There is no way to stop mass shootings in this country!

[Logical]

Except maybe work on why people want to do mass shootings and stop that.

If you are a "collect all the guns" person you are as unrealistic as any paranoid gun nut. A majority of liberals would not support banning and collecting guns!

300 million guns and over a million more sold monthly. 9000 gun murders a year, so it is obvious very few gun owners are the issue.

Very hard to stop people from buying, borrowing, stealing guns. 60,000 guns stolen per year.

Conceal carry license holders cause problems less often than the general public. Maybe because most states run a background check before issuing a license.

Open carry people are mostly idiots showing off. They alarm people for no reason.

A mass shooter can and will find a gun and nothing will stop it. Too many guns and guns are legal.

At this point it is like trying to stop a driver from ramming his car into a crowd of people.

The democrats will lose voters if we start a huge gun control battle. Look at the Colorado recalls.

We have many more issues in this country that we can actually address!

[customerserviceguy]

1. Exactly right

The draconian measures needed to confiscate every firearm in the country would be far more injurious to our Fourth Amendment rights than most people believe. Besides, weapons would still flow in from overseas.

There's a natural tendency in a world where we can control so much to think that we can control or prevent everything. It's simply not possible.

[Laelth]

2. Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.

Gun control might prevent some tragedies (but very few, I would argue). At the same time, it will drive a lot of men (and the women who love them) into the waiting arms of the NRA and the GOP.

It's just not worth it in this political climate. The Democratic Party is already perceived as "feminine" (aligned with feminists and GLBT advocates) while the Republican Party is perceived as masculine (aligned with the masculinist NRA and patriarchal fundamentalist Christianity). If we want more men (and the women who love them) to vote for Democrats, we need to abandon gun control. It's a "boys and their toys" issue. Don't separate the two unless you are prepared to experience the backlash that will result.

My goal is to get a lot of people to stop voting against their best interests. Gun control (as a party platform plank) hurts Democrats in large swaths of the country. We need to get those people to vote for Democrats, and advocating gun control pushes those same people into the waiting arms of the Republican-aligned NRA.

-Laelth

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Sounds like gun control would be a winning policy, then

The Democratic Party is already perceived as "feminine" (aligned with feminists and GLBT advocates) while the Republican Party is perceived as masculine (aligned with the masculinist NRA and patriarchal fundamentalist Christianity).

So, Democrats are perceived as the majority, and the direction the country is moving in as well (towards equality, and away from fundamentalists). So the obvious thing to do is capitalise on that, and leave the Republicans to catch up.

My goal is to get a lot of people to stop voting against their best interests.

Then voting for gun controls, which is in their best interests, is a good idea.

[Laelth]

97. I'll have to think about that one for a bit. n/t

-Laelth

[LAGC]

3. Yep, short of repealing the 2nd and 4th Amendments, guns are here to stay.

It's part of our culture, so we just need to accept it.

People calling for gun bans are just as deluded as the open-carry-everywhere nuts.

We don't need more gun control laws, we just need to fix our broken mental healthcare system.

Too many people falling through the cracks.

But the bottom-line is: we'll never be able to stop them all. Some violence is always going to be just part of life.

[redqueen]

4. "Except maybe work on why people want to do mass shootings and stop that."

Precisely.

Economic insecurity is a huge stressor. We know how to alleviate that but the political will is lacking.

Bullying is another. We have started working on raising awareness but the worship of dominance and hierarchy in this country is substantial.

Masculinity and its inherent conflation with violence and domination are also significant contributing factors.

And of course access to counseling services and stigmatizing the use of those services are also a significant factor.

[dsc]

71. that is just plain wrong

Sorry, but to take the bullying example. Japan and China have schools that are quite literally bullying factories. Yet this never happens in Japan and very few people die this way in China. Greece is in economic free fall, so is Spain, Turkey and Russia are third world countries, yet none of them have anything like this going on. It is the guns, first, last and always that explains the difference.

[redqueen]

72. Then explain why it doesn't happen in Canada.

I do agree we need more regulations and stricter enforcement ... but I don't think that will stop this from happening. I'd be happy to have the laws tightened up and find out I'm wrong.

[dsc]

73. because Canada doesn't let its people own arsenals

they register all guns, you can't get ak 47's in your local flea market. Yes, they do have more total guns than we do but they are nearly all rifles and shotguns not hand guns and military weapons.

[redqueen]

75. Well I would definitely agree with implementing their system here.

Of course the NRA would disagree.

[NutmegYankee]

85. Canada doesn't register all guns.

Only certain guns are registered. Full registration was repealed before it took effect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. They don't have more guns per person either

The rate of gun ownership in the US is much higher than most comparable countries, with approximately 42.8% of American household owning firearms, including 17.6% owning handguns in 2005. ... In Canada, 15.5% of households own firearms, with 2.9% owning handguns.

http://guncontrol.ca/overview-gun-control-us-canada-global/

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in Canada is 23.8 firearms per 100 people

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.05 firearms per 100 people

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

[RKP5637]

81. Exactly, that's what I was trying to say in my post #79, but you

said it far better.

[LanternWaste]

5. Every human made problem has multiple human contrived solutions

Every human made problem has multiple human contrived solutions. Simply because we are not yet wise enough to see these solutions is no reason to surrender to the problem and stop looking.

[Logical]

6. Well, I would love to hear one realistic idea. Before we try something that loses votes. Nt

[LanternWaste]

17. I understand the sentiment-- we like to pretend that we're clever enough

"I would love to hear one realistic idea..."

"Simply because we are not yet wise enough to see these solutions." Missed that part, did we?

However, I understand the sentiment-- we often like to pretend we're clever enough to make a statement as irrational as "I can't see a solution, therefore no solutions exist" to better maintain the self-validating pretense that we're not as dull-witted as the undistinguished mainstream we so often rail against.

[951-Riverside]

7. Clearly the best solution here is tougher background checks

Background checks prevents everything from pedophiles in the classroom to spies in our intelligence agencies *waves magic wand* wheeee!

[beevul]

40. The CA shooter passed "tougher" CA background checks, several times. N/T

[951-Riverside]

50. Then we need more stringent and even more... thorough background checks and...

more round table discussions about mental health because there is nothing more effective than these things.

[Anansi1171]

91. How about mandatory mental health evals before getting a drivers or gun licens-nt

[treestar]

84. I seem to recall the NSA was spying on all emails

and on all of us online - they could have gotten these emails to the SB police.

This one was close - they did send cops out to check on him. The cops apparently couldn't do anything if he appeared calm and rational.

[H. Cromwell]

8. Finally..

some one got it right. I totally agree with this post. banning this restricting that or anything trying to eliminate guns from the US population will be met with huge resistance, period.

[Logical]

9. And empower the NRA more. nt

[stranger81]

10. Maybe all you folks who are so sanguine about mass shootings (no pun intended)

should sign up to volunteer your kids as the victims for the next one.

[Logical]

12. Typical no solution emotional pits. Adding nothing to the discussion! nt

[stranger81]

13. Right. Dead kids add nothing to the discussion. Let's keep talking about more gunz.

Jesus Christ.

[Logical]

15. Your solution to stopping it? A realistic one? nt

[stranger81]

28. Regulate the g-d guns, like every other first-world country does.

Make them more expensive. Make bullets MUCH more expensive. More paperwork and longer waiting times for background checks. More strenous and searching background checks, accompanied by more regulations narrowing the pool of who is eligible to get one. Revive the assault weapons ban. Restrict the number of rounds in magazines. I could go on and on. All of these are viable options, lacking only the political will behind them because of the "my right to arm myself to the teeth is more important than your right to live" contingent.

And yes, this WILL cost us some votes from the aforementioned contingent. Anything worth doing is hard. But the status quo is unsustainable, and the notion that anyone is this country iis just fine with the status quo -- especially Democrats -- is mind-boggling.

[Logical]

29. A mass murderer would still mass murder in your plan. nt

[stranger81]

32. Maybe, maybe not. It obviously wouldn't stop everyone, but it would certainly make it harder.

But I think the phrase I'm looking for is "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." It's not enough to say that because proposed solutions wouldn't be 100% effective, nothing should be done at all.

In the last few mass shootings in this country, including this one, I distinctly recall parents of the dead (in this case, Mr. Martinez) lamenting that this is only something that happens on TV, to other people, until it happens to you. Is there really no part of that which resonates with you? Or do you have no loved ones you care about?

[Logical]

39. Of course it does.....

I have high schol aged kids. And it does worry me. Just like a rapist worries me or a random kidnapping does.
But I can't see a solution to stop a single lone nut from getting a gun.

[stranger81]

42. I agree that there's no one-size-fits-all solution to completely eliminate the problem.

But I do think the solutions I and others have proposed here and elsewhere would go a long way towards reducing the numbers and putting us more in line with the rest of the industrialized world. There's no denying that we have a rather large problem on our hands here, and the consequences of doing nothing are just too grave to accept any longer. That pun was intentional.

[stranger81]

44. One other thing I should have added that I think is very important,

and I guess this goes to the opening line of your OP, but in addition to heightened gun regulations, I think we need a real revolution in this country in the way we treat people with mental illnesses and the way we diagnose and treat them. Yes, all of these shooters were heavily, heavily armed with weapons and ammunition that should have been a lot harder for them to get than simply walking into their local "Gunz-R-Us" and asking for them. But the other common factor cutting across all these mass shootings is that the majority -- if not the very substantial majority -- of these shooters have had diagnosed (or sometimes undiagnosed, but strongly suggested) mental disorders or impairments of a serious nature. And in America today, we still stigmatize mental illnesses and those who suffer from them, and there is so much variability of treatment that I have to conclude that at least a sizeable proportion of those treatments are ineffective at best (many talk therapies) and actively counterproductive at worst (many pharmaceutical treatments).

And I will be the first to acknowledge that this is a very thorny problem, fraught with larger implications for individual liberties and so forth, that I think we absolutely need to address, but I'm not sure how . . . .

I think it's really the last line of your OP that set me off, though. The idea that since there's no solution likely to completely eliminate the problem, we should just move on and not worry our pretty little minds about it anymore, focus on frying other fish.

[Logical]

45. Great points.....I agree on the mental health aspect....

But until there is a real possible solution I don't want to risk losing house or senate seats to politicians who want more guns. And empower the NRA.

[Hugabear]

76. Then please explain why we hear about so few mass murders in Australia, Japan, Britain, etc

You know, places that have strict gun control laws in place. If mass murderers can simply get the guns they need, then why don't they do so in those places?

Yes I know that these countries occasionally have mass murders, but nowhere near as frequently as in the US

[randys1]

54. We have to wait for evolution to solve this one, gun advocates are immature

and until we mature as a species we cant get there.

It is sad though that most civilized countries have figured this out and made guns moot for the most part by outlawing them or restricting them so severely like Australia did ONE DAY after they had a mass shooting.

[MohRokTah]

11. DAMN THOSE PEOPLE GETTING IN THE WAY OF THE BULLETS!!!

Just look away, it'll pass soon enough.

[Logical]

14. Another worthless post that adds nothing to the duiscussion! nt

[MohRokTah]

16. It was made in direct response to a worthless OP that adds nothing to the discussion. eom

[Logical]

18. Really? What analysis do you disagree with? nt

[MohRokTah]

19. Really? The complete lack of aalysis is what threw me off. eom

[Logical]

21. What is your solution? Crickets? nt

[MohRokTah]

23. Replace Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, or Kennedy.

One more SCOTUS justice should do it and maybe, just maybe, the well regulated militia clause of the second amendment can actually be applied.

[Logical]

24. Ban guns? Please post a poll on this forum, see if the majority of dems.....

Agree with you.

[MohRokTah]

25. Who said anything about banning guns?

Every gun owner in the country immediately becomes a member of the well regulated militia and must legally show up for monthly unpaid drills.

That simple. Want to own a gun, be in the militia.

[Logical]

27. That means you require gun registration, once again, even dems do not....

Support that.

[MohRokTah]

34. It's the constitution

Gun humpers need to learn, with great power (gun ownership) comes great responsibility (member of the well regulated militia, service to your country).

You can't be a member of the well regulated militia without being registered as a member of the well regulated militia. It's that whole "well regulated" part.

Best part, it won't be the Democrats doing it. It will be the SCOTUS.

[Logical]

35. That is your interpretation. nt

[MohRokTah]

38. All I need is a bout one more Associate Justice who would be open to that interpretation

and one attorney capable of arguing the same before the SCOTUS.

And anybody up for being a Justice can just give the standard John Roberts line when the gun humper Senators ask the question about the second amendment and individual rights.

Problem solved.

[Logical]

41. I hope you are right. "Well regulated" has been debated forever. But remember....

Trained and regulated soldiers shoot up army bases. Not sure it stops one lone nut.

[MohRokTah]

43. Ah, but most nuts will be easily weeded out.

Guys like Rodgers wouldn't make it five minutes in a well regulated militia, and if he can't serve, he can't have guns.

[Calista241]

70. Even the Stevens and Breyer's dissenting opinions in Heller

Recognize that owning guns is an individual right granted by the Constitution.

[hack89]

51. The Democratic party platform says that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms

it is not simple when you don't even have the support of your party.

[MohRokTah]

53. My proposal is independent of the party

All it takes is replacing one of five justices with the right justice and then making the right argument before the resulting court.

As the Roberts court has demonstrated on numerous occasions, it only takes the votes of 5 justices to overturn long standing precedent on nearly any whim.

[hack89]

55. No, it is not that easy

Heller is the law of the land. All future cases will be judged by that standard. So it will be extremely hard for a case to make it through all the lower courts to the Supreme Court. Look no further than Roe v Wade - if it was easy, why hasn't the Roberts court overturned it by now? The answer is simple - Roe v Wade is the law of the land and there are no grounds to appeal abortion law cases to the Supreme Court.

Secondly, the 2A is not stopping gun control. It has never stopped an AWB, gun registration or limits on types of ammunition/magazines. According to the Supreme Court, the only right protected by the Constitution is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is it. Even Scalia says that guns can be strictly regulated.

The problem that gun control faces is cultural and political, not legal. The 2A could disappear tomorrow and America will still have plenty of guns - lets not forget that most state constitutions protect the right to keep and bear arms.

[MohRokTah]

56. Yes it is that easy.

Roe is currently law of the land. By a vote of 5-4, the SCOTUS could overturn Roe on any of a number of cases that could come before the SCOTUS at any time.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was the law of the land all the way up to the point where a 5-4 vote in Citizen's United v. FEC overturned it.

Plesy v. Ferguson was the law of the land all the way up to the court overturning it via Brown v. Board of Education.

The law of the land can be overturned at any time for any reason that five people in black robes determines it can be.

[hack89]

57. So why is Roe v Wade still the law of the land?

if it was easy, surely the Roberts court would have done away with it a long time ago.

[MohRokTah]

58. Sandra Day O'Connor for the longest time.

It's barely holding on due to Anthony Kennedy, but the older he gets the more he seems to be against it.

Had Kennedy left the court during the Bush administration, Roe would be dead now.

[aikoaiko]

20. Ban teh GUNZ!!!!11!11

[maggiesfarmer]

22. like your summary points, don't like your thread title.

your points are well made, and I think you did a good job demonstrating why this is a loser issue for the Dems. I agree that it is, currently.

I'm not, however, ready to say there's no way to stop mass shootings.

[Logical]

26. Maybe that was incorrect. maybe there is a long term solution, I see....

Nothing possible short term.

[maggiesfarmer]

30. that's very fair. You'll notice I didn't have one to offer ;)

I think we agree it's a tough issue without an immediate solution.

[Logical]

37. Long term is a good possibility. A million more guns sold every month....

Does not help.

[MohRokTah]

52. Gun sales have been on the decline recently

Public reporting from the publicly traded gun manufacturers indicates sales are down almost universally.

That tells me that the paranoia that drove the gun humpers so mad when Obama was elected has subsided, they've hit a parity with the number of guns they own vs. their paranoia, or some combination of the two.

At any rate, I take it as a positive sign. Most gun owners own more than one gun. That they are deciding to not purchase even more is good no matter what is causing it.

[upaloopa]

31. My idea is to make gun ownership a anti social

thing to do. We should shun gun culture advocates.
With the gun violence in this country buying a gun is a means to say I support killing. The purchase of guns and ammo promotes the manufactures who promote ALEC and the NRA's efforts to prevent information by the CDC and to stop any legislation designed to reduce gun violence.
So we should make it an anti society issue. Gunners support our violent gun culture so we should not support them.
Treat gunners like smokers.
Besides it is our 1st amendment right to do so!

[stranger81]

33. THIS. [n/t]

[Logical]

47. I hope this open carry shit gets treated that way soon. nt

[Skidmore]

49. Better yet, why should predators demand that we allow them

to hold all of our nation hostage? Because it sure feels like that to me. There is no way on earth that you can tell a "good man with a gun" from a "bad man with a gun" when he walks into a public space. Only a heartbeat or a breath can separate the people in that space from becoming prey. The gun culture demands a level of trust that it cannot deliver.

[treestar]

77. This. Look at that sociopath Joe the Plumber

saying he doesn't even care what happens to other people, gun rights are more important!

[Rex]

36. Yes there is! Make ammo costs 5000 dollars a bullet.

I think Chris Rock was on to something.

[hack89]

59. Unconstitutional. That is why it is good comedy and not good legal advice. nt

[Rex]

61. I was joking, they need to be more like 12k a piece.

Why is setting the price on bullets at 12k unconstitutional?

[hack89]

67. Back door attempts to ban the use of guns are unconstitutional.

the 2A covers ammunition.

[Rex]

80. But that is not banning the use of guns, just making it hard to afford the bullets.

Don't think it has anything to do with the Constitution.

[hack89]

82. It is settled law

Go play silly word games with some one else.

[Rex]

83. Oh I see you are done here, nice way to fail and run away.

[hack89]

86. It is not like we don't have the identical conversation every four months

Chris Rock is not a Constitutional scholar - the fact you consider him tells me all I need to know as too how serious you are.

[951-Riverside]

63. If it was unconstitutional then guns and bullets would be tax free, felons could legally own them...

even in prison and private persons could own everything from C4 to Apache Helicopters.

[hack89]

66. Taxes are legal. Poll taxes ie defacto bans are illegal

pricing ammo such that no one can afford it is a defacto ban and is unconstitutional. It has been settled law for a very long time.

[EX500rider]

68. Somehow I don't think allowing only the 1% to own guns is a very progressive idea.

[avebury]

46. When the people of this country

decide that they truly want this to be a country that values life, they will find a way. As it stands, claiming that we are a nation that values the sanctify of life is pure BS.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Sadly, I think that's true.

Periodic massacres, and a steady drip of daily shootings are an apparently incurable and unstoppable aspect of our society, and we're all just getting used to the reality of having to live with the situation.

That doesn't mean that I have to like it.

People in places like Sudan and Somalia have gotten used to far worse. I suppose we can be thankful that things haven't reached that level yet in this country.

It's certainly possible to virtually eliminate gun violence if the political will exists, as has been shown in many other countries, but the opposite political will exists in this country, and I've accepted that there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

As I said, though, I don't have to like it, and I don't have to like the people who are responsible for it, and I don't have to refrain from expressing my opinion on a political message board.

[Skidmore]

65. Why should we be expected to "get used to it?" Why should we be expected to shut up and

just accept being prey? Who profits from that?

[Crunchy Frog]

96. I'm certainly not shutting up, and don't think anyone else should either.

But I guess I'm getting kind of fatalistic about the prospect for anything positive to actually be done about the situation. In fact, with every massacre, things seem to get even worse and the gunners seem to to grab for even more, and the ones on DU become even louder and more vociferous, and more vicious with anyone who disagrees with them. Our society has not demonstrated an ability to have an even halfway rational dialogue on the issue.

So I'm honestly feeling like there's nothing I can do about it at this point.

[Orsino]

60. There are huge cultural barriers unique to America in our way...

...but people in other countries are not trapped in quite the same thinking.

Therefore, we are capable of learning, too...but not until we stop shrugging. Taking some guns out of certain hands can reduce the severity and frequency of mass shootings, as it has before. We don't have to grab all the guns to see a payoff in saved lives.

Why don't we explore some of that enormous excluded middle that the NRA wants us to forget about?

[butterfly77]

62. I just said the same thing to one of my friends..

then I clicked on DU and saw your post and said you took the words out of my mouth.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. Whether deliberately or accidental, I think you are confusing "politically viable" with "desirable".

I entirely agree that "collect all the guns" is not a policy that America could be persuaded to adopt.

That does not mean that it wouldn't be a good thing if it did happen, or that there is anything other than lack of political support stopping it working.

"Nothing is going to be done to stop mass shootings in this country" is true.
"There is no politically feasible way to stop mass shootings in this country" is true.

"There is political policy which, if adopted, would stop mass shootings in this country" is false.

"There is no way to stop mass shootings in this country!" is ambiguous.

[Politicalboi]

69. Make it a mandatory 20 year sentence if caught with a gun

It can weed out a lot of guns. We're still going to have the nuts, but less of them. If we just give up and think taking away all guns is impossible, we will never get anywhere. I think it is possible. 20 years for EVERY gun owned if not turned in. It may take 20 or 30 years to accomplish, but it can be done.

[LAGC]

92. Not without a SHITLOAD of bloodshed on the part of law enforcement.

Many are not going to comply without a fight.

Why put our peace officers in harms way like that?

[gcomeau]

94. So you're saying...

...that a lot of people we're currently allowing to arm themselves to the teeth with laughably few restrictions are also of a predisposition to use deadly force against lawful agents of the government in order to defy the laws of the nation if they should decide they don't happen to like them?


And that's your argument for *continuing* to allow them to arm themselves????? Care to think that one over a little?

[LAGC]

95. Most of these "gun nuts" are harmless right now.

But try to take away their life passion and a considerable percentage will revolt.

Let them keep their toys, and continue shooting holes in paper targets.

They harm no one but their pocketbooks in the cost of wasted ammo.

If we ever were to foolishly cross that threshold and actually repeal the 2nd Amendment, the gauntlet will have been thrown, and there will be nothing stopping the rest of the Bill of Rights to be up on the chopping block next.

Trust me, you do not want to go down that path.

[gcomeau]

98. Yeah.... you realize an analogous statement to that would be...

"...most of these hostage takers are harmless right now... but if you don't give into their demands..."


If they're only harmless as long as things are done according to their preferences they're not harmless. They're dangerous and waiting for the right trigger to set them off. Those are not people anyone should want indiscriminately armed!!!!!

[treestar]

74. People can be persuaded to change their minds over time

How else could we hope for anything that might improve our society? How would we get single payer healthcare, for one?

[randys1]

78. Keep shooting innocent children while yelling "Heller"

Why recite an obviously incorrect constitutional decision?

NRA loves it when you do, though, as do the gun mfgs who do not give SHIT ONE about your rights, trust me on that

[RKP5637]

79. It's the culture more than the guns. Guns are a tool, but what makes them dangerous is

the culture. I find this a violent country, true, not like some, but nevertheless we could do far better.

[hunter]

87. God Bless America! The "CAN'T DO SHIT" nation.

I don't respect your opinion, Logical, or your guns.

[Logical]

101. Great reply, and your brilliant plan is what??? nt

[gcomeau]

89. Ahem...

300 million guns and over a million more sold monthly. 9000 gun murders a year, so it is obvious very few gun owners are the issue.

And what exactly is the point of that statement supposed to be? That still raises the issue that gun policy in this nation allows those "very few gun owners " absurdly easy access to those guns to they're ready and at hand for crap like this to happen when they pop off.

Very hard to stop people from buying, borrowing, stealing guns. 60,000 guns stolen per year.

Yeah... you know what that's a function of? Lots of guns laying around TO BE STOLEN. Which is a direct function of this nation's gun policies.

A mass shooter can and will find a gun and nothing will stop it.

Tell that to Australia.

At this point it is like trying to stop a driver from ramming his car into a crowd of people.

So... we shouldn't try to stop that from happening either???

[longship]

93. Well then, that's it!!!

We may as well not even attempt to find out why the USA has -- by far -- the most gun violence on the planet.

Let's just give up. We have the 2nd and 4th amendments so it's all a done deal.

No worries. Nothing to see here. It is all the price of freedumb. Absolutely no debate!!!

Others may disagree. Only ideologues see it otherwise.

[Orsino]

99. ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

[steve2470]

100. A sea change in the culture is needed which will produce....

the overall overwhelming political will to make reasonable changes to the laws. The need to have gigantic personal arsenals will disappear (for almost everyone except hard core survivalists) and the impulse to go grab a gun will die down somewhat. We can never 100% eliminate gun violence, because AFAIK, it happens in every country throughout the world.

Right now we're in a vicious cycle downwards. If it continues, absolutely everyone with the will to live will concealed carry or open carry, where allowed, and security guards will be posted absolutely everywhere. Do we really want to live this way ? I don't want my son to have to pack heat everywhere just to survive. That's fucking crazy. We don't live in Somalia. We shouldn't live in a war zone.