peter Jennings began the news that night, "The reaction of so many people today was 'oh no, not again.'" But Columbine was different. It became a national trauma in a way the others hadn't. Yes, it was the deadliest American school shooting on record at the time—though it is no longer—but what really amplified its significance was the fact it was the first mass shooting that played out in real time on television. The shootings began at 11:19am. By noon, local television stations had broken into regular programming with uninterrupted media coverage. Millions of people across the country turned on CNN and watched the story develop.

- snip -

After Columbine there was a general sense that something had to be done. That kids getting killed at school was a thing we weren't going to be ok with. "Never again," the saying goes. It wasn't some fanciful impossibility. The British did it after Dunblane. And so we did that. Everyone got together and passed sweeping gun control legislation and there was never another mass shooting in America.

Except not really. Because the "never again" response—though shared by many—was not shared by all.

On May 1, Charlton Heston came to Denver and made a much-discussed speech where he said, "We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. We may have differences, yes, and we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight, and forever more, let it always set on we the people, secure in our land of the free and the home of the brave." Say what you will about that speech, but as far as predictions go it was spot on. It's a fait accompli. There were more shootings. We mourned and then did nothing because we seem to have accepted that occasional mass murder is the cost of America.

Both responses, "never again" and "don't bother trying," offer statements about the USA. The former says "America is the greatest country on Earth. We went to the moon. Surely, we can stop kids from getting shot to death at school! If the Brits can do it, so can we. " The latter says, "No, we can't. We're America. The greatest country on Earth and the cost of the liberty that makes us so is that our kids may get shot to death at school." It goes further, "Kids in other countries may get shot to death at their schools too, but we know that after kids get shot to death in our schools that there will be no significant reforms to prevent more of our kids from getting shot to death at more of our schools. Their death will, in a very real sense, be utterly meaningless."

Every time there is another mass shooting and nothing happens it becomes a little easier to believe that the "don't bother" crowd is right.

MORE

[Eleanors38]

1. The phenomenon of mass murder is quite rare,

but started well before most of us were born. Perhaps there is a pathological streak in American culture (which could possibly be part of an American Exceptionalism) that has combined with our celebrity culture whereby psychopaths see a remaining means of mass legitimacy, of mass recognition, even as the old mass media model continues to crumble, leaving fewer avenues of purposefulness.

Sociologists have noted the alienating, even atomizing, quality of modern society well before the Inet & social media era, but such was little noted before the era of mass media. Perhaps the shift in how we view ourselves in this society makes little difference to a Texas Tower shooter, or college student knifer in Calgary. But there remains the craving for recognition and celebrity which transcends the old and new media, and how both forms confer legitimacy.

Celebrity and recognition may be the place to start in trying to understand the peculiar practice of mass murder.

[nomorenomore08]

3. But I'm sure the fact we're unable to pass even moderate gun control in this country, doesn't help.

I wouldn't advocate something like the British response post-Dunblane - when they banned all handguns from civilian ownership - but when even a measure as mild as universal background checks fails in Congress, it's pretty clear no one cares to do anything about gun violence. Of course we'll never get rid of guns, and I don't favor getting rid of them all anyway, but the gun lobby's all-or-nothing stance makes it so we can't even begin to cut into our sky-high murder rate.

[hack89]

5. Universal background checks had no chance when they bundled them with an AWB

And other less popular measures.

[Logical]

8. Universial background checks would not stop mass shootings. Look at the last few......

They either got guns legally or got them from family members who had them legally.

And 50,000 stolen guns a year would keep the criminals supplied.

Criminals have no trouble getting guns.

[nomorenomore08]

13. "Criminals have no trouble getting guns." Therefore no gun control whatsoever?

And it's not just background checks, it's the "less popular" (boo hoo) measures as well. I'm not opposed to gun ownership but I am frankly tired of living in the freaking Wild West.

[Logical]

14. Let me know what you propose. Most here post irrational crap that will stop nothing. nt

[Lurks Often]

41. You mean this Wild West

http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/myths-of-old-west.html

[Egnever]

58. Hmm lots of things to question about this article

For one thing the population of these places was smaller meaning much harder to get away with crime. In a small town everyone knows your business.

Secondly according to this sitethe murder rate in dodge city today is nearly the same or lower than it was during the wild west.

The bank robbery thing is hard to confirm I think as the banking system in america was barely getting off the ground according to https://www.mint.com/the-complete-history-of-banks-in-the-united-states/

I think that the article takes a pretty simplistic view of things and tries to compare apples to oranges a lot.

It seems like an attempt to justify guns and not really an honest look at the times.

[Lurks Often]

60. It matches other things I have read

that the real Old West was a lot less violent then it was portrayed in the movies.

Crime and violence is driven by social and economic pressures, along with population densities, not by the availability of any given object used to commit a crime.

[Egnever]

64. Every thing is less violent than the movies

That's a silly standard in my opinion.

Another thing that that article fails to mention is crime in large population centers at the time was much higher.

Also the Colt revolver wasn't invented till 1836 so it likely wasn't widely available during the period that article discussed.

This looks like a very weak attempt to try to justify concealed carry laws.

[Lurks Often]

65. Much like this entire thread is a pathetic attempt for more gun control n/t

[Egnever]

66. Could be

I haven't really read the thread. Your post just happened to catch my eye and sounded interesting until I read the article and noticed all the conclusions that seemed to be made in a vacuum.

Regardless was interesting to read and made me learn some stuff always a good thing.

[badtoworse]

10. Would you offer anything up to reach a deal?

[nomorenomore08]

16. I thought cutting down on the thousands of homicides a year would be good enough.

And why should we have to "reach a deal" on relatively mild gun control measures anyway? Unless you advocate the NRA's position on guns?

[Eleanors38]

22. Respectfully, your post reveals part of the problem:

The OP is about school mass murders and responses to it.

Your post is about gun-related crime rates and responses to it.

It is the manifest lack of focus and unwillingness to better define a problem, and to propose specific solutions to it, which COMPLETELY defeats any meaningful action. I'll go further: The proposals tossed out in the wake of mass murders -- Even If Enacted -- would fail to have effect. If you want to reduce or ameliorate the comparatively rare phenomenon of MM in schools, you start with better securing and hardening those schools.

[badtoworse]

34. I don't accept that thousands of homicides would be prevented with "relatively mild" measures

There are measures I could accept and there are things I would like to get. The problem is that the gun control control crowd never wants to give up anything and the RKBA crowd recognizes the incrementalism in their approach. Given that, the RKBA people won't give an inch without some concessions from the other side. That's why nothing ever happens.

It should be obvious by now that a negotiated deal is the only way the situation will change. Negotiations never go anywhere unless both sides are prepared to give on some things.

[krispos42]

11. The knee-jerk reaction was typical and timeworn...

...ban "assault weapons" and >10 magazines.


Of course, the guns used in Columbine were bought illegally by a straw buyer, 5 years into the Clinton assault-weapon ban, and three of them were not "assault weapons"... a pump-action shotgun, a double-barreled shotgun, and a pistol-caliber carbine (short rifle).

The TEC-9 pistol was an "assault weapon" by virtue of having a magazine that was attached someplace other than through the grip AND a protective heat shield over the barrel. Now, logic would dictate that a handgun with a magazine located outside of pistol grip (usually in front of the trigger) would be worlds harder to conceal, conceal, and draw. So if anything, we should be ENCOURAGING these sorts of guns.

Same thing after Sandy Hook. The rifle was legally purchased 3 years prior to the massacre, new, from a licensed gun dealer, and it was not an "assault weapon" under Connecticut law. Between the 1994 Federal ban and Connecticut's incorporation of the federal ban into state law, "assault weapons" had been banned for 15 years prior to the legal purchase of the rifle by Lanza's mom.

Background checks would help, but Democrats can't seem to focus on just that... they have to tack on gun registration and expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include even more guns and banning magazines over an arbitrary size.

Point of fact... you do realize that our homicide rate has fallen to lows not seen since the mid-sixties, right? And it's down about 40% from 20 years ago?

[nomorenomore08]

15. Yes, the murder rate is substantially lower than 20 years. But it's still the highest in the

developed world. And we have literally 100 times the gun homicides as Britain, where handguns are banned. I don't advocate going that far, but there is an argument to be made against gun proliferation generally.

[krispos42]

20. Our homicide rate is about 3x that of GB

About 25 years ago, our rate was 11x that of GB. Since then, we've dropped in half, about, and they're about doubled.

Our non-gun homicide rate is about the same at their total homicide rate. I refuse to believe that the two-thirds of killers that would have used guns simply would stay home and sulk if they didn't have a gun.



This is what I mean. Handguns are used in 65% of all homicides; rifles (including but not limited to "assault weapon" rifles) are 5%. Yet what is the go-to response?

AR-15s are EVIL and must be banned.


I actually did an analysis of mass-homicide date a few months ago. The per-capita rate of homicide incidents with 5 or more victims was trending down over the 30-year period the data covered, from 1976 to 2005.

The lesson here is that media perception and reality can be quite different. But regardless, treating the problem of mass shootings as a hardware problem will not work, and it will prevent the underlying causes from being addressed.

[Skip Intro]

23. It failed (as it should have) for several reasons.

First and foremost, most Americans don't like their rights screwed with, especially 2nd Amendment supporters.

But that last push (gun-grab) started off as a vague push for "common sense gun control." For most of the push, there was no clear definition, but repeated calls for "common sense gun control." It was only when this failed that the background-check expansion was pushed separately. That is the way I remember it, if I am wrong, please correct me, but the effort was not, for the most part, clearly defined.

Worse, the way the Newtown tragedy was...pimped seems to be the only word that fits, at event after event and on the tips of all the "anti-gun rights" crowd. It just hit me as a sad and disrespectful, and pretty sick thing to do to use that tragedy to try to pry people emotionally to do "something," the vague "something" that the grabbers were pushing offered as the remedy. It wasn't just crass and vulgar, which it was fully, but it was also deceptive.

That deception - using that extremely rare event for their push to solve the "gun violence" problem in the country, was transparent to many. That event in no way is emblematic of the "gun violence" problem in this country. And if they're going to try to deceive and manipulate on an emotional level, which they tried, why should anyone trust them on the issue, or any issue for that matter, ever again? And I don't.

Of course, having Biden out there calling opponents to the vague, "for the children" gun grab the "black helicopter crowd," didn't exactly help.

[lapislzi]

37. Your post is insulting on many levels

To suggest that the people affected by Newtown were "pimped" by outside interests is disgusting. These are people who have lost loved ones, and who have a genuine, heartfelt, desperate interest in preventing such a thing from occurring again.

They are not the "gun grabbers*" as you so eloquently put it. They are not that stupid. They know, better than anyone, that any change in attitudes towards firearms will probably be generational.

But, goddammit, we are going in the wrong goddamn direction.

*gun grabber: that would be me. I believe the Second Amendment should be repealed. I realize that mine is an extreme position and will garner little support, even on a board such as the DU. So I don't talk about it much. But, yeah, I would grab your gun in a New York minute.

[Skip Intro]

42. As truth to the gullible often is.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm saying it clearly. The Newtown tragedy was used as a PR gimmick - held up as a glaring, emblematic example of the "gun violence" problem in the US, which it absolutely was not, and used to manipulate the public on an emotional level into supporting a vague "remedy" none of which would have prevented the tragedy. It was deceptive and disrespectful. And it failed, as it should have.

You may think you have the right to decide for me and everyone else whether we may defend ourselves on a level field with well-armed criminals. You may hope to make everyone a cowering victim. And you may dream of grabbing my gun and those of every other American, but that's all it will ever be, a dream. You can make your own choice for yourself and your family, but you will never make that choice for me or anyone else.

Nothing personal, that's just the way it is.

[CreekDog]

48. you're accusing the families of the victims of using Newtown as a "PR gimmick"?

could you say anything more insensitive?

wow.

[Skip Intro]

50. Another lie from CreekDog (who jokes of electrocuted teens, btw - w/ link).

Back up your accusation with a quote, CreekDog, or you're full of shit. (We all know how this will end, don't we?) You won't, because you can't. Once again your contribution to DU is to disrupt sincere discussion among other DUers.

-----------

CreekDog's response to a story about a teen who was electrocuted in her bathtub:



http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8877501&mesg_id=8877661

You know, CreekDog, if you ever run for office, you definitely have the lying hypocrite vote locked up!

[CreekDog]

51. been keeping screencaptures for 5 years now?

wow. wonder how many people are in your screencaps.

anyway, not that i mind, it's a public site.

i guess you're comparing your comment about Newtown to my post about some Darwin awards? really? Newtown...Darwin Awards? you see some sort of analogy there?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8877501

[Skip Intro]

52. Oh, so some dead kids are funny to you, eh, CreekDog?

As predicted, no quote to back up your lie, just more of your pattern of disrupting.

Btw, the screengrab was made after another of the targets of your frequent stalking (as discussed in this ATA thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595593) pointed out your laughing at a dead teen recently, here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4499152

I made a screengrab because I know the type of person you are, as do many here.

Serial disruption, lies, personal attacks, trick polls to find new targets, and jokes about a dead girl, that's some reputation for a GD host and member of the MIRT team.

[CreekDog]

53. well i guess you got me

after all, me making the joke about the Darwin Awards is obviously worse than you calling the Newtown gun control efforts, which included Newtown parents, a "PR gimmick".

i guess this is where profusely apologize because what i said 5 years ago was obviously much, much more offensive than what you said about Newtown, well, tonight.



(ps-i think you did the screen cap to make it less obvious that i was responding to a "Darwin Award post" and that I got a DUzy for it, which I did, the late Tangerine LaBama pm'd me to thank me for the laugh RIP)

[Skip Intro]

54. Ah, you made some people laugh at the girl's death? Good job, then, CreekDog!

That changes everything!

[CreekDog]

55. Puma huh?

given the choice, i wonder who you'd vote for, Hillary or Paul?

[Skip Intro]

57. Oh man, that is sad. n/t

[CreekDog]

63. even though Paul said he was against the Civil Rights Act

[Egnever]

67. pretty weak to post that out of context

There is no way to see if it was funny or not ..I like gallows humor though so I am predisposed to thinking it was funny.

[lapislzi]

69. I'm well aware of the realities of the situation.

The stated purpose of the groups that have come together since Sandy Hook is rather simple: can we find some common ground ANYWHERE? Anywhere at all?

Can everyone agree that elementary school children being mown down is a terrible tragedy, and that these types of tragedies are worth preventing, SOMEHOW?

Clearly we disagree on the means of prevention, but I (as a member of Sandy Hook Promise) am willing to listen to all suggestions with an open mind, regardless of my own personal preference--which I have already admitted I know is unrealistic.

Come up with an idea that doesn't involve "more guns" and I'll be happy to listen.

If we cannot agree on Point #1 (we want no more kids shot in schools), then we have nothing to talk about. If kids getting shot in schools is OK with you, then you are my adversary.

Nothing personal, that's just the way it is.

[Skip Intro]

74. First, kids getting shot in school is not OK with ANYBODY.

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 12:26 AM - Edit history (2)

NOBODY likes or wants any children killed, by any means. I haven't seen a single instance of ANYONE saying they want kids killed or are happy about kids being killed. Everybody agrees on this point.

When that tragedy, however, is portrayed as some typical event that exemplifies the gun violence problem in this nation, then I'm going to call that tactic what it is - bullshit. It is dishonest and deceptive emotional manipulation and I'm not falling for it and neither are the majority of the people.

Please, tell me, short of confiscation (which will only disarm those who obey the law - armed criminals obviously don't give a damn what laws we pass), what do you think could have stopped Newtown? Please, what measure or measures could have stopped it? What law(s)?

Murder is against the law now. That is a law. Does it stop murder? No, it doesn't. Because there are bad people in this world who don't care about laws, or the lives of other people. That's the reality of the world we live in. And constraining law abiding gun owners does nothing but empower criminals, leaving honest and decent people vulnerable. I'm sure 100% of violent criminals are all for the most extreme gun control.

Let's be honest about the problem before we go trying to shred the Constitution to solve it. What are the links to SSRI drugs and mass-murderers? What effect does the constant inundation of violence via games, music, movies etc. have?

How many are dead in inner-city gun violence in Chicago, for example, this year? How many over Easter weekend? That's one city. That is the core of the gun violence problem in this country, day in and day out, and nobody here wants to talk about it. You don't see Boomberg ads on tv about it. It isn't mentioned.

No, it's all Newtown, using that sad tragedy, those poor kids, to try to trick people into supporting something they otherwise would not. And I'm sorry, it's deceptive and insincere and vulgar. And it failed spectacularly last year, almost costing Dems the CO Senate (only reason it didn't is because the last Dem targeted for recall stepped down before the vote could be held). And it will fail again this year. Bloomberg and his various front groups are going to accomplish one thing this year, and that is motivating the repub base. And some of the many Dem 2nd Amendment supporters may well vote repub on this issue alone.

People don't like their rights being screwed with. Especially by those who seek to deceive from the word go. I think you may not realize what you are doing when you use Newtown in this way. It is a grand deception to push an agenda. Some Dem strategist, I can't remember who right now, but I think he was part of Obama's team at some point, said something about not letting a tragedy go unexploited, or something like that. That's what this is all about, and I'm not the only one to see through it.

[lapislzi]

79. I will agree with you on a couple of points.

All angles must be examined. That includes mental health and its treatment. I'm aware of the purported link between SSRI use and violent behavior. I think much more work needs to be done in this area.

There isn't much evidence supporting links between video games and violent behavior, but there are studies that can be cherry-picked to make it look that way. If you open up the lens a little wider, the glorification of violence is very troubling altogether, but that is a much larger discussion.

I think the work that needs to be done is to find ways keep guns away from people who should not have them. Again, I think we can agree: people who are mentally ill, potentially violent, or who have criminal backgrounds, should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. Are we in agreement? If yes, let's continue. Background checks were a step in that direction. What they aren't is an attempt to "screw with" your (or anyone else's) rights. Crazy, violent people shouldn't have guns. Maybe that includes people who take certain prescription drugs. If we can't agree on that, then we are back to being adversaries.

I do take strong exception to your continued insistence that the Sandy Hook families are being exploited or used as pawns in any way. It simply is not true. Everyone is coping in their own way, and most are quite passionate irrespective of the politics du jour, or even their own political stripes. If the administration (and let's be clear: Michael Bloomberg in no way constitutes "the administration;" he's one rich guy with a big mouth) has an agenda regarding firearms legislation, the Sandy Hook families signed on with their eyes open. And not every one did.

I also cannot agree that placing sensible limits (i.e. background checks) on firearms sales and ownership rises to the level of "shredding the constitution." That's just inflammatory rhetoric.

What I do see (and what the MJ article outlines quite clearly) is the complacency regarding these incidents. Since the gun ownership community cannot agree that ANY restrictions would be acceptable, then the tacit message is that the occasional massacre is a fair price for keeping the laws as they are or relaxing them. If you disagree, tell me why I'm wrong.

[3catwoman3]

140. Not knowledgeable about guns or the proper terminology for the various types and styles of...

...guns, so don't jump all over me if I don't describe this accurately.

I believe I have read/heard something about technology that would allow only the owner of a weapon to be able to pull the trigger. What would be wrong with that?

Or, smaller magazines?

[Bazinga]

149. You're referring to biometric or RFID systems that lock out unauthorized users.

In essence it's a great idea, but it is unproven. They simply haven't been around long enough to prove their reliability, and any self-defense expert will tell you that there is only one important characteristic for a self-defense firearm, reliability. Proper function 99% of the time is not good enough, 99.9% is not good enough. It has to work every time.

Also, guns are very simple machines. That's how they maintain such monotonous reliability. Adding electronics to a machine only reduces the durability and reliability, just ask a mechanic who works on old cars. How often have you needed a flashlight only to realize that the batteries are dead? If that happens with a gun it could cost your life, so gun owners are hesitant to put a battery in their gun.

Would I prefer to have a gun that could never be used against me? Absolutely, but not if it means sacrificing reliability. Perhaps if police forces are willing to spend 5-10 years proving this technology it would change some minds. Until then, however, it is absolutely wrong to codify such a requirement by law.

[dionysus]

108. and shortly before or that a lunatic opened up on firefighters in a suburb on my city with an AR

bought through a straw purchase. that pushed through the SAFE act here.

[Number23]

148. As much as this place sucks now, I still don't think I've seen anything as disgusting as your post

I honestly cannot believe I just read this.

[CTyankee]

44. Your insight on generational change being the answer is, I believe, correct.

Demographics is working relentlessly. We are less white, less rural, more culturally diverse and getting more so every day. Every year it gets worse from the other side on this debate. It is only a matter of time, unless gun enthusiasts can persuade all of that changing demographic that their side is correct. But my bet is on the relentless demographic change in this country.

[lapislzi]

85. How about you tell me

which Newtown families YOU'RE on a first name basis with and see every day in your office. Do not speak about matters about which you know nothing.

Your remarks are insulting to the people who have suffered a tragedy you can barely comprehend. They are in no way being manipulated by anyone, no matter how much you wish it were so.

[kcr]

144. The cold contempt you and others with your agenda hold the families in

is just about the most vile thing to be found on the internet.

[Bazinga]

152. But it's not the families.

There is a big difference between contempt for the victims and their families (which absolutely no one has) and contempt for those who would use those victims to push an agenda that would never help those victims in the first place.

Those families deserve nothing less than our most heart-felt condolences, aid in coping with such a terrible tragedy, and every effort to prevent such tragedies in the future. Let them tell their stories as often as they wish to as large an audience as they can to encourage whatever measures they wish to promote, be it universal background checks, safe storage, mental health, gun-free zones, assault weapons bans, or anything else.

However, when one attempts to speak for them or use them as an example to promote some safety measure, they had better be sure that the measure proposed would actually help the victims or prevent others from becoming victims in like manner. Otherwise they are simply using the tragedy for their own benefit.

In essence what they are saying is "Look at these families who were victimized in a gun-free zone in a state with a strict assault weapons ban. We should should make all schools gun-free zones and pass a nation-wide assault weapons ban so that no one else becomes a victim like these people."

Doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous?

[kcr]

154. Nope. Doesn't seem a bit disingenuous to me. Not at all.

It's such a ludicrous claim. First of all, absolutely no one has contempt for them? I strongly beg to differ. The poster I was responding to was dripping with it. Forgive me for being so harsh, but your posts about heart felt condolences immediately ring hollow when they're followed by the drivel you post afterword. How dare anyone fight for the "benefit" to avoid their family members getting blown to bits. Such a benefit! I can't help but notice how you fail to recognize how you're speaking for the families yourself claiming they're being used. Have you heard them complaining? It's especially ridiculous given it's the same cause they're fighting for themselves.

[nomorenomore08]

89. I have no particular interest in taking away your guns.

But how do we limit the number of firearms in the hands of idiots and psychos (neither of which you appear to be)? I honestly don't know, but I'm open to suggestions from folks.

[Bazinga]

101. The first step would be opening up the NICS to private sales.

That way private sellers will be able to run background checks which they are currently barred from doing.

A 1-800 number where you could punch in a driver's license number and get a go/no-go for a private sale would go a long way toward closing the "gun-show loophole."

[nomorenomore08]

103. Universal background checks, and at least state-level registration.

Those are the only gun control measure I've ever proposed. And if anyone thinks that makes me a "gun grabber" then tough shit, I'm not interested in indulging their delusions of persecution.

[Bazinga]

114. I'm all for UBCs, though not necessarily how they were proposed after Sandy Hook.

They failed pretty miserably at defining a transfer and offered very little in the way of increasing the capability of running more BGCs. (That, by the way, is how you get 90% support for an idea but fail to pass legislation on it.)

Registration is a different matter. I believe there is prudence in knowing who may own guns, but there is none in knowing who actually does. In this country we keep track of people who commit crimes, not people who might commit a crime. If anyone thinks that makes me a "gun lover" then tough. I'm not interested in indulging delusions of moral superiority.

[nomorenomore08]

118. Fair enough. But I'm open to anything that might reduce our thousands of gun homicides a year

short of actually banning gun ownership - I recognize that firearms do have legitimate civilian uses.

[Bazinga]

125. That's part of our problem, the willingness to "try anything"

Too often it leads to poorly considered, feel-good legislation with negligible real effect on violence and onerous unintended consequences for those who were never part of the problem to begin with, all in the name of "doing something." It's the kind of thinking that poisons a chance at UBCs with an assault weapon ban when the weapon used at Newtown was legal under Connecticut's AWB.

[nomorenomore08]

132. I agree the focus on semi-auto rifles is excessive, when handguns are responsible for most of the

gun violence problem in this country. Basically, I like the gun laws here in CA, and I wish more states would adopt that approach. But I'm not holding my breath for it.

[Bazinga]

153. I have a brother who owns a gun shop and shooting range in CA

He specializes in gun safety training and introductory self-defense. And he's done really well despite some pretty onerous gun laws there.

While I have my reasons not to support magazine capacity limits, magazine safeties, and detachable magazine bans, I can appreciate an attempt to reduce firepower based on the mechanics of a gun and not its cosmetics. However, things like San Francisco's ban on jacketed hollow points or background checks to buy ammo (proposed not too long ago) are just codified ignorance that harm more than they help. Too often it is simply an effort to stick it to gun owners any way they can.

I do have a question for you, though. Since you want a registry of firearms owners, what do you believe would be the goal of such a registry? What do you hope it would accomplish?

[nomorenomore08]

162. Hopefully, preventing the worst of the crazies from having guns, or at least from obtaining more.

In an ideal world, with his prior criminal record, Zimmerman would've been prohibited from owning firearms long before he went after Martin.

I certainly don't advocate registration as a backdoor way of eventually banning all guns. I have no wish to do that.

[Bazinga]

164. If the goal is to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining weapons,

wouldn't UBCs be a much more appropriate measure? Background checks are the way we prevent people who shouldn't have weapons from getting them. Registration doesn't take place or effect until after the gun has already been obtained. So the two pertinent questions are these; what is the likelihood that a prohibited person who has already broken the law to obtain a weapon will then legally register that weapon? And what is the point of knowing which prohibited persons own weapons if the goal is not to use that registration to take those guns away from those people?

[nomorenomore08]

165. If they have a criminal (certainly felony) record since obtaining the gun, then yes, it should be

confiscated albeit with financial reimbursement in some form. So practically speaking, I'm in favor of both UBC's and some type of state-level (not federal) registration.

[Bazinga]

167. I agree, newly convicted felons should have their guns confiscated.

But this can be done at the time of conviction (or probably even at the time of arrest stipulating that the guns be returned if acquired) quite easily without a registry.

What you're talking about is keeping track of law-abiding citizens just in case they commit a felony. That seems a little too "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

What did you think of the other question; that felons who already broke the law to obtain a weapon are extremely unlikely to legally register it?

To me, it seems that the only thing a registry can do is track the exactly wrong people.

[nomorenomore08]

168. So what do we do about the admittedly fairly small minority of gun owners who are a potential

danger to others? I mean the sort of people who post angry, threatening online messages while stroking their favorite rifle. Political commentary is protected under the First Amendment, but direct threats of violence are not, with good reason. Those gun owners who harass and threaten others - including online - are the ones who should be monitored, if anything.

[Bazinga]

169. We do the same thing..

That we do for men who are potential rapists, and bankers who are potential frauds, and politicians who are potential traitors. That is to say we don't do anything, because they are not criminals.

Someone who expresses a direct threat deserves investigation and intervention, why does he have to be tracked before he makes such a threat? A big part of the problem with registration is that it conflates harmless gun owners with dangerous ones. But dangerous ones have already identified themselves as such, either by prior violent records or, as you mentioned, threats of such. We don't need registration to track criminal activity, and we shouldn't use registration to track potential criminal activity.

Finally, this had been a very respectful and productive conversation right up until the point where you decided to fetishize and ostracized some perceived opponent. As such I'll gladly let this thread sink to the annals where it belongs. If you would like to continue in a more respectful manner, feel free to send me a personal message.

All the best.

[nomorenomore08]

170. I don't consider gun owners in general my opponents. Only those opposed to any gun control at all

of which I certainly realize you aren't one.

And I still say gun registration should be required just like car registration. But we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[KittyWampus]

38. suicide bombers- not just America

[Eleanors38]

59. Political and religious extremism play an even more obscure role

in American mass murder. I am struck by the method used by the Boston bombers: Home-made, black powder devices which took a long time to patch together. If killing large numbers of people was the objective, they would have used an off-the-rack shotgun. But they were concerned with style, that which you see in other countries, and only possibly with survival, if only to continue their political terrorism.

[Mondavi]

56. Generally, our very violent culture is produced for us ....

by those who profit from a violent society. Difficult to tell any more what's real and what's being engineered. Interesting little movie out called "Every Day" which deals with this creation of violence further down the line as a TV writer struggles against a boss who wants to direct the programming to ever more shocking, bizarre, violent, sexual material in doing his job for those who require constantly increasing images of violence on our TV screens.
Something which the public is entirely against.

[Eleanors38]

61. Good points. The spate of Cali freeway chases went national

for a time, and enjoyed massive T.V. coverage. Did this spur copycats, or was it a reflection if something that was always there. But IMO, it appears that hellicopter craze is seen less, now. Perhaps the phenomenon went the way of bell-bottoms.

[Arugula Latte]

76. It's rare in most civilized countries that have strong gun laws. It's not rare here.

[Eleanors38]

104. Even Mother Jones says it is rare: 62 cases in 31 yrs.

Do the math.

Again, if one is serious about mass shootings, esp. at schools, concentrate on improving security at schools. That may not stop these rare incidents, but it can lessen the damage. Further, the celebrity/recognition reward system could be disrupted. I propose Not broadcasting a killer's picture, Not broadcasting their names, Not indulging in study of the punk's dress, lifestyle, and narcissistic beliefs. If one wants to fascinate over this, check out the innertubes. But MSM should be persuaded to quit romancing the crud bags in the still-significant mass media.

[Arugula Latte]

106. And other countries have a small fraction of 62.

Last edited Tue Apr 22, 2014, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

A friend of mine was at the mall with her three young kids when the Portland, Oregon-area mall shooting occurred before Christmas of '12. The niece of an in-law was at Columbine. These mass shoot-em-ups are not abstract things to me. They happen in this country with alarming frequency.

[Eleanors38]

145. They are neither abstract nor frequent.

Nevertheless, I propose we look at these events with new perspectives based in this country's culture culture; to do otherwise seems abstract to me.

[blkmusclmachine]

2. Never

Really

Accountable

[Skittles]

4. the paranoid gun humpers have won

now more and more people feel the need to be armed to protect themselves from paranoid gun humpers - that's the NRA wet dream - everyone armed and living if fear

[hack89]

6. No

Irrational fear is a major motivator of gun grabbers. They don't understand guns, they loathe guns, they fear guns.

Fear has nothing to do with me and my family owning guns - I live in a very safe town. I don't own guns for self defense.

[Skittles]

27. ridiculous

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)

who said anything about "gun grabbers"? paranoid much? AND you fail to understand the difference between gun humpers and gun owners

DONE HERE

[hack89]

31. Around here any dissent on gun control = gun humper

Don't tell me how the game is played - I have been here for a long time.

[Logical]

7. And people like you are as bad as the "everyone should be armed" group. No logic needed. nt

[Skittles]

26. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[badtoworse]

9. Paranoid gun humpers? Generalize much?

People with your mindset are just as much of a problem as the NRA when it comes to finding solutions that firearms owners can get behind.

[Skittles]

24. riiiiiiiiight

[badtoworse]

33. What an erudite response

[Jgarrick]

12. And exactly who is calling for "everyone" to be armed? Cite, please.

[Skittles]

28. I'll give you one hint

Ted Nugent is their poster boy

[Jgarrick]

39. Link? One where they call for everyone to be armed?

[Skip Intro]

17. what is a "gun humper?" n/t

[Skittles]

25. you know EXACTLY what they are

[The Straight Story]

43. Typically it is anyone who believes in the freedom of civilians/poor to own a gun

Because we all know the wealthy won't be subject to the same laws and the people in the government aren't going to stop carrying guns.

If you or I want to own a gun (and someday I do) we are too untrustworthy (ie, we are to some like muslims are to conservatives - all potential terrorists).

If you do not agree with the above assessments you are considered a gun humper.

Currently less than one percent of gun owners used them to harm others but in their wisdom some believe (we call it bias) that the other ninety nine percent will snap any day now and kill us all.

[nomorenomore08]

92. You need a license and registration papers to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

Seems to me that, with our thousands of gun homicides a year, the people who oppose any gun control whatsoever are just as irrational as those who want to ban all guns.

[The Straight Story]

105. You don't need them to own a car

And I don't oppose all gun control laws.

[Duckhunter935]

18. nice ad hominem attack

Definition of AD HOMINEM
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

so who exactly are these "gun humpers" that you speak of.

[Eleanors38]

19. Get past the fear and culture war and look at celebrity and recognition.

If anyone is serious about the phenomenon of mass murder in American culture, to ignore these motivators is to willfully reject intellectual inquiry. As hideous as it is, there is a self-perpetuating reward system that makes MM attractive to some people, at least for now. If, as the OP suggests, the act of MM becomes "so what?" then the would-be perpetrator is faced with a dilemma: What can I do now when the threshold of celebrity and recognition has ratcheted up, or even changed?

I not only have sympathy, but a great respect for the woman who pulled off her mic, got up, and walked out of a T.V. interview because the interviewer couldn't resist saying the name of some murder-junkie after agreeing not to. In her own little way, she was reaching for the tap to turn off the nourishment of perverted celebrity.

[Duckhunter935]

21. I agree

do not give them any satisfaction by using their name. Call them what they are "the killer or the murderer" It would cut down on the copycat acts.

[Mugu]

30. Hear, hear!!!! n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. Insults and strawman arguments. Gee, THAT'S helpful.

Said no one, ever.

[Crunchy Frog]

93. Hell, they've even won on this thread.

These sorts of posts really bring them out of the woodwork.

[Skittles]

111. yup

they can go to hell

[lapislzi]

158. Dear Skittles, I respect you immensely

So please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. We, the people of good faith who in good faith are seeking ways to reduce gun violence, do ourselves no favors by name-calling. I do not necessarily disagree with the content of your message--that there are many out there acting solely out of fear and paranoia, and who reach for a convenient remedy.

But, as much as I am annoyed by being called a "gun grabber" (and I own it; I am one), it does nothing to advance the discussion.

If cooler heads cannot prevail, we will wait a lot longer for change than we otherwise might. Please, consider your use of rhetoric and how it marginalizes you and your position.

Peace to you.

[Skittles]

163. I am fucking SICK of them

*SICK* OF THEM

[Packerowner740]

166. A big +1

[MisterP]

29. we sure like to wallow--our only actions are blundering vengeance against brown people (Afghanistan,

Iraq) or potential brown people (no yarn guns for sock monkeys at the airport! look out for bombs with solar panels! some pregnant women might actually be men with a C4 belly! tape your ducks!)

and it's either a studiedly useless overreaction or abject surrender: "we can't have HSR! airports and freeways are free! who cares if it's profitable, we're broke and we just can't have what Japan and France have had for decades! I wanna work 120 hours a week and slump defeated in my couch until I'm 70 and die at 71!"

[99Forever]

32. The blood of those dead children and ...

... every one since, is on the hands of the 2A at all costs fanatics. Period.

[Jgarrick]

40. And to think, I was blaming the murder of children on the murderers themselves...

Glad you told us who's really to blame.

[99Forever]

45. Those that aid and abet carry the burden of the results of their actions.

So roll your eyes all you please, it doesn't absolve a thing.

[Jgarrick]

47. Since you have knowledge of someone aiding and abetting in the murder of children who has not been

prosecuted, I urge you to contact the FBI immediately.

I'm sure they'll be grateful.

[Iggo]

35. Dead children is the price we pay to save the guns.

Guns are more important than people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Alcohol claims the lives of 4.13 Sandy Hooks every WEEK

Underage Drinking

Alcohol use by persons under age 21 years is a major public health problem.1 Alcohol is the most commonly used and abused drug among youth in the United States, more than tobacco and illicit drugs1, and is responsible for more than 4,300 annual deaths among underage youth2. Although drinking by persons under the age of 21 is illegal, people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States.3 More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks.3 On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than adult drinkers.4 In 2010, there were approximately 189,000 emergency rooms visits by persons under age 21 for injuries and other conditions linked to alcohol.5

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

How many children are you willing to sacrifice just to enjoy a cold beer?

[Major Nikon]

70. We can't do anything about guns because there are other things which claim more lives

Brilliant!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. That's the problem, you want to do "ANYTHING!" You don't even know what it is you want to do or why.

Despite all the pretentious pretense you certainly aren't doing -- whatever it is you want to do -- in the name of saving lives. That's just a façade (read: scam).

[Major Nikon]

72. The gun homicide rate in the US rivals 3rd world countries

While the rest of the 1st world with far more comprehensive gun control laws, the gun homicide rate is far lower to nonexistent despite far higher population densities.

If the gun homicide rate in rural white communities equaled the gun homicide rates in the inner cities, there would be no debate on gun control in this country.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. "the gun homicide rates in the inner cities"

So ban inner cities.

[Major Nikon]

75. Sure, just so long as we don't do anything about precious, right?

Banning inner cities sure worked for Hong Kong, Japan, UK, Poland, and Norway, all of which have a gun homicide rate which is at least 72 times lower than the US.

The US is #57 on this list for gun homicide rate, right between Uruguay and Costa Rica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. You stated yourself that the inner cities had a higher murder rate than rural communities.

Yet rural communities have rates of gun ownership that are as high if not higher than their urban counterparts. Obviously the presence of guns is not the issue not that such facts will dissuade you from seeking more control. We don't do anything about your Precious, right?

[Major Nikon]

80. Where do you think the inner city guns come from?

Do you think they grow on trees in central park? Gun control doesn't work if all someone has to do is drive out of town and buy whatever they want. Why do you think the drug cartels are crossing the border to buy their guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. You're still saying, but not acknowledging, the fact that the

Presence of guns is not the cause of violence. If the areas outside of these urban hell holes can have guns in such quantities as to foil the precious gun control why don't the supply sources have the same violence issues?

And this example of the drug war is 1) bogus and 2) the drug war itself proves the futility of bans.

[Major Nikon]

82. Ah yes, a clever repackaging of the tired old "guns don't kill people" meme

Nice try, but no sale.

All other things being equal, violence increases when population densities increase. So your apples to oranges comparison holds about as much water as a sieve, and you still have yet to explain why other countries with far higher population densities AND comprehensive gun control have far lower gun homicide rates.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. "violence increases when population densities increase."

In other words, it's not the gun.

[Major Nikon]

86. You're still stuck on the bullshit meme

Nobody is claiming a gun jumps off the table and kills someone by itself. Guns just make killing people far more easy and efficient and the homicide rates reflect that reality regardless of how hard to try to ignore the elephant in the room.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

87. So what you're saying is --

Guns + Intent to Commit Murder = High murder rate



You want to eliminate the guns but are content in leaving the intent to commit murder --

Intent to Commit Murder - Guns = Violent Assault with a slightly lower murder rate



Very odd. Yet, reexamining the proposition further --

Guns - Intent to Commit Murder = no murder


But I assume that is an unacceptable formulation because it deprives you of your precious control.

[CTyankee]

90. oh, good lord, he didn't say that!

stop making stuff up.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. Where did the poster attempt to contend with criminal intent?

[CTyankee]

99. I read what he said. He said access to guns made it easier.

It's pretty obvious. Just read what he said in his post.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. Yes, I read the exact same thing.

However the fact remains --

(Criminal intent + guns) - guns = criminal intent

This is not a acceptable situation.


(Criminal intent + guns) - criminal intent = guns -- is the better scenario.

[CTyankee]

107. His post #91 has a link that explains it all to you. READ IT.

It is IMPORTANT. and you really haven't refuted those stats, now have you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. But they have been refuted. Repeatedly.

"If the gun homicide rate in rural white communities equaled the gun homicide rates in the inner cities..."

"All other things being equal, violence increases when population densities increase."

[CTyankee]

112. I am talking about the List of countries by firearm-related death rate which he posted.

did you look at those numbers?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. Yes. Is it your assertion that correlation = causation?

[CTyankee]

126. Ah, revelation! Thank you. It explains everything...of course...how could those countries

POSSIBLY have those statistics?

I'm sure we have all missed something... somewhere...somehow...?????

[Nuclear Unicorn]

133. Well, it can't be guns because as US laws become more lax the homicide rate is dropping.

[CTyankee]

136. and how well we are doing up against all these other countries...isn't it marvelous?

love those stats!

[kcr]

146. Is it your assertion that it never does?

Be weary of overused catchphrases and internet memes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. Considering the fact there are nations further down the list with

far more stringent gun control laws I think it is fair to say the presumed lack of gun control laws is not the cause of gun violence.

[kcr]

155. I wouldn't say that

They're farther down the list for a reason. Gun control laws aren't an absolute 100% cure all. Nothing is. Whatever factors cause the countries to wind up further down the list likely outweigh whatever benefits gun control laws contribute. Those countries enact that gun control for good reason.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

156. What about countries higher on the list with fewer gun control laws?

[kcr]

157. So, not getting the concept or being disingenuous?

Imagine if we applied this kind of Correlation Does Not Equal Causation So Stop Saying That! kooky internet logic to everything, imagine the consequences. People who are healthy don't take medicine. It must be coincidence that a lot of people seem to feel better when they take it. Sick people should emulate healthy people. Don't take medicine.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

159. You're trying to pin the issue on a singular cause.

Yet, examples abound where the stated premise does not satisfy many observed instances. Your post isn't even a rebuttal of this fact, it's a false analogy. To wit --

Sick people should emulate healthy people. Don't take medicine.

Don't fall for the feel-good placebo effect.

Our homicide rate is the product of people intending to kill. Most of that violence is perpetrated by criminals who have no regard for laws. Spur-of-the-moment criminals cannot be interdicted. People who act on malicious intent cannot be deterred, only interdicted as they commit their crimes or punished once the crime has been committed. Prohibitions do not work and are not constitutional. Suggesting prohibitions is an electoral death wish.

The best means for seeking your stated goal -- assuming you are sincere -- is to alleviate the conditions that lead many to a life of crime, recognition and treatment for those in danger of becoming spur-of-the-moment crimes and a backup plan for when those preventatives fail.

Anything else is fantasy.

[kcr]

160. Nope, don't think I am.

So funny that you make that accusation, then turn right around with a straight keyboard and type, "Our homicide rate is the product of people intending to kill."

Don't fall for the placebo effect. That doesn't mean ignore all cause and effect.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

161. Yes, I typed that.

That doesn't mean ignore all cause and effect.

That doesn't mean guns are the cause of homicide. The intent to kill is the cause of homicide. Guns cannot impart intent they are merely inanimate objects.

[Major Nikon]

91. "You want to eliminate the guns but are content in leaving the intent to commit murder"

Works the world over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. Really? Then how do you explain places where gun ownership is high but murder rates are low?

Like, not Chicago.

[Major Nikon]

98. It's not all about gun ownership rates

It's about how the access to them is controlled.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why with almost no exception, countries with far more gun control have far lower gun homicide rates. There's no shortage of people who have the intent to kill each other in Israel, yet it's a country with far lower gun homicide rates than the US. Why do you think that is?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. "It's about how the access to them is controlled."

Okay. I'm totally on-board to not letting people of criminal intent have access to guns. Now how would you preserve the rights of people of peaceable intent to acquire guns without harassment?

I'm still waiting for you to explain why with almost no exception, countries with far more gun control have far lower gun homicide rates.

Since you already conceded, "It's not all about gun ownership rates" then maybe we should look at factors outside of gun ownership. What roles do education, culture and economics play? Studies suggest a surprisingly small group of career criminals are responsible for a significant percentage of violent crimes. Why not confront this aspect?

The person peaceably living their life is NOT the cause for concern.

[CTyankee]

127. the man who killed my niece was not a career criminal. He was law abiding until he wasn't.

He lived his life "peaceably" until he didn't. He was angry at his dying wife's will, that essentially cut him out of a lot of it. He got drunk and, while his family members that included my niece was helping her, got his loaded gun and started shooting. My niece died of a gunshot to her left temple.

Please don't bother telling me how you regret "my loss." I don't believe you. Been there, heard that, on too many times on gun threads...yadda, yadda. Thank you very much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. An anecdote is not the basis for law and I think your retelling of events is suspect.

That he should be excluded from the will and become drunk enough to act out violently tells me his abhorrent behaviors maybe weren't as spontaneous as you portray.

Perhaps that is insensitive of me to say but since you decided to make your family tragedies a point of argument you'll have to save your Absolute Moral Authority card for later use.

Meanwhile, there are other people who would have defended themselves and others but were deprived of their basic human right to do so. They have their own tragedies. They should not be held hostage because of others.

[CTyankee]

147. of course you don't believe me. And I don't care what you think.

[Major Nikon]

130. Still waiting

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. No you're not. You've been rebutted repeatedly you just ignore the facts.

[Major Nikon]

135. What facts have you offered?

I asked you why every other first world country has dramatically lower gun crime and all you've done is waffle.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

139. You yourself said

population density increases violence. That means it's not the presence of guns. You also said, "It's not all about gun ownership rates. It's about how the access to them is controlled." Yet, your crowd has nothing to offer excepts meaningless bans.

Even this OP is so much worthless preening. It laments Columbine yet here were 2 people not old enough to own guns gaining access to semi-autos in the middle of the "assault weapon" ban and carrying them into a place where the possession of guns was prohibited.

Your own link shows nations which have much stricter gun control laws have substantially higher gun homicide rates, i.e. Mexico.

Perhaps economics, culture, education and law enforcement are better data points.

[Major Nikon]

141. Mexico?

Really? And your idea of refuting my points is what someone else offered?

I think I'm done here. Feel free to continue on your own.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. "what someone else offered?"

What?

According to the stats in the wiki link you provided Mexico has a gun homicide rate nearly 3 times the US in spite of the fact it has significantly stricter guns laws bordering on near prohibition.

[nomorenomore08]

94. Universal background checks, and some form of registration - probably at the state, not federal

level. That might at least keep some of the worst of the crazies from (legally) owning guns.

Beyond that, I have no desire to "grab" anyone's gun.

[ZombieHorde]

128. Interesting point.

I wish you received an actual rebuttal.

[stevenleser]

46. Yep, sad. nt

[MicaelS]

68. Speaking strictly for myself...

I could accept the idea of a graduated driver's license model for Gun Ownership, accompanied with insurance, provided it was a Federal Universal License with absolutely no opt-out for anyone, anywhere. The exact same requirements would apply for every state, city, town and county. Absolutely No Exceptions, none. That means once I have my license, I can travel anywhere, move anywhere, and I can take my gun with me. If I have a Carry Permit, I can carry anywhere the law allows. The local authorities anywhere can't say or do a damn thing. And quite specifically, anyone in very anti-gun cities like NYC, Chicago or DC passes the licensing test, they can have a gun. They don't have to have a reason. And, yes if would be specifically for self and home defense. Not some bullshit excuse as it's for target shooting. And if you don't like living near people owning guns, tough shit.

Of course I realize that will never work. Neither side would accept it.

[LanternWaste]

84. The deaths, the injuries, the violence, and the accidents are simply part and parcel of the price we

The deaths, the injuries, the violence, and the accidents are simply part and parcel of the price we've decided to pay to maintain our special relationship with these things.

[nomorenomore08]

97. I have no problem with gun ownership in itself. It's the elevation of the firearm to a kind of holy

relic that I find ridiculous, and insane. We've gone so far down the "guns solve everything" rabbit hole that we literally have Internet commenters advocating shooting shoplifters in the back.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. "guns solve everything"

Except nobody is saying that.

[nomorenomore08]

119. Not here, maybe. But that mentality does exist in the wider society - just look at the people who

jumped to the defense of Zimmerman despite scant evidence that he was in the right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

121. I'm not following that at all.

I don't see how having an opinion on a court case translates to guns everywhere. It would be possible to argue for Zimmerman's guilt or innocence without ever mentioning guns and vice versa.

[nomorenomore08]

122. I mean how some people always, no matter what, take the side of the shooter.

Because apparently, a (usually white) guy with a gun is infallible.

Again, not talking about DUers here.

[The Straight Story]

115. The holy relic part isn't guns, it's freedoms. From abortion to speech to guns

Some of us see this as a discussion on freedoms.

Every time a new law about abortion gets thrown out by the conservatives people rail against it. Even if it is a 'small impact' law because they know the end goal is to outlaw them.

Same steps are used by people who hate that others own something they don't like. Same goes for a lot of things people don't like (smoking as another example).

I don't own a gun, I don't see the debate as about the object but the underlying principles involved and being consistent in their application and common sense applications of laws/regulations to balance out concerns.

It is black and white at the core and grey around the edges. Conceal carry laws requiring training/etc. Ok.

Blaming ninety-nine percent of people for what less than one percent do I call bias. Because it is. Using that bias to foster fear of the many and using that fear to drive legislation isn't any better than when the right does it when it comes to muslims and their fear of terrorism.

I can't get an abortion but I defend the right of others to. I am not gay so I won't be needing a gay marriage but for those who do I support you. I don't own a gun but should I desire to buy one I would like the freedom to do so. And I am not Muslim but if you want to build a mosque near my home be my guest.

Those things all have freedom in common - some on the right and left though just don't care and want to push their personal issues while complaining that others are trying to take away their freedoms.

[nomorenomore08]

120. I'm not opposed to gun ownership. All I want are background checks, some form of registration

and stiff fines (or jail time) for those who knowingly try to skirt the laws.

[The Straight Story]

124. Ok,

I prefer the states handle it over the feds.

And while you aren't opposed to ownership more than a few are which is why some people get a little touchy on the subject

States are best to handle the checks but I would back federal funding to assist. Then the question becomes: What are you checking for and do you check every time a person buys or just the first time? Will this data base be open to people selling their own guns or giving them as gifts? There are a lot of details.

[nomorenomore08]

129. So I think we're mostly on the same page, then.

And yes, I think every purchase (or gift-giving) should require a "new" background check. Just to be sure.

I also think that gun registration is probably best at the state, not federal, level. Not 100% sure but I believe that in my state (CA) all guns must be registered and/or licensed, which seems to work fine for most people.

I admit that some proposed "solutions" like limiting magazine size are probably not worth the effort. Especially since handguns, not rifles, are responsible for most gun deaths. I don't advocate anything like a total ban (a la the U.K.) but I do think handguns in general should be a bit more restricted than they are. But even in relatively strict gun control states like CA you can still own a handgun if you wish, and I have no problem with that.

[The Straight Story]

138. Makes sense. Good to have an intelligent discussion with someone on it :)

I think if more progressives carried the same ideals it would be a win-win for the party and for everyone.

I am not sure how background checks would work on gifts (say you buy it in November to give on Christmas) especially if you are gifting to someone under 18 (and a lot of youths in rural areas hunt/shoot). Those kinds of details are something that could be worked on and if we projected an image other than 'we hate guns and want to take them all' I am pretty sure more people would be on board with it.

[XRubicon]

117. Oh man, somebody open a window.

It smells like gun nuts, axe body spray, fear and Cheetos in here.

[Paladin]

123. +1. (nt)

[ZombieHorde]

131. For the most part, "both" sides seem to have the exact same argument.

"You're dumb."

(I put the word "both" in quotes because there are many different positions.)

[Crunchy Frog]

143. The posts in this thread perfectly illustrate the points made in the OP.

Oh well.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

151. I keep my firearms

that aren't in my immediate possession and control, locked in a safe. Hopefully this will help prevent "my" firearms from ever being used in such a way. It's not a TV remote or a wall decoration. It's a firearm. Lock it up.