Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[october_midnight]

Shooting in CT. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/reports-of-multiple-deaths-including-children-gunman-in-connecticut-school-shooting/article6360052/)

Yeahhhh...I still think your country needs some more gun control.

[Conan The Barbarian]

Shooting in CT. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/reports-of-multiple-deaths-including-children-gunman-in-connecticut-school-shooting/article6360052/)

Yeahhhh...I still think your country needs some more gun control.

Yea I agree, I mean I dont understand how the fuck shit likes this happens, and idiots like the NRA and other white trash fucks thinks its a good idea that having access to weapons.

[october_midnight]

I understand having access to weapons isn't the problem...I don't know, man. It seems like this is happening way more often as of late. Maybe it's just the media spinning it to show more. I know people are getting shot all the time, but the mass stuff is on a weekly basis it seems.

[Conan The Barbarian]

As an American, I hate guns. I never saw the point of someone other than police to have one. This country cannot handle the responsibility of owning one.

[blackholesun]

^^ Agreed.

My heart and soul goes out to the victims and victims families. People, including young children, lost their lives today because some sick fuck('s?) decided to take that away from them.

What else is a gun used for other than to kill?

[october_midnight]

And the NRA....I just want someone at their next speech to stand up and say 'Remember the time some asshole shot up a school and a well armed citizen saved everyone? Me neither.'

[The Becoming]

This is heartbreaking. My right to own a gun is not worth the lives of innocent children.

[marodi]

What else is a gun used for other than to kill?

Allowing men with small cocks to feel manlier?

This is absolutely heartbreaking. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims.

[october_midnight]

^^^ Exactly. I want to read just ONE story of some asshole busting in to a hospital with a rifle and someone busting through a window and yelling 'NO SIR. MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WILL SHOW YOU JUSTICE.'

It sounds absolutely absurd, but seriously it's pretty much what the NRA envisions while closing their eyes and covering their ears, I just know it.

[jessamineny]

He mowed down his mother's classroom of kindergarteners. Jesus.

Edit: Now they're saying he killed her at home and then went to her school and killed everyone. WTF

[allegro]

This story is about mental illness and how the U.S. does NOTHING about it, and about our need to reinstate the BAN on assault weapons.

RT @andywombach "AP: Suspect used .223 caliber rifle. This is a picture of a .223 rifle. This is legal.
http://twitter.com/AbbyWambach/status/279667807778664448/photo/1

[october_midnight]

True dat. I get protecting your family with a handgun in your house maybe sure. Assault rifles? Come on, son!

[aggroculture]

Now that BO doesn't have to worry about re-election I really hope he does something on the assault weapons front. Fuck you George W Bush for letting the ban lapse. Fuck you forever.

[october_midnight]

Couldn't agree more. The NRA already doesn't like Obama, he should fuckin' go balls out on this one.

[onthewall2983]

I don't want to come off as selfish, but if I think too hard about something like this the quicker I realize this could happen where I live, and to people I know. Economically depressed and bouts of extreme weather as of late (I saw people lose their shit in the heat). There was a gang-related incident a few months back where people shot up an ambulance. A fucking ambulance. I thought that was crazy.

[Frozen Beach]

No offense guys, but I think a ban on assault rifles will only make the situation more dangerous. Do you realize how many paranoid lunatics we have in America that think it's gonna end soon? Do you really think those people are gonna give up their assault rifles willingly?

[thelastdisciple]

No offense guys, but I think a ban on assault rifles will only make the situation more dangerous. Do you realize how many paranoid lunatics we have in the world that think it's gonna end soon? Do you really think those people are gonna give up their assault rifles willingly?

Who knows, maybe that's why this fucker did what he did.... maybe he thought there was an impending apocalypse and figured he'd try and get away with something like this.

Or maybe he thought his mother loved all those school kids more than him, i don't know......but i definitely can't see anything outside of something psychological or they did this just for the hell of it.... an elaborate suicide? stir up some shit and then off yourself.

Fucked up either way.

[october_midnight]

Especially since the victim's brother was found killed as well. This Lanza guy killed him, then made the 80 mile drive to the school in another town, fully armed. It wasn't spur of the moment.

[jessamineny]

RT @andywombach "AP: Suspect used .223 caliber rifle. This is a picture of a .223 rifle. This is legal.
http://twitter.com/AbbyWambach/status/279667807778664448/photo/1

The AP story has been updated to say the rifle was found in the back of a car in the parking lot.

[cahernandez]

Why does this only happen in the US (except for that one time in Norway)? What happens in the US that doesn't happen in any other country? I think a cause-and-effect/Freakonomics-type analysis will reveal that the root problem is way beyond gun control (and for the record, I think that having guns is stupid, so no, I'm not against gun control). Allegro mentioned "mental illness". There's mentally ill-people in other countries as well.

An alarming number of broken families in the US may be the root cause behind all of this?

[allegro]

Some of these people who go into schools and shoot up kids aren't from broken homes http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-05-21/news/9102150460_1_mental-hospital-hubbard-woods-elementary-school-safe-deposit-box

But, really, only mentally ill people do shit like THIS shit today. It's not normal, in any sense.

[Sutekh]

IMO the Gun Culture is to blame, it's the one factor you won't find in other countries. Other countries have gun ownership, worse poverty, violence, ethnic/religious tensions, violent pasts etc etc (everyone's seen bowling for columbine)

I know really smart, wordly-wise Americans who are just unreasonable when it comes to this one issue... I can only conclude it's culturally taboo for them to accept that Guns are a problem

To say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is to say "Guns aren't so bad"... I'm truly amazed that people don't see the connection between "Guns aren't so bad" being a prevalent sentiment within a culture, and that culture having a disproportionate amount of firearm crime

[october_midnight]

Very well said.

[allegro]

This is so heartbreaking, those poor parents are in so much pain, it's so sad watching them in such obvious horrifying pain at their loss, ugh :-(

[Frozen Beach]

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sickened by the fact that people are taking advantage of this situation, and using it as an excuse to get riled up about gun control. It's the same routine. Some tragedy like this happens, people get riled up, and two, three weeks later, people forget, except those who actually lost people in the situation. If you think something should happen, please, go out and try to make it happen. Don't become a part of the fad.

Personally though, I really don't think there's much anyone can do to make us safer. I mean, if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have easily done like this guy and used a knife.
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities
What then? Do we call for knife control? Some of you may disagree with me, but still, that doesn't change the fact that everyone should love their friends, family and people in general as much as possible.

[Sutekh]

I'm not using it as an excuse, my genuine reaction to spree shootings is to think about gun culture and gun control.

He could have used a knife, and probably would have killed a lot less people - wouldn't that have been a better outcome?

The fact of the matter is, you don't have problems with people using knives, cars or baseball bats to commit spree killings the way you have problems with guns, so equating the two doesn't make sense.

I know someone who has used heroin for over 15 years and yet holds down a job, has no significant health problems... does that mean I think heroin is ok? No, because I wasn't raised in a culture that encourages me to defend heroin.

Who knows, maybe I'm just brainwashed and I should cut smack a break, because even though it produces so much horror, some shining examples can make it work

You say gun control wouldn't make you safer, but the UK has strict gun control and IS safer. We had 32 firearms deaths last year, you had 9000. We have 62 million people, you have 330 million. 32 x 5 does not = 9000, so what's wrong with your country?

[Presideo]

Personally though, I really don't think there's much anyone can do to make us safer. I mean, if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have easily done like this guy and used a knife.
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities
What then? Do we call for knife control? Some of you may disagree with me, but still, that doesn't change the fact that everyone should love their friends, family and people in general as much as possible.
You fail to mention that nobody in that article died. I think it's a fact that it's a lot harder to commit mass murder with a gun than a knife.

You're correct that this type of mindless violence will exist whether gun control is heavy or lax, but it sure makes it a helluva lot harder for someone to commit these acts if semi-automatics and large-capacity clips are eliminated from the equation. Knives and horse manure can be used for more than killings; guns only serve one purpose.

[october_midnight]

Exactly. All the NRA advocates, etc. believe that if you tighten gun control, the U.S. will instantly become some Orwellian state with all freedom a thing of the past. It baffles my mind that they just can't see a fact that a toddler could grasp. It's infuriating.

Reminds of this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/) that I read after the Aurora Dark Knight Rises shooting. Makes me wanna print it and staple it to a few Americans' foreheads.

[thelastdisciple]

I don't think anybody is taking advantage of the situation to talk about how to prevent death in such ways, events like these are just constant reminders for us on already important discussions.

[aggroculture]

I mean, if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have easily done like this guy and used a knife.
What then? Do we call for knife control?

I see this type of thinking all over the internet and the bad faith of it infuriates me no end. Are you seriously suggesting that a knife is as dangerous, as deadly, and as effective a weapon as an assault rifle or hand gun? If so, why don't US troops in Afghanistan use knives instead of guns?

[Deus Ex Machina]

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sickened by the fact that people are taking advantage of this situation, and using it as an excuse to get riled up about gun control. It's the same routine. Some tragedy like this happens, people get riled up, and two, three weeks later, people forget, except those who actually lost people in the situation. If you think something should happen, please, go out and try to make it happen. Don't become a part of the fad.

Personally though, I really don't think there's much anyone can do to make us safer. I mean, if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have easily done like this guy and used a knife.
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities
What then? Do we call for knife control? Some of you may disagree with me, but still, that doesn't change the fact that everyone should love their friends, family and people in general as much as possible.
http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TMW2011-01-12acolorlowres-copy.jpg

[50 Volt Phantom]

Like I said after the Colorado TDKR shooting, we need more stringent gun control in the mental health area. As someone who has bought guns and does not support any kind of ban I clearly see the benefit of a mental health physical of sorts to buy a gun, if medication is involved that needs to be clearly made obvious to gun sellers and part of the overall process. I'm a pro-gun person, but this is clearly a problem and something needs to done to address it other than knee-jerk "let's ban guns" reactions.

[Sutekh]

Yes personally I wouldn't ban guns either - contrary to (what seems to be) popular belief, we haven't banned guns in the UK. We had a school shooting, and so we banned semi automatics and certain pistols, and remaining weapons subject to some of the most stringent checks in the world. Many rifles & all Shotguns etc are still Kosher if you pass the tests.

Result? No school shootings since the mid 90s. In fact I think we've had 2-3 spree shooters in the past 20 years, and they never manage more than half a dozen murders. This is really something, and especially when you consider the UK encompasses Northern Ireland, subject to a diminished but ongoing civil conflict which you have nothing like in the US

When I saw your username I though "here we go", but I agree with your sentiments totally. USA is a democracy and clearly a lot of people want guns, so a compromise has to be struck

[Highly Psychological]

urgh this story makes me fucking sick to the core.... 5 year old kids....jesus. it can't get much lower.

[Magtig]

I just read the entire wikipedia entry on school shootings. Now I'm an expert and will charge a healthy fee to speak on TeeVee.

I ran across several points that challenged my own assumptions and opinions:
- Shooter Profiles: not many similarities can be found in their backgrounds, economic status or family life. The only commonalities are that most of the shooters are male (only two recorded female), most are on antidepressants, and to a lesser extent many are bullied.
- There are several cases in which an armed student or teacher has been able to stop or prevent a massacre.
- On the other hand, there are also examples of armed police not being able to stop or shorten one.
- The height of homicides in schools reached a peak in the early 90s. That decade saw the most school shooting deaths in the US by a significant margin.
- There was one teacher at Sandy Elementary who did have several guns: the shooter's mother. That's where he got all or most of his weaponry (this point is not in the wiki, but an article I just read).

What's the point? I don't entirely know, I'm just tired of having the same conversation over and over and wanted to try to understand a bit more about what was going on. From what I can gather these shootings are happening in an ecosystem. There is no single solution be it more guns, gun control or access to mental health. It should be noted also that our problems with seeking treatment for mental health issues aren't purely about access. Many people don't have any idea what's available to them, and are surrounded by a culture that ostracizes and shames the mentally ill. The UK may have banned handguns, and it definitely had a positive impact, but that's simply not going to happen in the US. The best we can hope for is more hoops for people to jump through when people are buying guns, and less hoops when seeking treatment for mental illness. Neither of these remedies will stop school shootings, which have been recorded as far back as the 1700s, but they will mostly likely reduce them.

[DigitalChaos]

You fail to mention that nobody in that article died. I think it's a fact that it's a lot harder to commit mass murder with a gun than a knife.

You're correct that this type of mindless violence will exist whether gun control is heavy or lax, but it sure makes it a helluva lot harder for someone to commit these acts if semi-automatics and large-capacity clips are eliminated from the equation. Knives and horse manure can be used for more than killings; guns only serve one purpose.
Not sure if you noticed but, prohibition doesn't work very well in the USA. China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China. Unless you want to bring in tons of human rights violations to enforce gun prohibition... it won't be very effective.

[danebraddy]

I can't remember where I heard it, but I'm reminded of this:

"Guns don't kill people - people kill people. Shouldn't that mean we keep guns away from people?"

[Sutekh]

Not sure if you noticed but, prohibition doesn't work very well in the USA. China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China. Unless you want to bring in tons of human rights violations to enforce gun prohibition... it won't be very effective.

Bad comparison, the way people consume drugs and the way people consume weapons are totally different in terms of dynamics... peope's drug consumption is totally different to how people buy/consume weapons. Would anyone buy guns at the rate they buy weed, heroin, MDMA? Obviously not. By your logic we could say there's no point in making nuclear weapons or child porn illegal for people to own, as anything proscribed will inevitably be consumed in the EXACT same way (utter bollocks mate, come on!)

Have you really thought about what you're saying, or just looking for the first ostensibly plausible comparison?

The Western countries that have employed stringent gun control have enjoyed success in reducing gun crime - why don't you make that comparison? Because the facts won't reinforce your view of the situation, I daresay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[DigitalChaos]

I'm not the one making the comparison. I am pointing out how bad it is to compare China and USA laws.


and gun control does not equal gun prohibition... Talk about selectively creating a narrative. :rolleyes:

[Sutekh]

You said prohibition of any kind doesn't work in the USA... you then immediately pointed out an example of drug prohibition not working in China, presumably to prove that it won't work in USA?

That was a comparison... either that or you just arbitrarily decided to mention how some kinds of prohibition don't work in China, and how "it won't be very effective (in the USA)" immediately after that.

You're embarrassing yourself! if I have it wrong then please explain

[DigitalChaos]

You said prohibition of any kind doesn't work in the USA... you then immediately pointed out an example of drug prohibition not working in China, presumably to prove that it won't work in USA?

no, not at all. go back and read it again
reading comprehension fail or you are trolling

[DigitalChaos]

and nice job ignoring the fact that prohibition does not equal control.

[Sutekh]

You said prohibition of any kind doesn't work in the USA... you then immediately pointed out an example of drug prohibition not working in China, presumably to prove that it won't work in USA?


no, not at all. go back and read it again
reading comprehension fail or you are trolling

When talking about guns, you pointed out that drug prohibition in China isn't 100% successful. Either you decided to arbitrarily point out that fact for no reason at that specific point, or you pointed it out to illustrate that gun prohibition in America would fail the way drug prohibition in China has.

Here's what you just said ;


Not sure if you noticed but, prohibition doesn't work very well in the USA. China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China. Unless you want to bring in tons of human rights violations to enforce gun prohibition... it won't be very effective

So what was your point? If not that gun prohibition would fail just like chinese drug prohibition has - which you have just said was not the point you were trying to make

I really don't know what to say? I know DRUG prohibition isn't effective - I acknowledged that when I said that the two things have different dynamics in terms of consumptionb

[DigitalChaos]

holy shit dude... how??


prohibition works in China, it doesn't work in USA. That is what I said. How the fuck you see that as "prohibition doesn't work in China" is beyond me. That is why comparing China and USA prohibition is silly.

Are you still ignoring the fact that prohibition is very different compared to control and that you cant just use the two interchangeably?

[Sutekh]

holy shit dude... how??


prohibition works in China, it doesn't work in USA. That is what I said. How the fuck you see that as "prohibition doesn't work in China" is beyond me. That is why comparing China and USA prohibition is silly.

Are you still ignoring the fact that prohibition is very different compared to control and that you cant just use the two interchangeably?

What do you mean by "works"? People still engage in the trafficking and consumption of contraband, that's why prohibition doesn't work in China. China has a LOT of drug addicts. In what way is Prohibition working?

I'm sorry if I've got you wrong - what exactly where you trying to say? I honestly thought you were saying that outright state control of certain things won't lead to civilians ending their abuse of said things... I assumed you were equating Chinese drugs with American guns - what were you actually saying?

And I think you're using the two interchangeably here - I made it clear in my reply to 50 volt that I think control is what the US needs - not outright banning -, and you alone have seen "prohibition" as something being proposed here

[DigitalChaos]

What do you mean by "works"? People still engage in the trafficking and consumption of contraband, that's why prohibition doesn't work in China. China has a LOT of drug addicts. In what way is Prohibition working?

I'm sorry if I've got you wrong - what exactly where you trying to say? I honestly thought you were saying that outright state control of certain things won't lead to civilians ending their abuse of said things... I assumed you were equating Chinese drugs with American guns - what were you actually saying?


China has much less drug use than the USA. I am saying that this demonstrates a more effective drug prohibition in China than the USA. Therefore, it isn't a good justification to say that any of China's success with gun prohibition is a justification for doing in the USA.

[Space Suicide]

What I hate is when morons do this they always commit suicide at the end. Fucking off yourself without involving other people. Probably the main reason they do this is to not get tried or convicted but still...

[Leviathant]

The height of homicides in schools reached a peak in the early 90s. That decade saw the most school shooting deaths in the US by a significant margin.

I would like to take this opportunity to link you all to a wikipedia article about a law that was passed in 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act). Gun control laws reduce gun violence. This is a demonstrable fact. Spend some time looking at the figures, or if you don't want to do that, look at this pretty chart (http://www.wallsofthecity.net/images/populationfirearmsdeathsgraph.jpg).

[Shnoorum]

What I hate is when morons do this they always commit suicide at the end. Fucking off yourself without involving other people. Probably the main reason they do this is to not get tried or convicted but still...

I agree. If you plan to kill yourself in the end then just skip to the fucking end. I'll never understand how anyone could bring themselves to commit such atrocities. I'll never give them the excuse of being mentally unstable or insane. As far as I'm concerned these people are whiney self centered thick as shit scumbags and deserve to be tortured.

Sorry, don't mean to rant. Just hearing about these sort of things depresses and angers me. Much love to all those who have to cope with the damage this idiot has caused. I can't even begin to imagine how hard this must be for them

[Presideo]

China has much less drug use than the USA. I am saying that this demonstrates a more effective drug prohibition than the USA. Therefore, saying that any of China's success with gun prohibition is a justification for doing in the USA isn't a solid plan.
China's way of enforcing laws in general is far different than the U.S. Comparing an authoritarian regime with a democratic country isn't the best way to make your point. I'm sure drug enforcement is also much more severe in China.

I understand that if someone wants to buy a gun badly enough they'll find a way, but limiting ways for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons will go a long way to ensure acts of mass murder don't happen as frequently as they are occurring now. I'm fine with people having a six-shooter at home to protect themselves or someone having a hunting rifle for sport. On the other hand, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines serve no purpose in everyday life - it's meant for the battlefield. When the 2nd amendment was made they didn't have guns that enabled a single person to inflict mass casualties in a matter of seconds; not every right given in the 1700's should be applied verbatim in 2012.

[DigitalChaos]

China's way of enforcing laws in general is far different than the U.S. Comparing an authoritarian regime with a democratic country isn't the best way to make your point. I'm sure drug enforcement is also much more severe in China.


That is EXACTLY my point. Without lots of human rights violations (as mentioned in my first post) and government oppression we won't see effective gun prohibition in the USA. I don't think a single person asking for gun prohibition in the USA is ready to say that we need that level of enforcement



I understand that if someone wants to buy a gun badly enough they'll find a way, but limiting ways for mentally unstable people to get a hold of weapons will go a long way to ensure acts of mass murder don't happen as frequently as they are occurring now. I'm fine with people having a six-shooter at home to protect themselves or someone having a hunting rifle for sport. On the other hand, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines serve no purpose in everyday life - it's meant for the battlefield. When the 2nd amendment was made they didn't have guns that enabled a single person to inflict mass casualties in a matter of seconds; not every right given in the 1700's should be applied verbatim in 2012.
You are back to talking about control, not prohibition. My comment applies only to prohibition.

[DF118]

Hmmm.

This would probably happen a lot less frequently in the US, if the US hurried up and banned guns.

See when this happened in Scotland? In the Dunblane Massacre? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre) We banned guns in the UK. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_(Amendment)_(No._2)_Act_1997) There's been a lot less shootings since then. Because we're not all a bunch of psychos and we handed in our guns.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who advocates gun ownership in the US from now on wants to kill children.

[Alpha 60]

On NPR tonight Robert Siegal talked to Mark Follman of Mother Jones Magazine. Follman had worked on piece that looked into “mass shootings,” they were defined by four people killed (and the gunman [but not always].)
I am paraphrasing, but I think I have their figures right, in the last 30 years according to the magazine article, there has been 61 mass shootings. This year had the most with 7. Again there may have been other parameters to their definition of mass shooting, (like maybe not during other planned criminal activity) I just heard it on the radio have not looked into the article yet.
Just a little more data/figures for the discussion. (Again, I have not looked into this more since hearing it on the radio, so this info may not be 100% accurate or accurate within a framwork)
Of course, also, on NPR they started talking about more thorough background checks (with some or pundits/journalists), but the concept of “privacy” came up and most agreed that would be the “hard issue.”

[DigitalChaos]

I would like to take this opportunity to link you all to a wikipedia article about a law that was passed in 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act). Gun control laws reduce gun violence. This is a demonstrable fact. Spend some time looking at the figures, or if you don't want to do that, look at this pretty chart (http://www.wallsofthecity.net/images/populationfirearmsdeathsgraph.jpg).
Yup. Control is going to be the most effective way, in the US. I like the way CA has been doing things. You not only have to pass background checks but you have to demonstrate basic safety & legal understandings of firearms (via test/certification) before you can buy them. I wish more states would do this. CA's bans on arbitrary gun parts is not a model to follow though.

Also, the control doesn't always have such a clear impact:
http://i.imgur.com/AQdhg.gif

[theimage13]

I'll never give them the excuse of being mentally unstable or insane. As far as I'm concerned these people are whiney self centered thick as shit scumbags and deserve to be tortured.

(flame suit on)

Wow. Now, I really haven't read much on this story yet (just had my own family loss, so really not in the mood), so I'm not going to say whether I believe this guy had extreme issues versus just being a bad egg. But I can't let your statement go...are you just completely and utterly oblivious to how the human body works? When I read your above quote, I see "Alzheimer's is bullshit, those old fucks are just forgetful". Like it or not, people can actually be truly incapable of what you or I would call rational thought. Sometimes the result relatively harmless, but sometimes, it can lead to violence towards others. Your attitude towards mental disorders is painfully ignorant, and it's views like this that make it so difficult to try to actually help people.

[Leviathant]

(flame suit on)

Wow. Now, I really haven't read much on this story yet (just had my own family loss, so really not in the mood), so I'm not going to say whether I believe this guy had extreme issues versus just being a bad egg. But I can't let your statement go...are you just completely and utterly oblivious to how the human body works? When I read your above quote, I see "Alzheimer's is bullshit, those old fucks are just forgetful". Like it or not, people can actually be truly incapable of what you or I would call rational thought. Sometimes the result relatively harmless, but sometimes, it can lead to violence towards others. Your attitude towards mental disorders is painfully ignorant, and it's views like this that make it so difficult to try to actually help people.

Rather than rehash, I'm going to link to my wife's blog post about the topic of mental illness (http://blog.melissadunphy.com/2012/07/this-is-probably-bad-idea-but-i-have-to.html) in the wake of the Aurora shooting.


I try not to be utterly defined by the fact that I grew up with a mentally ill parent, but there's no doubt that it has done its part in shaping who I am and how I react to certain tragedies. A few years ago, I came to the decision that I was sick and tired of feeling uncomfortable talking about it, and I started opening my eyes to the way the stigma and silence and ignorance surrounding mental illness make the whole situation significantly worse for my mother, my family, and everyone else in the world who is touched by mental illness in some way. I want to do what little I can to change that, so I try and talk about mental illness frankly and openly and often publicly. It might be a futile endeavor, because the more you realize how easy it is for most people to dehumanize the mentally ill, the more overwhelmed you become by the enormity of the problem.

As I became more directly aware of mental illness (I have a literally-crazy mother-in-law) I really began to see modern cultures in a very different light. The mentally ill are subjects of mockery, both gentle and extreme, and as evidenced by friends-of-friends on facebook, they are characterized as practically supernatural. If you have conservative-leaning friends in conservative parts of the country, look at what their friends are saying. This is evil! This is Satan's work! This man is a monster!

Except no. These aren't people who deserve to be tortured. They are people who live with daily mental torture you really cannot understand until you've lived with someone with severe mental illness. And a lot of it can be treated, but not in a country where quality health care comes with an incredible price tag.

To write this off as an excuse for the existence of evil spirits, to proclaim that torturing people like this somehow will justify anything - I'm at a loss for words as to how I describe that kind of thinking. It's not thinking. It's a purely emotional response. It's oblivious to observed reality.

[leo3375]

Hmmm.

This would probably happen a lot less frequently in the US, if the US hurried up and banned guns.

See when this happened in Scotland? In the Dunblane Massacre? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre) We banned guns in the UK. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_(Amendment)_(No._2)_Act_1997) There's been a lot less shootings since then. Because we're not all a bunch of psychos and we handed in our guns.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who advocates gun ownership in the US from now on wants to kill children.

That's easier said than done in the United States. The Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. I can agree with banning assault rifles and automatic weapons because neither are designed for hunting or for self-defense. However, an all-out ban on firearms requires a Constitutional amendment that I have a feeling would not be able to be ratified.

And are you saying that hunters who are responsible and have enough sense to keep their guns locked up and unloaded in the house, and who have taught their own children gun safety and responsibility, are child-killers?

[xmd 5a]

Almost cried when read about this. Events like this happening every other day makes me glad to live in a country with gun control legislation. The fact that tragedies like these are akin to natural disasters is completely unacceptable. As for the mental health question, maybe if attempts to discuss universal healthcare (another reason I feel safe here in Australia) weren't met with dismissal as advocating "socialist death panels" and other such impenetrable nonsense I'd have more faith in that kind of focus.

[DigitalChaos]

That's easier said than done in the United States. The Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. I can agree with banning assault rifles and automatic weapons because neither are designed for hunting or for self-defense. However, an all-out ban on firearms requires a Constitutional amendment that I have a feeling would not be able to be ratified.

And are you saying that hunters who are responsible and have enough sense to keep their guns locked up and unloaded in the house, and who have taught their own children gun safety and responsibility, are child-killers?

You will also have trouble because nowhere in the constitution does it say firearms are a right explicitly because of hunting or self-defense. Some would argue that guns are to keep government in check.

[Lutz]

The other major difference in the UK vs US debate (asides from guns being banned) is that the UK has free healthcare, good social security and good free education available to a tertiary level.

These are core values in the UK.

[leo3375]

And what bugs me the most, I think, is that the gun nuts tend to oppose universal health care. They don't have a problem with someone being able to get an AK-47 but there will be hell to pay if a poor family uses taxpayer money to pay for treatment for a schizophrenic relative.

Here's where I stand:
1. Reinstate the assault-weapon and automatic-firearms ban. Restrict how many firearms someone may purchase to one or two per year.
2. Tax the snot out of ammunition. Chris Rock once said, "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control." Limit how much ammo someone can buy at any given time and keep track of their purchases.
3. Require licensing, certification, and background checks for all gun purchases, even at gun shows and game fairs. Regulate it like driver's licenses and selling a car, where a transfer of ownership is required and must be registered with the state.
4. Gun licenses would require not only a criminal background check but also a psychiatric evaluation and proper training on how to use a firearm and how to safely store it. These would have to be renewed and updated on a regular basis.
5. Expand Obamacare to include mental health treatment and mandate all private insurers to cover mental health.

This is not taking guns away but it would ensure responsibility, help make it harder for those with malicious intent to obtain firearms, and is well within the constraints of the Second Amendment.

EDIT: Here's Chris Rock talking about gun control. This was after Columbine in 1999 but it's still relevant:

http://youtu.be/Db0Y4qIZ4PA

[xmd 5a]

And why does gun control have to be a left v right issue? The Prime Minister who enacted the gun control legislation here was a climate change denialist, union-hating, right wing shithead who was ultra chummy with Bush and responsible for terrible xenophobic and homophobic policies. So hardline Republican material in other words.

[Hazekiah]

For anyone who missed this interesting and important detail:


Following hours of uncertainty during which many media outlets reported the shooter's identity as Ryan Lanza, officials identified the gunman as Adam Lanza (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/adam-lanza-sandy-hook-elementary-school-newtown-connecticut_n_2303393.html?1355521117). According to WNBC, Adam Lanza was carrying his brothers' identification, which led to the initial misidentification. Adam Lanza's brother, 24-year-old Ryan Lanza, is being questioned by police in New Jersey.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/connecticut-elementary-shooter_n_2302541.html#slide=1887056

[Presideo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-H0z0aCAAAszPs.jpg:large

[Elke]

From what I can gather these shootings are happening in an ecosystem. There is no single solution be it more guns, gun control or access to mental health.

I think one thing that should become mandatory is for each teacher to get a proper introduction into teen and adolescent psychology. School shooters aren't always suffering from a mental illness, but the strain put on a growing and changing brain combined with n environmental factors (there are so many of them it's impossible to ever fully comprehend the phenomenon of school or workplace shootings completely) can lead a child with a healthy home life and no prior or developing illnesses to snap as easily as a child who actually is suffering from a mental illness. Understanding the psychology of teenagers and adolescents can lead to spotting early warning signs and taking them seriously.

[Shnoorum]

(flame suit on)

Wow. Now, I really haven't read much on this story yet (just had my own family loss, so really not in the mood), so I'm not going to say whether I believe this guy had extreme issues versus just being a bad egg. But I can't let your statement go...are you just completely and utterly oblivious to how the human body works? When I read your above quote, I see "Alzheimer's is bullshit, those old fucks are just forgetful". Like it or not, people can actually be truly incapable of what you or I would call rational thought. Sometimes the result relatively harmless, but sometimes, it can lead to violence towards others. Your attitude towards mental disorders is painfully ignorant, and it's views like this that make it so difficult to try to actually help people.

Looking back at my post it was a pretty ignorant thing to say and I appologize. However I can't help but feel animosity to all these murderers, regardless of why they did it. I just get tired of hearing about all these shootings and murders. It seems to just be getting worse and worse. At any rate, sorry for the comment and sorry to hear about your loss

[DigitalChaos]

I am reading all these posts about the laws people want to enact and am wondering if anyone realizes that the shooter took his mom's legally owned handguns to commit the crime. Gotta love irrational emotional responses!

[DigitalChaos]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-H0z0aCAAAszPs.jpg:large
Dumbest stats ever. Look at rates, not absolute numbers. That's a classic trick that people use when trying to make a point that they are otherwise unable to. Only the gullible believe it.

Secondly, if you are concerned with "murder" you should look at... murder. Not a collection of things like suicide. Go look at homicide rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm... :)


Finally, this image also comes in a different flavor with a glock. Somehow, all the numbers are different. Anyone know where can I get a glock with that finish? It is hilarious.

[allegro]

I am reading all these posts about the laws people want to enact and am wondering if anyone realizes that the shooter took his mom's legally owned handguns to commit the crime. Gotta love irrational emotional responses!

Yeah, but I guess at least one of those guns was a Glock. Nobody "needs" a Glock. Sure, they're "fun" to those of us who like to go shoot up old laptops at a range, but not "fun" enough to worry about keeping them legal. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if possession of anything bigger than a revolver got you 100 years in prison.

I own two revolvers. One is a .22, one is a .357. Each revolver holds exactly six bullets. Six. There is no magazine. If I run out of bullets, I have to stop and dump the spent shells and individually load six more bullets. Both revolvers are "double-action" which means all I have to do is pull a trigger to fire the revolver (I don't have to cock the gun). However, it takes several seconds to fire off each round. My point? It'd be pretty hard to knock off a shitload of people in a small amount of time with a six gun.

But GANG members are carrying Glocks and such, now. Why?

Scarface and his Little Friend. Looks "cool," and they don't have to actually "aim" (or be any good at shooting) - they just fire off a shitload of shots from a giant magazine.

Your best "protection" at home? Shotgun.

[allegro]

disregard, sorry.

[orestes]

I am reading all these posts about the laws people want to enact and am wondering if anyone realizes that the shooter took his mom's legally owned handguns to commit the crime. Gotta love irrational emotional responses!

A .223 caliber assault rifle is not a handgun.

[PooPooMeowChow]

EDit: shit double post.

[PooPooMeowChow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Obamo gets inaugurated for 2nd term in Jan, gun control will be his first major legislation.

EDIT: Also, guess who doesn't care if guns are legal or not?

Criminals.....

[Presideo]

Dumbest stats ever. Look at rates, not absolute numbers. That's a classic trick that people use when trying to make a point that they are otherwise unable to. Only the gullible believe it.
Then give me stats that discredit that picture instead of childishly shrugging away facts as 'dumb'. Do you think gunshot deaths per capita look any better for the U.S?


Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm... :)
That's because those countries are models for gun control that the U.S should copy. There's a reason why Columbia and Mexico aren't listed; we don't want to be like them, we want to be like Japan and Great Britain.

Go back to comparing gun control to 20's-era prohibition and Chinese law, then backtrack on the statements for half a page. That worked really well for you before. But seriously, make a clear, concise argument instead of going all over the map with your rhetoric. Einstein once said that if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough. You should take heed of that quote in the future.

[allegro]

Also, guess who doesn't care if guns are legal or not?

Criminals.....
Well, yeah, exactly. The gang members with guns get them from the same place they get the illegal drugs. It's just as easy to deliver giant crates of shiny brand-new assault weapons made in other countries as it is to deliver giant crates of marijuana, heroin and cocaine from other countries.

What's missing from this current discussion is that we feel really helpless to protect ourselves and our families from violence in this country. In the Chicago area, a woman stabbed her own 7-yr-old son *100 times* and then stabbed the 5-yr-old girl she was babysitting 50 times. In NYC, a nanny stabbed two little kids to death. Even the babysitters and nannies with a ton of good references can stab your kids to death? A sleepy little town in Connecticut isn't safe for Kindergarteners? This seems to be about much more than weapons; it seems like everything is off-kilter, nothing is safe. But, was it ever safe? I'm not sure. I was pretty much raised by babysitters, so when we read about babysitters stabbing children to death, my mother (who was a single mother who had to work) cries at the thought of it.

[DigitalChaos]

Yeah, but I guess at least one of those guns was a Glock. Nobody "needs" a Glock. Sure, they're "fun" to those of us who like to go shoot up old laptops at a range, but not "fun" enough to worry about keeping them legal. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if possession of anything bigger than a revolver got you 100 years in prison.

I own two revolvers. One is a .22, one is a .357. Each revolver holds exactly six bullets. Six. There is no magazine. If I run out of bullets, I have to stop and dump the spent shells and individually load six more bullets. Both revolvers are "double-action" which means all I have to do is pull a trigger to fire the revolver (I don't have to cock the gun). However, it takes several seconds to fire off each round. My point? It'd be pretty hard to knock off a shitload of people in a small amount of time with a six gun.

But GANG members are carrying Glocks and such, now. Why?

Scarface and his Little Friend. Looks "cool," and they don't have to actually "aim" (or be any good at shooting) - they just fire off a shitload of shots from a giant magazine.

Your best "protection" at home? Shotgun.

You just described why a glock is better for home defense :) Faster to go from locked gun to loaded when you need it. Unless you are one of those people who keep a loaded gun around the house?

Glocks perform on par with guns 2-4x the price. That is why tons of people have them, not just criminals. Hell, that's exactly why I bought one :) If you want to use the guilt by association fallacy, you might want to know that revolvers are THE most commonly confiscated guns.

[DigitalChaos]

A .223 caliber assault rifle is not a handgun.
...
dude took his mom's 2 handguns (Glock and Sig) and a 22 rifle. I recall that he left the rifle in the car and did the damage with the handguns? Doesn't really matter though. The rifle was also legally owned by his mom.

Many people are looking to go after handguns with their emotional response (see "god bless america" graphic a few posts up)

[DigitalChaos]

Then give me stats that discredit that picture instead of childishly shrugging away facts as 'dumb'. Do you think gunshot deaths per capita look any better for the U.S?



"I can't prove my point without heavy flaws. Can you prove anything against my point so I don't have to make a solid case? I don't understand how burden of proof works."

[slave2thewage]

Why on earth would you need a handgun to protect your home? You have knives and frying pans to knock them out just hanging ALL OVER THE FREAKIN' PLACE.

[Presideo]

"I can't prove my point without heavy flaws. Can you prove anything against my point so I don't have to make a solid case? I don't understand how burden of proof works."
Facts = Heavy Flaws? This is news to me. Maybe it's my "LIBERAL MEDIA SPIN" that you don't like. Again, show evidence into why those facts are wrong. If I give you stats, you've gotta give me something solid to debase my stats if you want to discredit them. You can't just say, "Those stats are dumb because they don't adhere to my side of the story." This isn't elementary school.

Also, do you really think you need more than six bullets to defend yourself in a home invasion? Do you think it's a movie? One bullet is a warning shot, which usually gets an intruder to leave (they want your valuables, not a gunfight.) The other five shouldn't be fired unless you're sure you can fatally wound the intruder. If you don't hit him in five shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun in the first place; you clearly don't know how to use it.

[DigitalChaos]

Well, yeah, exactly. The gang members with guns get them from the same place they get the illegal drugs. It's just as easy to deliver giant crates of shiny brand-new assault weapons made in other countries as it is to deliver giant crates of marijuana, heroin and cocaine from other countries.

What's missing from this current discussion is that we feel really helpless to protect ourselves and our families from violence in this country. In the Chicago area, a woman stabbed her own 7-yr-old son *100 times* and then stabbed the 5-yr-old girl she was babysitting 50 times. In NYC, a nanny stabbed two little kids to death. Even the babysitters and nannies with a ton of good references can stab your kids to death? A sleepy little town in Connecticut isn't safe for Kindergarteners? This seems to be about much more than weapons; it seems like everything is off-kilter, nothing is safe. But, was it ever safe? I'm not sure. I was pretty much raised by babysitters, so when we read about babysitters stabbing children to death, my mother (who was a single mother who had to work) cries at the thought of it.

exactly. the issue that has everyone up in arms* goes WAY beyond guns.



*lol

[DigitalChaos]

Facts = Heavy Flaws? This is news to me. Maybe it's my "LIBERAL MEDIA SPIN" that you don't like. Again, show evidence into why those facts are wrong. If I give you stats, you've gotta give me something solid to debase my stats if you want to discredit them. You can't just say, "Those stats are dumb because they don't adhere to my side of the story." This isn't elementary school.

Also, do you really think you need more than six bullets to defend yourself in a home invasion? Do you think it's a movie? One bullet is a warning shot, which usually gets an intruder to leave (they want your valuables, not a gunfight.) The other five shouldn't be fired unless you're sure you can fatally wound the intruder. If you don't hit him in five shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun in the first place; you clearly don't know how to use it.

It's ok dude. I wasn't expecting you to back yourself up with solid data. My point was that your data is heavily flawed. I already explained why. Do tell me about elementary school while trying to make your point with pictures again!

Your views of "home defense" are insanely lacking. A "warning shot"?!?! You must know very little about gun laws. Ironic, considering you seem to want more of them. You do not brandish a gun (or fire it for that matter) unless you are going to kill someone. Intent to kill someone in self-defense has a very strict set of requirements. Otherwise, you land in jail. If you feel a "warning shot" is sufficient (compared to killing) means you do NOT meet the requirements. Your dumb ass would be in jail in most states. :lol: You must also have no idea that you are responsible for EVERY bullet you fire. Bullets go far. "Warning shot" is more like "I accidentally shot someone that I didn't intend."

wow... Please do tell me more about your expert view in home defense! You are basically a text generator for this thing http://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Wonka/

[Presideo]

It's ok dude. I wasn't expecting you to back yourself up with solid data. My point was that your data is heavily flawed. I already explained why. Do tell me about elementary school while trying to make your point with pictures again!
You said that I should look at the rates, not absolute numbers. Ok, give me the rates (I'm sure you have them next to your Glock and bible - I'll wait for you to get them.)


Your views of "home defense" are insanely lacking. A "warning shot"?!?! You must know very little about gun laws. Ironic, considering you seem to want more of them. You do not brandish a gun (or fire it for that matter) unless you are going to kill someone. Intent to kill someone in self-defense has a very strict set of requirements. Otherwise, you land in jail. If you feel a "warning shot" is sufficient (compared to killing) means you do NOT meet the requirements. Your dumb ass would be in jail in most states. :lol: You must also have no idea that you are responsible for EVERY bullet you fire. Bullets go far. "Warning shot" is more like "I accidentally shot someone that I didn't intend."
If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws. If you have to worry about every legality levied on firing a gun in a time of survival, why have one in the first place?


wow... Please do tell me more about your expert view in home defense! You are basically a text generator for this thing http://www.quickmeme.com/Condescending-Wonka/
There's this cool website called Reddit that might be more your speed. Go back to the kid table and leave the adults to their discussion.

[Magtig]

The shooter used four handguns at the school; the .223 rifle was left in the car, but here's the real shocker: he was really intelligent and had a history of mental illness.

edit: Also, he tried to legally buy an assault rifle several days before the attack, and was rebuffed.

[jessamineny]

The reported facts keep changing -- they're saying now that the assault rifle was actually inside the school and used in the shooting. There was a fourth gun in the car.


You said that I should look at the rates, not absolute numbers. Ok, give me the rates

He had a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)to them in his original post. Scroll down to the chart "By country" and then sort "Rate" by "descending"

[DigitalChaos]

You said that I should look at the rates, not absolute numbers. Ok, give me the rates (I'm sure you have them next to your Glock and bible - I'll wait for you to get them.)


If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws. If you have to worry about every legality levied on firing a gun in a time of survival, why have one in the first place?


There's this cool website called Reddit that might be more your speed. Go back to the kid table and leave the adults to their discussion.

"glock and bible" ahahah. Yea..... no. I enjoy your sophomoric attempts to stereotype. I bet that counts as quality debate for you. Such an "adult"!!! I already linked you to intentional homocide rates. That, alone, destroys your hyperbolic pictures.

Yea, who expects a responsible adult to know the laws. Laws are are too hard to read. Can't they make them in picture format? I don't know what the current laws are but... Eh fuck it, give me more laws!


please continue. I just got some more awesome quotes from you. "If someone breaks into your home I don't think you're gonna be worrying about breaking gun laws" may indeed be the best one yet from someone wanting more gun laws.

[DigitalChaos]

The shooter used four handguns at the school; the .223 rifle was left in the car, but here's the real shocker: he was really intelligent and had a history of mental illness.

edit: Also, he tried to legally buy an assault rifle several days before the attack, and was rebuffed.
Yea, stuff keeps changing. So far it still looks like all guns were legally acquired (aka the gun control "worked").
The mental illness part is a very big part. Why do so many people take the incredibly selfish stance of "taking guns away will fix the problem"?? Very few are concerned with helping the people who have mental illness. Nevermind the fact that many of these people are bent on causing harm, with or without guns. A crazy idea would be to make mental care more easy to access than guns are... and NOT by increasing the barrier to guns because you think it protects YOU.

A much better handling of mental health would fix so many other issues in this country.

[Presideo]

He had a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)to them in his original post. Scroll down to the chart "By country" and then sort "Rate" by "descending"
Ok, I did the legwork. Here's the homicide rates for the countries mentioned in my image.

Japan 0.3
Britain 1.6
Switzerland 0.7
Canada 1.6
Isreal 2.1
Sweden 1.0
Germany 0.8
U.S. 4.2

This supports my original image, it doesn't discredit it. I assumed he had stats to discredit the image.

[DigitalChaos]

Ok, I did the legwork. Here's the homicide rates for the countries mentioned in my image.

Japan 0.3
Britain 1.6
Switzerland 0.7
Canada 1.6
Isreal 2.1
Sweden 1.0
Germany 0.8
U.S. 4.2

This supports my original image, it doesn't discredit it. I assumed he had stats to discredit the image.

The numbers aren't so hyperbolic, are they? :)
Gun control is good. I don't know anyone who will disagree with gun control with those numbers. Don't go spreading around insanely flawed data, it discredits you and everyone else trying to make the case.

[Tiz]

If this tragedy does not evoke serious gun control reform -- what will?

[Presideo]

The numbers aren't so hyperbolic, are they? :)
Gun control is good. I don't know anyone who will disagree with gun control with those numbers. Don't go spreading around insanely flawed data, it discredits you and everyone else trying to make the case.
Are you saying those homicide rates look any better than the yearly deaths by gunshot? Don't kid yourself.

The U.S. had 10,680 more deaths by gunshot last year than Japan.
The U.S has a 3.9% higher homicide rate than Japan.

Either way you say present these facts, they aren't good. But hey, we have a lower homicide rate than Honduras and El Salvador; I guess we should hold our heads high and proud about that fact.

[Sutekh]

Thirdly, that seems to be a pretty small list of countries. Why not any of the others? Hrmm... :)


Because the information on non-first world democracies wouldn't be pertinent to the point being made

The point is to show America has a problem with guns

By showing the amount of deaths in similar countries, you illustrate how much of an anomaly America is when it comes to this issue

They are all western (or western-style) liberal democracies & make for sensible comparisons... What would be the point of throwing in the numbers for the Democratic republic of Congo? That would be pointless because it would say more about how many people die in a brutal war

Those deaths wouldn't be from private gun ownership, they would be from war, and as such the data is not relevant

The trick is to think about things, and not just clutch at the first chance to dismiss them. If you'd thought about it a bit longer, I'm sure you'd have realised everything I just wrote.

But it is out of date... there's a clue in the name of one of the states

[Deepvoid]

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sickened by the fact that people are taking advantage of this situation, and using it as an excuse to get riled up about gun control. It's the same routine. Some tragedy like this happens, people get riled up, and two, three weeks later, people forget, except those who actually lost people in the situation. If you think something should happen, please, go out and try to make it happen. Don't become a part of the fad.

Personally though, I really don't think there's much anyone can do to make us safer. I mean, if this guy didn't have a gun, he could have easily done like this guy and used a knife.
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/385705/man-stabs-22-children-in-china-authorities
What then? Do we call for knife control? Some of you may disagree with me, but still, that doesn't change the fact that everyone should love their friends, family and people in general as much as possible.

Except that none of the kids in China died.

When is it a good time to talk about gun control? Is Tuesday afternoon fine with you?
People that don't wanna talk about control now, don't want to talk about it ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

[aggroculture]

"For one segment of American society, guns symbolize honor, human mastery over nature, and individual self-sufficiency. By opposing gun control, individuals affirm the value of these meanings and the vision of the good society that they construct. For another segment of American society, however, guns connote something else: the perpetuation of illicit social hierarchies, the elevation of force over reason, and the expression of collective indifference to the well-being of strangers. These individuals instinctively support gun control as a means of repudiating these significations and of promoting an alternative vision of the good society that features equality, social solidarity, and civilized nonagression.

These competing cultural visions, we will argue, are what drive the gun control debate. They are what dispose individuals to accept certain empirically grounded public-safety arguments and to reject others. Indeed, the meanings that guns and gun control express are sufficient to justify most individuals’ positions on gun control independently of their beliefs about guns and safety. It follows that the only meaningful gun control debate is one that explicitly addresses whether and how the underlying cultural visions at stake should be embodied in American law."





http://boingboing.net/2012/12/14/what-science-says-about-gun-co.html (http://boingboing.net/2012/12/14/what-science-says-about-gun-co.html)

[DigitalChaos]

Are you saying those homicide rates look any better than the yearly deaths by gunshot? Don't kid yourself.

The U.S. had 10,680 more deaths by gunshot last year than Japan.
The U.S has a 3.9% higher homicide rate than Japan.

Either way you say present these facts, they aren't good. But hey, we have a lower homicide rate than Honduras and El Salvador; I guess we should hold our heads high and proud about that fact.

Yup, I am. After you remove all other forms of death (that the graphic incorrectly calls "murder") and factor in population... the difference is nowhere as large as your image tries to indicate. It's clear you want to hold on to any reason possible to "prove me wrong." You are now venturing into fabrication of my words. At this rate, you will be disagreeing with gun control because I agree with it. :)

Give it up dude, you've sucked this one dry. Here, I'll give you a new reason to keep ranting your irrational and excessively emotional fallacy... I will even use images and stereotype to keep it on your playing field. have fun!

http://i.imgur.com/qZZFx.jpg



http://i.imgur.com/h56qi.jpg

[Sutekh]

n/m (ten characters)

[DigitalChaos]

Wait what... are you saying the US doesn't have an anomalously high firearm murder rate compared to other first world democracies?
well fine, i will edit out my response too!

[DigitalChaos]

Here is the cliffnotes of the situation:



1- Presideo's numbers:
http://i.imgur.com/htKXW.jpg


2- Much more honest interpretation:
http://i.imgur.com/73GpC.jpg




3- Presideo: "omg I am so angry, you must like bibles"

[Presideo]

Yup, I am. After you remove all other forms of death (that the graphic incorrectly calls "murder") and factor in population... the difference is nowhere as large as your image tries to indicate. It's clear you want to hold on to any reason possible to "prove me wrong." You are now venturing into fabrication of my words. At this rate, you will be disagreeing with gun control because I agree with it. :)
You say to factor in country population into the image about gunshot deaths? Ok.

(From Wikipedia)
314,936,000 is the U.S. population.
127,547,000 is the Japanese population.

If I were to double the Japanese population to fit the size of the U.S. population, and also double Japan's deaths by gunshot, that would equal up to 96 deaths. I could even add 1,000 more deaths just for the fuck of it and it still wouldn't come close to that 10,000+ total for the U.S.

The image said nothing about those stats being strictly homicides, and, to my knowledge, it isn't an optical illusion. I'd expect everybody to understand that suicides were a part of that stat. Did it need an asterisk stating that suicides were factored in? No, it should be common sense. If you assumed it was some kind of liberal trickery, that's your fault. Even if all of those gunshot deaths were suicides, it would still be a critical problem brought upon by lax gun laws. The point being made doesn't change.

Also, sorry to offend you by saying that you likely own a bible. I hit way below the belt with that comment. It was insensitive and tasteless for me to even begin to assume that you own both a gun and a bible. I'm sure there's no actual correlation between the two, and to even suggest such a think was a huge misstep on my part. I should stick to posting links for Willy Wonka meme's at an attempt at humor.

Go ahead and post more image macro's, though. They're surprisingly more effective than your words.

[xmd 5a]

Whether raw numbers or standardised rates, fact is the data shows something quite significant.

So the options are:
a) Do nothing, pretend tragedies like these are natural disasters.

b) Stop whinging about reds under the bed and socialist-commie-Nazis and do something, whether that be improving access to healthcare for everyone or instituting gun control (no one's saying outright prohibition is the immediate answer) legislation. Or, ideally, a combination of both

(Or we could keep posting unfunny image macros from the internet's most notorious hive of misogyny, rape apologism and thinly veiled pedophilia...)

[Sutekh]

well fine, i will edit out my response too!

If only you would take a bit more time to think things over & then edit your responses

[Presideo]

And for the record, I personally posted the stats to both those bar charts. I still don't see how the second chart disproves the stats of the first chart - both stats tell the same story.

I'm also not nearly as mad as you think I am. I've been apart of ETS since 2007, and am no stranger to civil, mature debate. But when the Reddit meme's and macro's start popping out, there's really nowhere to go but down.

[DigitalChaos]

suicides

Suicide rates have very little to do with the topic of this thread (Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting) and you didn't include suicide rates of any other countries.

Gun control is going to have very little impact on suicide rates, this makes your goal flawed. This is my entire point: don't use horrible statistics, it discredits you.

Brady campaign actually has a nearly identical image that tries to call suicides "murders" http://i.imgur.com/tbFcj.jpg

[DigitalChaos]

But when the Reddit meme's and macro's start popping out, there's really nowhere to go but down.
Interesting... cause i didnt post any until a few posts back and i posted them very facetiously. I'd say your posts went down hill way before that.

[jessamineny]

I am admittedly interpreting someone else's words, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe DigitalChaos is disagreeing that gun control has an effect on homicide rates -- he actually said gun control is good in this post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61250#post61250).

It seems he is trying to point out that the "10,000 deaths" graphic that was posted is misleading. For two reasons:
-- It overstates the differences among the countries listed. He doesn't seem to be arguing that there isn't a striking statistical difference. Just that by using total deaths (and including suicides) instead of comparing homicide rates, it looks far more disparate. (That's why he posted those two bar graphs (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61266#post61266)... to show the difference is not so striking, not to prove there isn't a difference or that gun control doesn't have an effect.)
-- That the countries in the graphic were chosen specifically because their gun deaths are so low, which also serves to make the differences seem so striking.

I can see both sides of the second point. I'm not really posting this because I feel like I have a stake in this debate. I just felt like DigitalChaos' points might be getting lost somehow. FWIW

[Presideo]

Suicide rates have very little to do with the topic of this thread (Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting) and you didn't include suicide rates of any other countries.
Nobody committed suicide in the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting? This is news to me.


Gun control is going to have very little impact on suicide rates, this makes your goal flawed. This is my entire point: don't use horrible statistics, it discredits you.

From a study by the Journal of Trauma - http://bit.ly/UQZnCp (the NY Times also ran an article about the study)

US residents of all ages and both sexes are more likely to die from suicide when they live in areas where more households contain firearms. A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide; rates of nonfirearm suicide were not associated with levels of household firearm ownership.


Interesting... cause i didnt post any until a few posts back and i posted them very facetiously. I'd say your posts went down hill way before that.
Just because I disagree with you and tell you to come up with better ways to support your claim, instead of comparing gun control to Chinese law and '20s-era prohibition, doesn't mean I'm being malicious. I've been very clear and articulate in addressing my criticisms with you. If the bible jab struck a nerve then I honestly apologize. But when you bring meme's and macro's to a serious discussion you're just begging for a derailment.

[DigitalChaos]

I am admittedly interpreting someone else's words, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe DigitalChaos is disagreeing that gun control has an effect on homicide rates -- he actually said gun control is good in this post (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61250#post61250).

It seems he is trying to point out that the "10,000 deaths" graphic that was posted is misleading. For two reasons:
-- It overstates the differences among the countries listed. He doesn't seem to be arguing that there isn't a striking statistical difference. Just that by using total deaths (and including suicides) instead of comparing homicide rates, it looks far more disparate. (That's why he posted those two bar graphs (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61266#post61266)... to show the difference is not so striking, not to prove there isn't a difference or that gun control doesn't have an effect.)
-- That the countries in the graphic were chosen specifically because their gun deaths are so low, which also serves to make the differences seem so striking.

I can see both sides of the second point. I'm not really posting this because I feel like I have a stake in this debate. I just felt like DigitalChaos' points might be getting lost somehow. FWIW
exactly
It's about using sound data to support your stance. Gun control can work when implemented properly. Don't discredit the rest of us by presenting horrible data that is easy to shoot down. We are plagued by shitty data that gets wrapped up into images and goes viral on the internet and even gets on the news. In times like this, people get extra emotional and much less strict about what data they are willing to stand behind. Hell, I saw Rob Sheridan post the exact same thing on twitter before Presideo did and I facepalmed. He is usually pretty good about posting solid statistics.

[Presideo]

Wall of quotes incoming...


(the "10,000 deaths" graphic) overstates the differences among the countries listed. He doesn't seem to be arguing that there isn't a striking statistical difference. Just that by using total deaths (and including suicides) instead of comparing homicide rates, it looks far more disparate. (That's why he posted those two bar graphs (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61266#post61266)... to show the difference is not so striking, not to prove there isn't a difference or that gun control doesn't have an effect.)
Then I guess we differ greatly on what's considered 'striking'. Like I said before, I find a 10,680 difference between gunshot deaths in U.S and Japan to be just as shocking as a 3.9% difference in homicide rate. Even using the chart, the U.S. number is far greater than the others. Since one image seems to be the problem, lets throw it out of the discussion and use the statistics for homicide rate. The facts don't change at all.


That the countries in the graphic were chosen specifically because their gun deaths are so low, which also serves to make the differences seem so striking.
This has also been addressed by me and others...


Because the information on non-first world democracies wouldn't be pertinent to the point being made. The point is to show America has a problem with guns. By showing the amount of deaths in similar countries, you illustrate how much of an anomaly America is when it comes to this issue. They are all western (or western-style) liberal democracies & make for sensible comparisons... What would be the point of throwing in the numbers for the Democratic republic of Congo? That would be pointless because it would say more about how many people die in a brutal war. Those deaths wouldn't be from private gun ownership, they would be from war, and as such the data is not relevant.

I can understand where he's coming from, but the way he's making his points is a total convoluted clusterfuck. There was an equal problem when he compared Chinese law to U.S. law, then stated one post later that he wasn't making the comparison (although he was the only person to bring up China in the first place.)


Not sure if you noticed but, prohibition doesn't work very well in the USA. China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China. Unless you want to bring in tons of human rights violations to enforce gun prohibition... it won't be very effective.
Less than one hour later...

I'm not the one making the comparison. I am pointing out how bad it is to compare China and USA laws. and gun control does not equal gun prohibition... Talk about selectively creating a narrative. :rolleyes:

[DF118]

And are you saying that hunters who are responsible and have enough sense to keep their guns locked up and unloaded in the house, and who have taught their own children gun safety and responsibility, are child-killers?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Bunch of rednecks teaching their redneck children to shoot things. What a waste of time.

[Sutekh]

Consider my hands thrown up. The point is... there's no point in making things illegal? I understand he's saying that it may be unwise to compare processes in China with those in the USA, as they are very different societies & I concur with that. But what human rights violations would you have to incur to restrict the sales of certain firearms? Specifically?

Also this middle sentence
"China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China."

???

The gist of this is ...what? Surely he is saying that prohibition doesn't work the same in every society.

Except he has insisted he's not making that comparison

[DigitalChaos]

Wall of quotes incoming...


Then I guess we differ greatly on what's considered 'striking'. Like I said before, I find a 10,680 difference between gunshot deaths in U.S and Japan to be just as shocking as a 3.9% difference in homicide rate. Even using the chart, the U.S. number is far greater than the others. Since one image seems to be the problem, lets throw it out of the discussion and use the statistics for homicide rate. The facts don't change at all.


This has also been addressed by me and others...



I can understand where he's coming from, but the way he's making his points is a total convoluted clusterfuck. There was an equal problem when he compared Chinese law to U.S. law, then stated one post later that he wasn't making the comparison (although he was the only person to bring up China in the first place.)


Less than one hour later...

I won't deny that the posts may be confusing. I am usually distracted by at least 3 other things when making most posts. Many times via phone.
You are now going back to a totally different topic. I figured most people would read it as "I'm not the one who started making the comparison"


PS - Your bible comment doesn't bother me. I found it hilarious that you continued to try and stereotype with references to loving religion and hating of "liberal" things. You couldn't be further from the truth.

[jessamineny]

Then I guess we differ greatly on what's considered 'striking'. Like I said before, I find a 10,680 difference between gunshot deaths in U.S and Japan to be just as shocking as a 3.9% difference in homicide rate. Even using the chart, the U.S. number is far greater than the others. Since one image seems to be the problem, lets throw it out of the discussion and use the statistics for homicide rate. The facts don't change at all.

He is not arguing the facts (at least when in reference to that graphic). He's arguing, as I said, that he difference is not as striking. He's not saying there isn't a difference. Or even that the difference isn't striking. Look at the two bar charts and see the visual representation of the of the immense proportional difference. That is his point.

[Sutekh]

Yeah he's saying it's bad - but not as bad as some people make out.

They're spreading misinformation to further their sinister agenda of reducing the number of weapons and spree killings in society - those motherfuckers

[DigitalChaos]

Consider my hands thrown up. The point is... there's no point in making things illegal? I understand he's saying that it may be unwise to compare processes in China with those in the USA, as they are very different societies & I concur with that. But what human rights violations would you have to incur to restrict the sales of certain firearms? Specifically?

Also this middle sentence
"China also has banned drugs but the USA has LOTS more drug use than China."

???

The gist of this is ...what? Surely he is saying that prohibition doesn't work the same in every society.

Except he has insisted he's not making that comparison
http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61171#post61171

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[Sutekh]

And what qualities am I incorrectly attributing to you? Not understanding what point you're trying to make is not an Association Fallacy.

[pakkopaita]

The real problem with these shootings is the cops. You'd figure a mob composed of some of our heroic gun owners would be the first at the scene, diligently protecting our great nation and their fellow citizens from tragedy, utilizing all that vigorous training they had and stretching the whole of their mile-wide breadth of knowledge regarding firearms, but wh-whaattt? They're not the First at the scene? Why would they wait for the cops? If your home is broken into, there's no reason to expect you'd have time to call the fuckin' cops. No reason to expect that they would be any quicker to get to a school. The school should have been well stocked with AR-15s in the first place. Were the children not at target practice when the shooter came in with his two, tiny, cute little hand guns? I'm disappointed in you America. You think stuff like this would happen if we just took a little extra time to install firearm safety kits in our school halls? And if we relied a little less on the police and little more on our capable, level-headed, well-trained, background-checked, gun-owning citizens?

[PQHooligan]

^^^ Exactly. I want to read just ONE story of some asshole busting in to a hospital with a rifle and someone busting through a window and yelling 'NO SIR. MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WILL SHOW YOU JUSTICE.'

Guess what?

http://news.yahoo.com/police-kill-gunman-alabama-hospital-161945460.html

Also, this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-student-plotting-mass-shooting-police-article-1.1221032

[DigitalChaos]

And what qualities am I incorrectly attributing to you? Not understanding what point you're trying to make is not an Association Fallacy.
none



http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61129#post61129
- China
- effective drug prohibition
- USA

[Sutekh]

I honestly don't think you're daft... and without being arrogant, I know I'm smart enough to remember to breathe, so I'm just going to assume there is some irreconcilable difference in the way we respectively communicate

[orestes]

The real problem with these shootings is the cops. You'd figure a mob composed of some of our heroic gun owners would be the first at the scene, diligently protecting our great nation and their fellow citizens from tragedy, utilizing all that vigorous training they had and stretching the whole of their mile-wide breadth of knowledge regarding firearms, but wh-whaattt? They're not the First at the scene? Why would they wait for the cops? If your home is broken into, there's no reason to expect you'd have time to call the fuckin' cops. No reason to expect that they would be any quicker to get to a school. The school should have been well stocked with AR-15s in the first place. Were the children not at target practice when the shooter came in with his two, tiny, cute little hand guns? I'm disappointed in you America. You think stuff like this would happen if we just took a little extra time to install firearm safety kits in our school halls? And if we relied a little less on the police and little more on our capable, level-headed, well-trained, background-checked, gun-owning citizens?

Me thinks you've seen one too many hyper masculine American action movies.

[pakkopaita]

Me thinks you've seen one too many hyper masculine American action movies.

Yeah, I'm first in line to see those.

[DigitalChaos]

more people need to be talking about this:
http://qz.com/37069/the-deadliest-school-massacre-in-us-history-was-in-1927-why-its-aftermath-matters-now/

[M1ke]

This seems relevant:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/15/china-stabbing-school.html


A man wielding a knife stabbed an elderly woman and then 22 children outside an elementary school in China on Friday before being subdued by security guards.


At press time, none of the children have died.

Knife violence (while still horrible) is less bad than gun violence.

[onthewall2983]

https://twitter.com/DearShirley/statuses/279953994124783618

[Shnoorum]

https://twitter.com/DearShirley/statuses/279953994124783618

Oh Jesus fucking christ. They really dont have a level they won't stoop to. I'm all for free speech and everything but for fuck sake, really?

[Fixer808]

If they do show up, I'm pretty sure it'll end up with some savage beatings of WBC members. There isn't anything they won't do for attention, it's sick.

[DigitalChaos]

Aren't they lawyers who just troll people into violating their rights which opens to the door to a lawsuit (and a bunch of money)?

[Iran_Ed]

I was going to avoid this topic mainly because I don't feel as well informed as many in this thread, and don't have the time to fight a flame war if one starts.
This is like the third major shooting this year correct? Every time this happens gun control is immediately brought up, and nothing ever happens.
The media swarms like flies, political leaders talk their bullshit, the victims are mourned and everyone moves on. If that sounds horribly cold and numb
I'm sorry, I don't mean for it to. Why does anyone feel like this time things will be pushed further? Because the victims were children?
This country loves its guns, and it makes a lot of money off of them legally and illegally. Guns to me seem to be like smoking, they've been made sexy,
and all of the unfavorable aspects be damned. When that's the stand you take on a problem like this, incidents like this will happen.

Does the mental state of the shooter really matter? If it does shouldn't the fact that he was able to do what he did be damning enough?
Get hands on weapons, gather up ammo, go to a school and unload. Just think what someone of full mental capacity could do.

As I said before I'm not as informed as others. I've been avoiding news coverage because whether they realize it or not the media is glorifying
this guy in their own strange way. Now everybody knows who this guy was and everything else about him, he'll never be forgotten.

[allegro]

This is the front page of the New York Times today:

245

[allegro]

Also, this essay is very very good:

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

[DF118]

Also, this essay is very very good:

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1

I would so love to slap that little bastard in the face a bunch of times.

[Deepvoid]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8922260

According to the NY Times: In past 6 mo, more Americans killed by guns than COMBINED total of dead Yanks in Iraq, Afghan & all terrorist acts of past 25.

[Shnoorum]

One of the teachers hid her first graders in a cupboard, told the gunman they were in the gym, then got mercilessly gunned down. I don't know why this man did what he did but I'm sorry, I know I got flamed for this kind of talk earlier but there is absolutely no excuse I could ever find forgivable for what this man did. These were 5 year old kids. I'm glad this fucker killed himself but saddened by the fact that he could have got so much worse of a punishment if he were still alive. I need to stop reading about this story. Knowing that there are sick sadistic fucks in the world like this makes my blood boil

[allegro]

^^ If you were reading about this, you'd know that none of the kids were 5 years old (they were all 6 and 7) and that the shooter was 20, living at home with his mother, and likely had a severe personality disorder where he did not have a grasp of reality.


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8922260

According to the NY Times: In past 6 mo, more Americans killed by guns than COMBINED total of dead Yanks in Iraq, Afghan & all terrorist acts of past 25.
And that's just counting the gang shootings in Chicago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

[marodi]

https://twitter.com/DearShirley/statuses/279953994124783618

"You are one of the most disgusting people on Earth,@DearShirley (https://twitter.com/DearShirley). I wish it was you and your hate group instead of those beautiful children."

My feelings exactly.

[joplinpicasso]

http://betabeat.com/2012/12/anonymous-goes-after-westboro-baptist-church-members-over-plans-to-picket-sandy-hook-funerals/

[onthewall2983]

Honestly, if that threat was aimed at anyone and I mean anyone else, I would disapprove.

[Elke]

I'm glad this fucker killed himself but saddened by the fact that he could have got so much worse of a punishment if he were still alive. I need to stop reading about this story. Knowing that there are sick sadistic fucks in the world like this makes my blood boil

You do see the irony of your statement, don't you?

When it comes to the relationship between mental health and crime, I'm afraid most people are stuck in that kind of mode of thinking. And yet... if someone becomes suddenly violent or severely delusional because he has a brain tumor pushing against centers of his brain, would we be so quick to say: Oh, but he should have been able to stop himself? It seems that the more science understands about the human mind, the less understanding we become as a society. Madness used to be a perfectly reasonable excuse for commiting crimes, but now that we finally begin to understand the underlying processes, suddenly it no longer is.

[orestes]

Yeah, I'm first in line to see those.

Oh, you were being serious? I'm sorry, your post was so full of hyperbole I thought you were taking the piss. Please tell me how having schools supplied with AR-15s would 1) prevent a future gun massacre and 2) instill a safe environment for children.

Everyone needs to read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-once-again-cast-in-role-of-comforter-in-chief/2012/12/16/661f183c-4791-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html) and please drop your fucking Rambo delusions.


Carver described the children’s injuries, which he said ranged from at least two to 11 bullet wounds apiece."

[Space Suicide]

Westboro Baptist "Chruch" needs to fucking get a grip already. You're not going to stop gay people and homosexuality by protesting things like this you fucking loser pricks. Besides, this shooting happened because of gay people? Not because of a deliquint piece of shit who spiralled out of control?

Saying crap like that is like saying someone destroyed my neighbor's lawn because I stole some of my family member's bag of chips in the house. THERE'S NO CORELLATION!

[owinn]

Westboro Baptist "Chruch" needs to fucking get a grip already. You're not going to stop gay people and homosexuality by protesting things like this you fucking loser pricks. Besides, this shooting happened because of gay people? Not because of a deliquint piece of shit who spiralled out of control?

Saying crap like that is like saying someone destroyed my neighbor's lawn because I stole some of my family member's bag of chips in the house. THERE'S NO CORELLATION!

Hello everyone.

For those disgusted with WBC (everyone I hope) Anonymous have just started to wage war on them for this - https://twitter.com/YourAnonNews
have fun.

[Space Suicide]

Hello everyone.

For those disgusted with WBC (everyone I hope) Anonymous have just started to wage war on them for this - https://twitter.com/YourAnonNews
have fun.

One step ahead of you, boy-o.

;)

[Shnoorum]

^^ If you were reading about this, you'd know that none of the kids were 5 years old (they were all 6 and 7) and that the shooter was 20, living at home with his mother, and likely had a severe personality disorder where he did not have a grasp of reality.

Granted I haven't read fully into it but in all honesty I don't want or need to. I heard someone killed a load of children and thats all I really need to hear to make a good judgement. I heard they were 5 somewhere but in all honesty that really doesn't matter. They're still kids regardless of a 2 year gap. I'm sorry if my views are offensive to some but, no. If he didn't kill himself he should have been locked away the rest of his life. In my eyes, you never harm another person unless it's in self defense or completely accidental. Anything else is unnaceptable. When I belong to a race thats quick to put a dog down simply for biting someone even though it could easily be trained out of them when in the right hands, I hardly think my views are all that controversial in the grand scheme of things.

[Lutz]

So the message from all the stats posted here is that per capita death by gun is only inflated in America because of all the massacres they have?

And that if they were to have gun control laws the only real difference they would make is the prevention of massacres?

[Jinsai]

there's a strange reactionary thing that happens. Whenever there's a tragedy tied to gun violence, the hardcore gun enthusiasts start buying a fuck ton of them because they're afraid that they're going to be banned, and there's laws in place that (for the most part) protect your right to continue owning a gun, even if it has been deemed no longer legal to sell.

While we're at it and we're talking about these Westboro assholes... are there any laws against "accidentally" vomitting all over someone? There's got to be some legal loophole we can exploit that will result in these people being covered in puke.

[allegro]

And that if they were to have gun control laws the only real difference they would make is the prevention of massacres?

For the record: We DO have gun control laws. Lots and lots of them. Most of them are state legislation and some are federal. Leviathant already mentioned the Brady Bill (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) (federal). (The assault weapon ban expired in 1994 (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban).) Handguns were banned in Chicago for nearly 30 years until a SCOTUS opinion struck it down two years ago (during the ban, the gun homicide rate in Chicago was still the highest in the country). http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-28/justice/us.scotus.handgun.ban_1_justices-two-years-gun-control-justices-john-paul-stevens?_s=PM:CRIME

[Wretchedest]

Also, this essay is very very good:

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html?m=1
What I think everyone is missing in this article, that seems to making the rounds, is the important subtext of what is actually happening to this child.

It's easy to see the struggle the mother has in dealing with him, especially she portrays him as this sort of out of control alien kind of thing. She portrays him as somewhat sub-human. In this story we repeatedly see her unwittingly alienate her son. Partially by subjugating him, especially from the family, and aprtially through a long series of other things. This kid has grown up and developed his mind on a revolving door of medications and drugs and all kinds of things. His mother has made a point to micromanage this guy's life. He's not a robot, he's a lot closer to a regular dude than her writing lets on.

His reaction to the pants situation is very strong, sure, but what kind of mom is trying to tell her 13 Year-old son what kind of pants to wear? If he's having academic and social difficulties, then why is he in a school with a strict dress code to begin with. That age is a time when people seek a sense of identity and individuality. It's always a time of rebellion. There's a glimpse of that getting boxed in, here. All that combined with the drugs....

I'm speaking from experience. I know a lot of people who grew up like this. I grew up like that, and the way that the parents handle it has significant impact on the outcome. I've seen the kid in an overly structured enviornment, and they're caged animal, like this one and I've seen the kid in a more understanding environment, where they grow and get a long fine. This is a frustrating read for me.

I guess my point is that it wasn't the gun laws or the fucking aspergers or any of that shit that brought Adam Lanza to where he was when he shot those kids. It was the whole environment. It was the same thing with James Holmes. Both were people who felt increasingly alone and separate from the world. They probably experienced very little understanding and very little compassion. I think those are the solutions for the future: Understanding. Compassion.

[Fixer808]

While we're at it and we're talking about these Westboro assholes... are there any laws against "accidentally" vomitting all over someone? There's got to be some legal loophole we can exploit that will result in these people being covered in puke.
From what I've read today, Anonymous is working on digital puke...

[littlemonkey613]

Granted I haven't read fully into it but in all honesty I don't want or need to. I heard someone killed a load of children and thats all I really need to hear to make a good judgement. I heard they were 5 somewhere but in all honesty that really doesn't matter. They're still kids regardless of a 2 year gap. I'm sorry if my views are offensive to some but, no. If he didn't kill himself he should have been locked away the rest of his life. In my eyes, you never harm another person unless it's in self defense or completely accidental. Anything else is unnaceptable. When I belong to a race thats quick to put a dog down simply for biting someone even though it could easily be trained out of them when in the right hands, I hardly think my views are all that controversial in the grand scheme of things.


Meh. Our justice system and systems in general should be focused on preventing things like this and being pragmatic and protecting ALL citizens. Including those convicted. What good is simply punishing someone? Punishment is ultimately meaningless if it exists in and of itself. Incarceration should have purpose other than making people feel better about their moral narrative. I am not saying people should feel differently but rather, we should not allow our courts and incarceration system be based on satisfying the needs of those feelings. (Which definitely is the case.. that and filling wallets)

I think this moment should make everyone wonder about the nature of our justice system and its relation to mental health. In response to Elke, I think that the more we understand the human brain the more people have to double down on their previous understanding of the mind and accountability because things get more complicated as the truth comes out, naturally.

As we continue to obsess over ambiguous ideas about justice and what it means to be "human", we are completely ignoring certain conversations that could be good for us.

In trying to understand exactly what was wrong with this man and what would be the best way to handle people like him, we are not trying to excuse, forgive or even justify his behavior. It literally just does not make sense to do otherwise if you are serious about making this country a better place.

"Fuck that guy, he kills kids let him rot in jail" is a perfectly fine view I'm sure most of us share and anyone grieving deserves to be allowed to express that sentiment. I just can't help but think the conversation doesn't move beyond that most the time, and that is why our insane justice/prison/industrial complex and how we deal with mental health are not really changing for the better. From what I see most people cannot even begin to fathom the implications of someone who is operating entirely differently mentally than themselves. Labeling these people evil monsters and calling it a day literally does no good whatsoever in the long run. You cannot expect people to act in accordance with society when their minds are functioning in a way that does not allow them to.

I'm not saying individuals shouldn't feel the way you do ( I feel it as well). I guess I just mean that the fact that our courts function along that same train of thought in the year 2012 is slightly horrifying to me considering all the advances we've made in the fields of biology and psychology.

[jessamineny]

These profiles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/newtown-school-shooting-victims/) are heartbreaking... full of little details, like the little girl who was going to play an angel in a nativity play Saturday night.

[allegro]

So so heartbreaking.

I guess a few survivors are in the hospital?

[M1ke]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/16/f-rfa-macdonald-guns.html

[allegro]

^^ Bravo. Well said, Mr. Macdonald.

[Deepvoid]

The https://twitter.com/DearShirley account was taken over by Anonymous.

A significant number of members from the WBC have seen their personal info leaked online, including home address.

[Jinsai]

wait.... Anon is pushing to have Westboro Baptist's tax exempt status revoked?

THE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH IS ACTUALLY GRANTED TAX EXEMPTION AND IS RECOGNIZED AS A "CHURCH?!"

are you fucking kidding me???

[WorzelG]

^^isn't the WBC like one big inbred family under the rule of Fred Phelps ? I seem to recall that on some Louis Theroux documentary but maybe I'm getting it wrong

[aggroculture]

Interesting response to that "I am Adam Lanza's mother" piece: http://theyouthrightsblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-response-to-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother_16.html

Good piece about what the dems need to do: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dont-be-afraid-mr-president-you-can-take-gun-lobby

[Wretchedest]

Followig up on that article i was talki g about yesterday, turns out that mother was way crazier than i even estimated...

http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/want-the-truth-behind-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-read-her-blog/

[WorzelG]

^^ I don't see anything really that crazy in what the mother has written? I mean people might say 'do this or i'll throttle you' - it's exaggeration, it's not meant to be taken literally


Interesting response to that "I am Adam Lanza's mother" piece: http://theyouthrightsblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-response-to-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother_16.html
This 'youth rights' blogger seems a bit too much like the sort of person who thinks you should be 'befriend' your kids rather than parent them (although she has a point about privacy and it did come across like she was comparing her son to a mass murderer)

[allegro]

Anybody who's ever lived with a mentally ill person knows that sometimes it feels like it's "contagious" because it pushes everyone to the edge.

I've been reading stories about violent mentally ill children for many many years. The parents of these children are guided by professionals to set boundaries, and to take every threat of violence very seriously.

This article was written last May;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&

[PQHooligan]

Followig up on that article i was talki g about yesterday, turns out that mother was way crazier than i even estimated...

http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/want-the-truth-behind-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-read-her-blog/

http://www.today.com/moms/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-another-moms-cry-help-1C7625059

The way she speaks in the video is bothersome - almost seems like she's reading cue-cards

[allegro]

People are blaming Adam Lanza's mother and now they're pointing accusing fingers at this mother.

This doesn't seem like progress.

[Fixer808]

Oh for fuck's sake...

[Jinsai]

this is a minor blip on the radar here, but it irritated me a bit. You know when you see those "share to show support for the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre!" scammy sounding sort of thing you might see on facebook? Well it takes some really tiny balls to try to use that web traffic to get attention and hits for your shitty hip hop act (http://whiskeyandthemorningafter.blogspot.com/2012/12/sandy-hook-tragedy-facebook-page-tries.html)

But while I'm here, and we're talking about mental illness and gun control... I think we all realize the situation isn't simple. Still, reading that blog post above from the perspective of a mother who was talking about her out-of-control child with obvious mental issues that veer towards violent and erratic behavior, there's an element missing. The author of that blog was worried and justifiably frantic. She recognized that there was a problem, even if she felt somewhat powerless to resolve it. Hell, you could even say that she was associating herself with this tragedy to bring attention to her comparatively insignificant situation, although I have a hard time believing the blog was truly that cynical, or that she expected it to go viral the way it did.

At the same time, with people pointing fingers at Lanza's mother, there is something to be said there. I have no problem with her being a gun enthusiast, even if that means she's into collecting guns that fall into the "holy shit" category. But if she noticed that her son was severely unstable, it could be considered an odd decision to train him to use this:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533532_10151320762445155_1114493864_n.jpg

which she did.

[DigitalChaos]

I like how people post pictures of the rifle used as if it's self explanatory why the gun is "bad." Look at this gun guys, it's just so fucking SCARY, look at it! :rolleyes:

What is so bad about the gun other than it scares you?

[Fixer808]

High capacity magazines (drum mags with up to 100 rounds of high-velocity ammo) combined with semi-automatic rate of fire and the possibility of getting license for a SIMILAR gun that fires fully automatic, OR someone with the know-how deciding to alter their weapon to fire automatic.

And beyond that, the fact that someone can TAKE that gun from someone else (who may even be a responsible gun owner) by force- even though said gun owner may have said after the last shooting "IF ONLY THERE WERE A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER THERE!!!"- and using it... for its intended purpose, which is killing people.

[DigitalChaos]

High capacity magazines (drum mags with up to 100 rounds of high-velocity ammo) combined with semi-automatic rate of fire and the possibility of getting license for a SIMILAR gun that fires fully automatic, OR someone with the know-how deciding to alter their weapon to fire automatic.

And beyond that, the fact that someone can TAKE that gun from someone else (who may even be a responsible gun owner) by force- even though said gun owner may have said after the last shooting "IF ONLY THERE WERE A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER THERE!!!"- and using it... for its intended purpose, which is killing people.

You know that semi-auto means one bullet each time you pull the trigger, right? That is exactly how the two handguns that he brought function. Yes, high-capacity mag is about the only tangible thing that justifies singling out that rifle. FYI - the kid had plenty of ammo left over when he was done, based on reports.

No, there is no license for a fully-auto weapon in CT. Hell, "assault weapons" are banned in CT. This thing was LEGAL under CT law. Even the most successful federal changes to gun control would be lucky to match CT law.

As for modding the gun... you could also mod his glock to be full auto with a tiny strip of metal. Again, there is nothing unique about that gun other than how it looks and the higher-capacity mags. Guns are not high-tech. People can build hardcore guns in a metal shop if they wanted to.

[DigitalChaos]

Forgot to mention... while the higher capacity mags is the only real tangible reason to single that gun out, the capacity really doesn't make a difference. As I said, the kid had plenty of mags unused. Many people forget that Columbine, for example, was done with the 10 round mags that are entirely legal under Feinstein's ban on high-cap mags.

[Fixer808]

You know that semi-auto means one bullet each time you pull the trigger, right?
Don't talk down to me, I'm fully aware of how guns work.

You said "What is so bad about the gun other than it scares you".
I never said it scared me, are you talking about how it looks or its capabilities?

As to semi-auto:

That is exactly how the two handguns that he brought function. Yes, high-capacity mag is about the only tangible thing that justifies singling out that rifle. FYI - the kid had plenty of ammo left over when he was done, based on reports.
I'm not sure where you're going with this argument... Hi-cap mags are readily available for pistols as well. FYI - is this for or against your point?


No, there is no license for a fully-auto weapon in CT. Hell, "assault weapons" are banned in CT. This thing was LEGAL under CT law. Even the most successful federal changes to gun control would be lucky to match CT law.

As for modding the gun... you could also mod his glock to be full auto with a tiny strip of metal. Again, there is nothing unique about that gun other than how it looks and the higher-capacity mags. Guns are not high-tech. People can build hardcore guns in a metal shop if they wanted to.

I still don't know what your argument is. People usually don't craft excellently machined and durable weapons in their basement unless they're repulsing the German army in Stalingrad. Are there any armies barking at America's door? Maybe Canada, but we just want to borrow some fair-trade flour...

[Fixer808]

Frankly, this is another time when it's bad form to be sucked into this argument.

[DigitalChaos]

My point is everyone seems to single out the rifle and post pictures of it to make their point. You did the exact same thing. You are concerned that the mom showed him how to use the rifle and you include a picture to punctuate your message. "odd decision to train him to use this <picture>"

[Fixer808]

I never added a picture of anything.

[DigitalChaos]

Sorry, Jinsai posted it.
You replied to my post bitching about people posting pictures (like Jinsai just did). Did you miss that?

[Fixer808]

I did, with a reason that we shouldn't fear the picture of a gun but with its capabilities. Did you miss that? Patronizing people goes both ways.

[DigitalChaos]

To further emphasize my point. Here is a collection of people, in this thread, focusing on "assault" weapons, "automatic" weapons, etc.

Keep in mind, CT law already outlaws assault weapons. This rifle is legal and it is NOT an automatic.





This story is about mental illness and how the U.S. does NOTHING about it, and about our need to reinstate the BAN on assault weapons.


RT @andywombach "AP: Suspect used .223 caliber rifle. This is a picture of a .223 rifle. This is legal.
http://twitter.com/AbbyWambach/status/279667807778664448/photo/1



True dat. I get protecting your family with a handgun in your house maybe sure. Assault rifles? Come on, son!



Now that BO doesn't have to worry about re-election I really hope he does something on the assault weapons front. Fuck you George W Bush for letting the ban lapse. Fuck you forever.



assault rifles and high-capacity magazines serve no purpose in everyday life



I can agree with banning assault rifles and automatic weapons




Here's where I stand:
1. Reinstate the assault-weapon and automatic-firearms ban. Restrict how many firearms someone may purchase to one or two per year.



A .223 caliber assault rifle is not a handgun.


Summary: freak the fuck out about the shooting and demand bans on shit we have no idea about.

[Fixer808]

Great! Then let's educate people instead of ridiculing them!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDEGZ9z5Hqc

[DigitalChaos]

Great! Then let's educate people instead of ridiculing them!
[vid eo=youtube;tDEGZ9z5Hqc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDEGZ9z5Hqc[/video]
I don't have all the answers. I simply believe that people should have a solid foundation for whatever they are trying to make, especially when it involves creation of laws. I will call out bullshit when I see it, doesn't matter what side they are on. The right answer will come forward when all sides are standing on solid support.

PS that video does nothing to educate on the topic. A 9mm handgun will do more damage than that if you feed it similar ammo type.

[Fixer808]

Fuck it,DigitalChaos, I'm gonna stop right now, and I'll ask you and everyone else to as well. One week. I'm asking for a one week moratorium on the gun control issue, both sides. Now is not the time for it.

[DigitalChaos]

Fuck it,DigitalChaos, I'm gonna stop right now, and I'll ask you and everyone else to as well. One week. I'm asking for a one week moratorium on the gun control issue, both sides. Now is not the time for it.
I can agree with that! Whatever your goal is, do it without the emotion and do it consistently... not just when something happens on the news. If it's an important problem then it will still be important in 1 week. Now if only the rest of the country could table this for a week :(

My bet is on the majority completely forgetting this with their 24-hour-news-cycle-damaged-brains.

[Fixer808]

I sincerely hope you're wrong... Let's all get back on topic, yeah?

[Presideo]

To further emphasize my point. Here is a collection of people, in this thread, focusing on "assault" weapons, "automatic" weapons, etc. Keep in mind, CT law already outlaws assault weapons. This rifle is legal and it is NOT an automatic. Summary: freak the fuck out about the shooting and demand bans on shit we have no idea about. Most of those quotes were our general stances about gun control. They weren't meant to be specific statements about the Newtown shooting or Connecticut law. Don't misrepresent our statements in an attempt to make us seem uninformed. You're grasping at straws now.


One week. I'm asking for a one week moratorium on the gun control issue, both sides. Now is not the time for it.
I can agree with that! Whatever your goal is, do it without the emotion and do it consistently... not just when something happens on the news. If it's an important problem then it will still be important in 1 week. Now if only the rest of the country could table this for a week :( My bet is on the majority completely forgetting this with their 24-hour-news-cycle-damaged-brains. They told Martin Luther King to wait. They said to talk about civil rights later, as if there was actually going to be a convenient time discuss a major injustice within our society. If he adhered to that way of thinking we might still have segregation. Thankfully, he understood the urgency of the situation, and took immediate action….but fuck it, lets go back to discussing our hatred of WBC as we all sing kumbaya around the campfire while 'liking' each others posts. That's definitely more meaningful and on-topic than gun control (at least get an admin to separate the gun control posts into a new thread where we can continue the conversation; a moratorium on what should be a civilized discussion seems unneeded)

[Jinsai]

I like how people post pictures of the rifle used as if it's self explanatory why the gun is "bad." Look at this gun guys, it's just so fucking SCARY, look at it! :rolleyes:

What is so bad about the gun other than it scares you?

Would you like me to explain the differences between a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle?

Hell, I'm not even taking a hard line stance here on the issue either way. I'm just saying that it might not be a good idea to put one in the hands of someone who is unstable, train him how to use it, and then not restrict access to it.

[Leviathant]

You know what's going to stick with me for the rest of my life, well beyond the 24-hour news cycle? Twenty bullet wounds in a single elementary school kid. Not a single kid with fewer than two bullet wounds. Twenty minutes from my friend's house.

I also feel this goes a long way to pointing out that guns as a defense mechanism in the home are all but useless, even with training. You think you'd be invincible if you carried the kind of gun that could mow down twenty children and seven adults in no time flat, but apparently owning of those (and several other firearms) does not preclude you from being killed and having someone else use it to mount an offensive attack.

If this were a news flash on a television in an early 90s dystopian action flick, I'd have thought it was absurdist. But in the year 2012, I feel like even if some guy shot up a hospital nursery, you'd still end up with folks living in their own little bubble, saying more guns is the solution, not less.

I'm also pretty sick of the "Let's not talk about it now" crowd. When is it okay to talk about the gun problem in this country? Are you suggesting we wait until nobody's been shot-and-killed for a week? Yeah, I'll hold my breath. Better not talk about it, people might still be mad about massacring elementary school students.


This thing was LEGAL under CT law. Even the most successful federal changes to gun control would be lucky to match CT law.

This is indicative to me that there is a problem with the law. Nitpicking on what's legally construed as an assault weapon is practically absurd at this point. Whatever you want to call the gun this kid used when he pumped hundreds of bullets into elementary school classrooms, it's absurd that he even had access to it. Which well regulated militia did he train with that he justified owning a device meant for killing lots of people very quickly? Since it's not technically an assault weapon, can we call it a killing-lots-of-people-very-quickly weapon?

[marodi]

I like how people post pictures of the rifle used as if it's self explanatory why the gun is "bad." Look at this gun guys, it's just so fucking SCARY, look at it! :rolleyes:

What is so bad about the gun other than it scares you?

What "scares" me about that gun is not the gun itself; it's the fact that I cannot find one logical and/or rational reason why someone, anyone in the society we live in would feel the need to own a firearm like this.

[aggroculture]

One of the main problems I see with guns is that while they may be legal, the very thing they are intended for, their purpose - to kill people - is, in most cases illegal.
All these millions and millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill. Except that in the US, eight children are killed by guns every day. Eight children a day. That's one hell of a massacre. A daily one. So yeah we should be having this conversation every day.
http://jezebel.com/5968971/that-woman-is-not-adam-lanzas-mother-and-shes-distracting-us-from-the-real-issue?tag=school-shooting

[DigitalChaos]

Would you like me to explain the differences between a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle?


Hell, I'm not even taking a hard line stance here on the issue either way. I'm just saying that it might not be a good idea to put one in the hands of someone who is unstable, train him how to use it, and then not restrict access to it.
not much. The rifle can basically send a round farther and with better accuracy.
I completely agree that the kid should never have had his hands on it. The need for personal responsibility lies in everything and the mother failed on that topic. Those guns should have been locked up.





apparently owning of those (and several other firearms) does not preclude you from being killed and having someone else use it to mount an offensive attack.
As above, personal responsibility is required for any tool. Those things should have been locked up. I am for sane gun control but I disagree with this justification. That weapon is owned by millions. This woman does not negate their responsibility. I wouldn't ask for more controls on cars because a kid stole his mom's car keys and ran over 30 kids on a basketball court either.




If this were a news flash on a television in an early 90s dystopian action flick, I'd have thought it was absurdist. But in the year 2012, I feel like even if some guy shot up a hospital nursery, you'd still end up with folks living in their own little bubble, saying more guns is the solution, not less.

Agree. If anyone in this thread were making that case, I would call them out too!




I'm also pretty sick of the "Let's not talk about it now" crowd. When is it okay to talk about the gun problem in this country? Are you suggesting we wait until nobody's been shot-and-killed for a week? Yeah, I'll hold my breath. Better not talk about it, people might still be mad about massacring elementary school students.

1 - When was the last time gun control was in the national spotlight WITHOUT riding the wave of a mass shooting? That is the point. Remember when Obama and Romney were debating gun control in the debates? Neither do I... If gun control was important, it wouldn't have to leverage the "think of the children" angle that you commonly find in other prohibitionary pushes (anti-porn, internet censorship, abortion, etc). You will give yourself MORE credibility by not doing it this way.


2 - By doing this, you could actually be making the issue worse. I think most of us can agree with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sVrBxprGXv4#t=2s Now tell me how many gun-control/gun-ban articles contain the shooter's face, name, body-count, etc. You are contributing to that problem. So again, do it WITHOUT riding the wave of a shooting that dominates national news. Hell, you can even have the debate at the same time, just don't center the debate on the shooting!




This is indicative to me that there is a problem with the law. Nitpicking on what's legally construed as an assault weapon is practically absurd at this point. Whatever you want to call the gun this kid used when he pumped hundreds of bullets into elementary school classrooms, it's absurd that he even had access to it. Which well regulated militia did he train with that he justified owning a device meant for killing lots of people very quickly? Since it's not technically an assault weapon, can we call it a killing-lots-of-people-very-quickly weapon?


This is a very important point as it address making the actual change you are looking for.


1- Show me a law that actually DOES what you want. Every state that has heavy gun-control on the books has problems with the law. Feinstein is one of the leading politicians on the topic. I live in Feinstein's state (CA). There are a lot of ways to bypass the laws here (just like in CT). Feinstein's ban on high capacity mags doesn't do a whole lot. Columbine was done entirely with 10 round mags!


2- "Assault Weapon"... That term exists only due to law. The law creates and DEFINES what an "assault weapon" is. It actually creates the need to nitpick. That is exactly why there are so many ways to circumvent the law. Many of the definitions are purely aesthetic. I haven't seen one "assault weapon ban" that isn't insanely flawed.


I have little faith that the politicians trying to push the control/ban laws are going to create something that stops the mass shootings. They are just too ignorant on the topic to create something effective.
Here is one person behind the Assault Weapon ban who doesn't understand her own law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9rGpykAX1fo#t=1s
Here is another person (standing next to the lady from the above video) who has no idea what she is dealing with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BRQqieimwLQ#t=18s


If we want someone to make solid laws, we need someone who understands the topic. Why is it we can't find a politician who actually understands the topic?




edit: ugh, auto video embedding...

[onthewall2983]

https://api.plixi.com/api/tpapi.svc/imagefromurl?size=medium&url=http%3A%2F%2Flockerz.com%2Fs%2F269981375

[DigitalChaos]

What "scares" me about that gun is not the gun itself; it's the fact that I cannot find one logical and/or rational reason why someone, anyone in the society we live in would feel the need to own a firearm like this.
There are many millions of this type of gun in ownership. It is commonly used for target practice and intended for self defense. Not every situation is just 1 unarmed bad guy walking into your house. On the extreme side of self defense, remember the LA riots? Huricane Katrina? Quite a few people people defended their property and/or life with those types of weapons. I live in a densely populated area that is prone to earthquakes. Looting will happen the next time a "big one" like the 1906 quake hits. I wouldn't hesitate to arm myself with one of those weapons for a situation like that. Less than 40% of California has the FEMA minimum recommendation of 72 hours of food/water/supplies. 60% are without? Looting & intrusions are going to be worse than the 1906 quake... The local police force couldn't do a thing. Multiple branches of military had to police the streets for nearly 3 months after the 1906 and it still wasn't enough. I have always been a self sufficient person. Relying on others frequently leads to disappointment.

This is just one of the many justifiable reasons.

[DigitalChaos]

One of the main problems I see with guns is that while they may be legal, the very thing they are intended for, their purpose - to kill people - is, in most cases illegal.
All these millions and millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill. Except that in the US, eight children are killed by guns every day. Eight children a day. That's one hell of a massacre. A daily one. So yeah we should be having this conversation every day.
http://jezebel.com/5968971/that-woman-is-not-adam-lanzas-mother-and-shes-distracting-us-from-the-real-issue?tag=school-shooting

Lock up the fucking guns! California does this one right... mostly.

"All these millions and millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill." yea.... I run daily backups of my company's data. How many times have I had to restore backups? none! There are very frequent situations where people ARE successfully stopping crime because they had a gun. Many are home invasions. Millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill AND stopping crime? Sounds good to me :)

[Presideo]

Remember when Obama and Romney were debating gun control in the debates? Neither do I...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m6Ep9LucTk
Took me a grand total of 5 seconds to find that clip using google.

It also seems like gun advocates like to use the notion that even if we have comprehensive gun control there will still be those who will break the law to get them. Of course they will, nobody is debating that. But suppressing the avenues to legally get a semi-auto/automatic will go a long way. Example: cocaine is illegal, and I can't go to a store to buy cocaine. However, if I really wanted to get cocaine I'm sure I could find connections. It would likely be really hard, but if I wanted the stuff badly enough I guess I could invest a lot of time to get it. On the other hand, I could buy alcohol within minutes if I wanted to without any major problems.

In that example, law for alcohol is akin current gun control in Anywhere USA; laws controlling cocaine is akin to where we want to go. Are there still coke fiends roaming the US? Sure. Is there likely far fewer than if cocaine were legal? Yep.

[Jinsai]

However, if I really wanted to get cocaine I'm sure I could find connections. It would likely be really hard, but if I wanted the stuff badly enough I guess I could invest a lot of time to get it.

Not to drift the conversation completely off the rails, but (I guess depending on where you live), it wouldn't be very hard. Your point still holds though.

And really, there's a double standard here coming from DigitalChaos. One second you're saying that there's practically no difference between a handgun and an assault rifle, but then you're suddenly justifying the necessity of owning an assault rifle because if there was a big earthquake or a zombie apocalypse, a handgun wouldn't be good enough.

[DigitalChaos]

youtube.com/watch?v=9m6Ep9LucTk
Took me a grand total of 5 seconds to find that clip using google.
Well, I'm wrong there. I suppose all the other points in my post are valid since this is all you addressed. :)

Hate to say it, but I agree with Romney on the part of "we need to fix our current laws, not make more." Have you seen the 2011 report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (pro gun-control group)? The NICS background check that was implemented in 1999 is not working anywhere near the level it should be. 23 states are showing major failures in providing background info. 4 states have provided nothing! They specifically cite the Tuscan AZ shooting of Giffords as something that would have been stopped if states were compliant.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf




And really, there's a double standard here coming from DigitalChaos. One second you're saying that there's practically no difference between a handgun and an assault rifle, but then you're suddenly justifying the necessity of owning an assault rifle because if there was a big earthquake or a zombie apocalypse, a handgun wouldn't be good enough.
If you see no advantage to a weapon that can travel farther with much more accuracy in the zombie apocalypse... i don't know what to tell you. For close quarters, I totally choose a handgun. I choose the right tool for the job. I remember seeing a bunch of store owners ontop of their building with rifles during the LA riots. They were successfully defending the building against looters.

[aggroculture]

You have no right to kill someone, even if they're stealing your shit and trashing your house. It's just stuff. Unless they are clearly intent on killing you, you have no right to shoot them.

[Jinsai]

If you see no advantage to a weapon that can travel farther with much more accuracy in the zombie apocalypse... i don't know what to tell you. For close quarters, I totally choose a handgun. I choose the right tool for the job. I remember seeing a bunch of store owners ontop of their building with rifles during the LA riots. They were successfully defending the building against looters.

I don't think you're acknowledging what I'm saying. You're the one who originally claimed there wasn't much difference between a handgun and a semi automatic rifle. And here we are talking about how good it is to fend off a LARGE CROWD of rioters, and we're not talking about clip capacity.

Also, I live in LA, but the riots happened when I was 12. I can't say I remember seeing "a bunch of store owners on top of their buildings with rifles" blowing people away in self defense.

[jessamineny]

If you see no advantage to a weapon that can travel farther with much more accuracy in the zombie apocalypse... i don't know what to tell you. For close quarters, I totally choose a handgun. I choose the right tool for the job. I remember seeing a bunch of store owners ontop of their building with rifles during the LA riots. They were successfully defending the building against looters.

Why in the world would you want something that would travel farther with much more accuracy if you're defending your home from looters? Or are you planning to fortify your apartment building/block off your street/isolate your community and protect it from outsiders?

[DigitalChaos]

I don't think you're acknowledging what I'm saying. You're the one who originally claimed there wasn't much difference between a handgun and a semi automatic rifle. And here we are talking about how good it is to fend off a LARGE CROWD of rioters, and we're not talking about clip capacity.

Also, I live in LA, but the riots happened when I was 12. I can't say I remember seeing "a bunch of store owners on top of their buildings with rifles" blowing people away in self defense.
I specified the difference many times. This is the 2nd time doing it for just you: the difference is in the distance and accuracy (at distance) that you can send a round. This is not a very valuable trait for someone walking into a room trying to clear it. A high capacity mag can be attached to ANY magazine based firearm. Pistol, etc. Those would be desirable in situation where your target could move in on you in the 1-2 seconds it takes to change a magazine. In a school masacre, nobody is moving in on the aggressors to stop them. This is how Columbine happened with an abundance of "low capacity" mags and this is why I am not seeing the magazines as important to the school shooting topic. I don't really have an issue with limiting magazine capacity, just don't see a value in it for school shootings.

Where did I say "blowing people away"?? I said "defending." There is a pretty well known video of a group of koreans sitting ontop of the store with rifles and shotguns. Some were on the ground shooting at people with their handguns. I don't condone the way the went about it. I do condone protecting yourself if people start breaking into your property and you feel that your life is threatened. There are a lot of home invasion news stories where all sorts of guns were successfully used, many of them were using rifles.

[DigitalChaos]

Why in the world would you want something that would travel farther with much more accuracy if you're defending your home from looters? Or are you planning to fortify your apartment building/block off your street/isolate your community and protect it from outsiders?
As I pointed out a few posts back: tons of people are irrationally scared of their looks :) Intimidation goes a long way in defense. You can thank tv/movies and anti-gun people for that one. Barrel shrouds and forward grips are scary!

There are plenty of usage situations for a rifle over a handgun. If that is the ONLY thing people have an issue with after my detailed posts (one (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61647#post61647), two (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61669#post61669)) from earlier today, I consider my argument successful.

[jessamineny]

That is not what you said. But you can change your argument if it suits your need. Sokay.

[orestes]

Okay, let's reel the discussion back into reality and not hypothetical situations like a zombie apocalypse.

[DigitalChaos]

I, too, thought Jinsai's hyperbolic comment about the zombie apocalypse (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1318-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Shooting?p=61665#post61665) was outside reality. But hey, if you want to know how to survive one... :)

[aggroculture]

You're the one who's living in a Cormac McCarthy novel. Jinsai was merely picking up on that.

[DigitalChaos]

Yes, I've noticed that some people fall back onto stereotyping when they don't have anything else. The other night it was something about me liking bibles and hating the liberal media... or something.

[DigitalChaos]

Required watching for anyone who talks about "assault" weapons or rifles.
Required watching for anyone who is having issues understanding why legislation against them is prone to failure.

I recommend sitting through the entire thing but 5:55 is one of the best parts. Hunting rifle to "assault" rifle in 90 seconds!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

[Hazekiah]

I don't think anyone discussing this matter seriously is worried about how a firearm LOOKS.

They're worried about its ability to facilitate the desire of someone holding it who wishes to spray an entire magazine of bullets into a crowd with a single pull of a trigger.

So when the uninitiated say "assault" weapon just assume they mean "automatic" and then we're all on the same page and ready for a rational discussion again.

[allegro]

I don't think anyone discussing this matter seriously is worried about how a firearm LOOKS.

They're worried about its ability to facilitate the desire of someone holding it who wishes to spray an entire magazine of bullets into a crowd with a single pull of a trigger.

So when the uninitiated say "assault" weapon just assume they mean "automatic" and then we're all on the same page and ready for a rational discussion again.
That big gun is semi-auto, you have to keep pulling a trigger. Full auto is illegal in this country (for civilians) and I haven't read that the kid modified it.

But, there is the possible "Rambo" mentality that a gun like that might produce in an unstable person.

I have held that kind of gun (my best friend's husband with a midlife crisis and too much expendable cash bought one) and it was surprisingly light. It felt like a toy gun. It even had a laser sight. (I guarantee you the CT shooter kid didn't use a sight.)

As I've said before, I own two revolvers (6 bullets, no magazine) including a .357 Magnum. To me, anybody who needs one of those Rambo guns is a lazy person who doesn't know how to shoot; keep shooting a bunch of bullets and hope at least one hits your target. However, with a revolver you only have 6 bullets and no magazine so you better know how to shoot. (My saved paper targets will prove that I actually do. Competition level.)

The shooter's mother was getting $240,000 a year in alimony. This is one of those "I can afford it" guns. She allegedly told her sister-in-law that she feared chaos was near because of the fiscal cliff (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/wow_waiting_for_the_apocalypse.php).

edit
Regarding Assault Weapons Ban: The ban went into effect in 1994 and expired in 2004. See this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban). Note that it was not called the "assault rifle" ban.

[Deepvoid]

On December 14, 2012 ...

... it has been 3 days since the Oregon Mall shooting. Is that enough time?
... it has been 132 days since the Sikh Temple shooting.
... it has been 148 days since the shooting in Aurora Colorado.
... it has been 707 days since the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tuscon
... it has been 1136 days since the Fort Hood shooting.
... it has been 2070 days since the Virginia Tech shooting.
... it has been 4988 days since the Columbine shooting.

Can we talk about those shooting NOW? Can we not wait another week or even another day?
If you don't wanna talk about it now, it's because you don't wanna talk about it ever!

(transcript from from TYT)

[DigitalChaos]

I don't think anyone discussing this matter seriously is worried about how a firearm LOOKS.

They're worried about its ability to facilitate the desire of someone holding it who wishes to spray an entire magazine of bullets into a crowd with a single pull of a trigger.

So when the uninitiated say "assault" weapon just assume they mean "automatic" and then we're all on the same page and ready for a rational discussion again.

Yea, you are the exact type of person who needs some basic gun and gun law education. Automatic weapons are already illegal across the country. This was even stated in the video.

This is another good example of people having irrational fear of something and laws being unable to help that. Gotta stop those automatic weapons!

[october_midnight]

Maybe people would ease up a bit without the constant condescending horseshit?


Gotta stop those automatic weapons!


Barrel shrouds and forward grips are scary!


Look at this gun guys, it's just so fucking SCARY, look at it!

The norm on here with similar threads is usually about three pages until someone starts in with posts like this...were we over or under this time?

[DigitalChaos]

Maybe people would ease up a bit without the constant condescending horseshit?

What do you imagine people will ease up about? The continual failure to understand gun tech and gun law? Will they suddenly be able to present a solution that fixes the problem of mass shootings instead of just temporarily pacifying their own fear? I think not...

[Deepvoid]

What do you imagine people will ease up about? The continual failure to understand gun tech and gun law? Will they suddenly be able to present a solution that fixes the problem of mass shootings instead of just temporarily pacifying their own fear? I think not...

So what you're saying is that those mass shootings are inevitable in the US. It's how this country is?
Sure hope you're not thinking that you're still the greatest country in the world.

[aggroculture]

People say that since there are so many guns out there, we need more guns to protect us from the people with guns. It's such bullshit. The person this Nancy Lanza needed protection from was in her home, and he used her own guns. This is a perfect example of the error of this way of thinking. We keep thinking it's the "bad people out there" we need protection from (looters, poor people, terrorists, whoever). When instead - it's us. We are the ones doing the killing. In literary studies we would call this situation "tragic irony."

[DigitalChaos]

So what you're saying is that those mass shootings are inevitable in the US. It's how this country is?
Sure hope you're not thinking that you're still the greatest country in the world.

I am saying that those who are demanding change to gun law are lacking in the ability to make a meaningful change to the problem.

This country has a lot of comparative failure.


Here is what will happen... Gun control advocates will put proposals on the table that, if enacted, will make them feel safe until the next shooting. Those proposals will probably not make it through. It's probably a good thing since the proposals won't fix the issue. Mental health is something even the GOP is wanting to talk about. Hopefully the control advocates don't waste the rare chance to take action there. Meanwhile, everyone will miss the fact that existing laws are being executed poorly. The majority of states and federal agencies are failing to report the background data that is required to do background checks on firearms purchases. The control advocates seem to be ignorant on the functionality of existing laws.

It's possible to make change but most are too inept to do so.

[allegro]

We already had an assault weapons ban; I think that all Congress will do is reinstate the one that expired in 2004 (the Act that I mentioned on the prior page). I don't think that anyone, here, thinks a ban on assault weapons as defined by the prior Act would stop all violence. See zip gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm) for further reference. Or, people can learn how to make a bomb online.

[allegro]

existing laws are being executed poorly. The majority of states and federal agencies are failing to report the background data that is required to do background checks on firearms purchases.
This is true.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Meanwhile, everyone will miss the fact that existing laws are being executed poorly. The majority of states and federal agencies are failing to report the background data that is required to do background checks on firearms purchases. The control advocates seem to be ignorant on the functionality of existing laws.

This, as I see it, is one of the biggest problems with a discussion about guns and gun control: the idea that one needs to know the minutae of our cobbled-together gun laws before they can observe the simple fact that there are really only two ways to control gun violence:

1. Strict gun control alongside affordable/free healthcare, AKA 'What the rest of the fucking developed world does with great success'

2. Compulsory gun ownership alongside compulsory conscription and affordable/free healthcare; AKA, 'What Israel and Switzerland do'.

I'm partial to the first, as I think there are mitigating factors in Switzerland and Israel that we wouldn't be able to duplicate in the US.

But anyway, Brady Bill, assault weapons ban, automatic vs. semi-auto . . . all pretty much irrelevant. The American experiment in gun ownership and regulation has completely failed. Places with low levels of gun violence don't get there by way of quick-drawing criminals, and they don't get there by banning the scary weapon du jour. They get there, by and large, by banning most/all guns for most/all people. AND they provide their citizens with adequate healthcare so that the mentally ill have a place to get help.

[PooPooMeowChow]

I'm still not sure how Piers Morgan is allowed on TV.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

[Canuckle]

When you glorify the gun; put it on a pedestal and make the right of owning one as important as free speech or voting, you reap what you sow.

The US's problem isn't gun control, but gun culture. Where teaching your kids how to shoot or that it's okay to have a gun in the house at all is something normal. Add in the naiveness towards mental illness, the types of guns people can purchase, and media pumping up these atrocities and you get a recipe for repetition... and an issue no one wants to touch because it's too hard to fix.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I'm still not sure how Piers Morgan is allowed on TV.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

Because he's not the only one tired of hearing the same old lies. He's completely right about strict gun control being effective, and Pratt is completely wrong. How long do our journalists have to sit around pretending that gun control is some kind of mystery?

People like Pratt need to be bullied.

[PooPooMeowChow]

At the very least Piers could have tried to present an argument instead of just saying stupid shit like "they may possible fall and allow a five year old to pick it up." That's why he resorts to insulting Pratt. The state of journalism in America is pathetic.
Most of what Pratt says checks out. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

[allegro]

I don't know how much this adds or detracts from the subject, but I thought this was really interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland).

[Lutz]

At work this morning we all had a good laff AT AMERICA having a ban on Kinder Surprise to protect children.

[darktemplar007]

Good to see our government has their priorities straight. (http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/12/19/1360371/newtown-video-games-rockefeller/?mobile=nc)

[Presideo]

When you glorify the gun; put it on a pedestal and make the right of owning one as important as free speech or voting, you reap what you sow.

The US's problem isn't gun control, but gun culture. Where teaching your kids how to shoot or that it's okay to have a gun in the house at all is something normal. Add in the naiveness towards mental illness, the types of guns people can purchase, and media pumping up these atrocities and you get a recipe for repetition... and an issue no one wants to touch because it's too hard to fix.
Politicians don't want to touch the issue because most rely on support from the NRA; fixing the problem itself shouldn't be that difficult (our politicians will certainly make it hard, though. Just like comprehensive health care.)


At work this morning we all had a good laff AT AMERICA having a ban on Kinder Surprise to protect children.
Do you really want to discuss a 1930's ban on hazardous small objects inside food? In this thread? I'm sorry we stupid Americans have our heads up our asses when it comes to the great "Plastic Objects in Candy Eggs" debate. I'm sure our lawmakers are working around the clock to rectify the situation.

[Fixer808]

You have to admit, though, the fact that a chocolate egg with small toys inside it being illegal while an M2 .50cal Browning machine gun is totes legal as long as you pay the ATF a fee... that shit is ridiculous.

Back on topic...

[Jinsai]

and gun sales are, of course, soaring (http://www.cortezjournal.com/article/20121219/NEWS01/121219741/Firearm-sales-booming-following-school-shooting)

[WorzelG]

Does anyone even know whether the guy was mentally ill even? When I try to find out the google search just comes up with the anarchistsoccermoms blog and the backlash against that. All I heard was he was very quiet at school. Makes you wonder if the outcome would be different had someone just befriended him

[allegro]

No, so far we're just hearing that he had "special needs" and that mom told babysitters "don't leave him alone" and stuff like that. Not sure we'll get real details due to federal medical privacy laws etc.

But experts have been saying that some form of mental illness is obvious due to the nature of the crime.

There has been some controversy here in our media because the shooter's brother told police that his brother was "autistic" which set off a whole slew of experts saying this violence is not at all characteristic of any form of autism.

edit: This is very interesting: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/adam-lanza-destroyed-his-hard-drive-before-attack.html

[marodi]

I was reading the article that allegro linked to when a pop-up appeared, suggesting another article which I found very interesting also:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-advocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html

[Jinsai]

No, so far we're just hearing that he had "special needs" and that mom told babysitters "don't leave him alone" and stuff like that. Not sure we'll get real details due to federal medical privacy laws etc.

while I respect medical privacy and all that, there are some cases where the diagnosis is so vital to a national debate and related to an event so heinous that it just needs to be disclosed. When someone walks into a classroom and starts shooting little kids, it's just important to know why he did it, and if the guy is dead anyway, I think we should dispense with the considerations towards his rights.

Either way, the mother gave the babysitters special instructions, the kid was known to have "special needs," and his brother is (probably incorrectly) calling him autistic... although who knows, it could be that he was autistic and schizophrenic. I don't see why that's outside of the realm of possibility. When there's something obviously wrong with the child, I'd presume he was at some point taken to a medical professional or given a psychiatric evaluation of some sort, and I would think it's important to delve into that for as much as we can possibly ascertain.

Either way, if all we'll ever know is that the mother was aware her son had mental issues, and yet she still trained her son to use high powered weaponry and didn't restrict his access to it, that should be enough of a message to resonate with some people... as if to say "hey, even if you LOVE your guns, if you've got a kid who seems to be a little off, maybe don't take him down to the shooting range, and lock your weapons up in a safe. Also, maybe get him/her some psychological treatment"

Actually, I don't even know why I bothered to (in the context of this argument) say him/her. Have any of these mass shootings, school or otherwise, ever been perpetrated by a female? To be honest, that had never occurred to me before, but now that I think about it...


I don't know. Lately I have a bit of a hard time thinking about this whole thing because it makes me feel a little sick whenever I take a step back from being too pragmatic about it. I just had a moderately infuriating conversation with a friend who condescended towards me because I wouldn't accept that this was all part of some shadow government conspiracy, and that the trigger was hidden in the last Batman movie. I thought she was joking at first, so maybe I came across wrong when I said that it was in poor taste to turn a horrible tragedy like this into some kind of bizarre fantasy, but really...

[allegro]

^^ Obviously, an investigation is being conducted but since there will be no criminal trial, it's complicated. The article I linked, above, gives some insight.

Do like I do: Don't think about it. When it gets too much to take in, put your mind elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with that. Really. It doesn't mean you're sticking your head in the sand.

[Fixer808]

Some Ann Coulter-level trolling from an idiot (http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/parenting/national-review-newton-shootings-could-stopped-werent-many-010000318.html) who blames the fact that there were "no men at the school" for the shooter getting as far as he did. This is truly criminal stupidity.

[Nyx]

Actually, I don't even know why I bothered to (in the context of this argument) say him/her. Have any of these mass shootings, school or otherwise, ever been perpetrated by a female? To be honest, that had never occurred to me before, but now that I think about it...
I just read this today:
Memo to Media: Manhood, Not Guns or Mental Illness, Should Be Central in Newtown Shooting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/men-gender-gun-violence_b_2308522.html)

[WorzelG]

Actually, I don't even know why I bothered to (in the context of this argument) say him/her. Have any of these mass shootings, school or otherwise, ever been perpetrated by a female? To be honest, that had never occurred to me before, but now that I think about it...

Wasn't a Boomtown Rats song 'I don't like Mondays' based on a female school shooter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer

[Jinsai]

Wasn't a Boomtown Rats song 'I don't like Mondays' based on a female school shooter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer

Wait... THAT'S what that song was about?!!!! I always hated that song because it just seemed so completely meaningless and stupid. Now I'm more than a little creeped out by the entire thing.

[allegro]

Another female:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann

[Jinsai]

Another female:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann

holy shit... this is just baffling. It's like she failed to poison a LOT of people, failed to blow up a school, got stopped trying to enter a building with a canister full of gasoline, failed to feed some kids milk laced with arsenic, and then finally achieved some "success" with guns.

I would still say the primary issue in that case was obviously a mental condition, but in that particular situation, I don't understand how she wasn't stopped sooner.

[WorzelG]

It really irks me that so many of these shooters commit suicide, leaving no sense of closure, or even any reasons why to those left behind. I can't bear to think of the families of those kids and the teachers who died,having lost their loved ones just before Christmas

[allegro]

I don't think closure is ever possible, and no reason is ever good enough, though, you know? The shooters in the Aurora (CO) and Gabby Giffords shootings are still alive but both killers are mentally ill and the victims' families still deal with senseless loss.

[Fixer808]

Irony decides to have a little fun with the NRA. (http://gawker.com/5970497/while-the-nra-was-on-tv-talking-about-the-need-for-more-guns-some-guy-was-walking-up-and-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)

[miss k bee]

Another female:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann

Damn that is terrifying!. And still mental health issues are not being handed properly.

Another female

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_San_Marco

[october_midnight]

Irony decides to have a little fun with the NRA. (http://gawker.com/5970497/while-the-nra-was-on-tv-talking-about-the-need-for-more-guns-some-guy-was-walking-up-and-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)

Of course the rambling NRA speaker, voice all shaky, just had to blame video games...the best was when he referenced the flash game that's like 11 years old or some shit. Bravo.

All this, coming from someone that actually GETS their side on this, despite the fact that I play video games. Yes, it all comes down to the parents...but as a society, one must admit we have become desensitized to the point of lunacy. Most video games are actually pretty fuckin' violent if you get down to brass tacks. Not siding with them, but I see why that's their scapegoat.

The beautiful thing of it all is, one of the biggest critics of video games, the senator that took it all the way to the Supreme Court? Even he thought the NRA today was full of shit. (http://kotaku.com/5970577/even-one-of-the-biggest-critics-of-violent-video-games-bashed-the-nra-today?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter&utm_source=Kotaku_Twitter&utm_medium=Socialflow)

[WorzelG]

A lot of people have been blaming the media for dwelling on these incidents and glorifying them - but then I thought for a minute what happens when the news sites / blogs publish jokey events or entertaining celeb crap that's meant to cheer us up - and all you get is endless comments asking them to print 'real news' and what are they doing publishing these non-stories? Maybe we do need to acknowledge that ordinary shit should be reported too and is equally 'worthy'

[Jinsai]

and the reason the NRA is pointing the finger at video games, rather than Clint Eastwood movies (or any other violent medium) is because the old men making these "points" don't play video games. The problem isn't how desensitized we've become as a society due to violent media, the problem is mental illness and unrestricted access to high powered weapons. To the NRA, the actual issue addresses something they want NO further regulation on, so they obfuscate the debate in a laughably obvious way by bringing up the only form of violent media that they don't consume.

[allegro]

I'd argue, however, that the VAST MAJORITY of gun violence in this country isn't related to mental illness at all: it's due to gang violence, and gang violence is tied to the sale of illegal drugs, and the guns used in gang violence are provided by drug cartels and are illegally transported from other countries. Those guns, by the way, are mostly those considered "assault" weapons because of the giant-capacity magazines. And those guns get shipped into the country illegally so they completely bypass any state or federal regulations.

I've read many interviews with these gun-toting gang members, and they are ALL influenced by Scarface. Yes, that Al Pacino Scarface. Like, with Scarface posters on the walls and shit. It's like they're living in a movie. "I put him to sleep" (vs. killing him) and "that baby was in the wrong place at the wrong time" rather than being responsible.

[Presideo]

Vilifying video games as instigators of mass murder is like when Marilyn Manson was blamed for Columbine. I assumed we would learn from those past mistakes; apparently I was wrong. When are people going to learn that sane human beings take in violent forms of media all the time, and it doesn't contaminate their ability to know right from wrong. Not everybody who has watched Taxi Driver tried to assassinate a President - only one mentally deranged person. Putting blame on video games really shows how inept our politicians truly are (I guess the pro-video game lobbyists are easier to take down than the pro-gun lobbyists)


and the reason the NRA is pointing the finger at video games, rather than Clint Eastwood movies (or any other violent medium) is because the old men making these "points" don't play video games.
Lawmakers did the same bullshit during the SOPA hearings. Some politicians even went out of their way to state that they knew nothing about the internet, yet were willing to give their vote based on kneejerk assumptions. And they actively joked about this fact, too, as if ignorance to an issue was something funny. "I'm old and don't understand what I'm voting for, but I'm gonna do it anyways - lol"

[allegro]

I think a really stupid person who is a drug dealer might become more desensitized toward violence by being exposed to more violence, whether that violence comes from "Call of Duty" or "C.S.I. Miami" or "Scarface" and Pacino and his Little Friend. See my above post.

Also, violent gang culture in Chicago has been tied to music, like Chief Keef:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/15805733-418/chief-keef-belongs-back-in-jail-for-gun-range-video-prosecutors-say.html

I don't think this stuff MAKES people violent. But, if they see it as "cool" or it's "normal," gang members and common criminals aren't gonna have as many qualms about using violence. Not sure how any if this, including violent video games, ties into mental illness, though.

[Presideo]

I think a really stupid person who is a drug dealer might become more desensitized toward violence by being exposed to more violence, whether that violence comes from "Call of Duty" or "C.S.I. Miami" or "Scarface" and Pacino and his Little Friend. See my above post.
Bingo - you're talking about mentally unstable people, not a regular person. When lawmakers talk about banning video games, they're talking about video games turning regular people into bloodthirsty killers because they kill thousands in a game. Also, Scarface ended with the main character coked-up and gunned down in a pool of his own blood. Anybody taking inspiration from that story should reevaluate their life.


Also, violent gang culture in Chicago has been tied to music, like Chief Keef:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/15805733-418/chief-keef-belongs-back-in-jail-for-gun-range-video-prosecutors-say.html
Nothing in that link says anything about a Chief Keef song actively inspiring someone to kill another person. Hip hop has always been synonymous with gang culture, but that doesn't mean someone is going to kill another human being because a rapper told him to. It's not that black and white.

Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' was made for becoming an efficient war general, but it's used by businessmen who want to become better at their job. It's not the media itself that should be portrayed as evil, but how people apply it.

[orestes]

It really highlights the NRA's irrelevancy when they cite a near 20-year-old Oliver Stone movie as indicative of gun violence in this country.

[Maul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=64G5FfG2Xpg
I hope nobody posted it before,since I've read the post and I haven't seen it.

[allegro]

Nothing in that link says anything about a Chief Keef song actively inspiring someone to kill another person. Hip hop has always been synonymous with gang culture, but that doesn't mean someone is going to kill another human being because a rapper told him to. It's not that black and white.
I don't think anybody thinks a song, or even the music, inspires anybody to kill anyone. They're ALREADY killing each other. The gangster rap simply stamps an endorsement on the violence, like it's okay to do it. Like it's just another day at the office. Which it is, technically. It isn't 'violence' to them; it's protecting their business. It's just business. Very dangerous business. But, the homicide numbers that come from protecting that business are what drive up the overall numbers in this country. So the whole country looks like the wild wild west when, really, the gang warfare and drug turfs are skewing the numbers upward.

See this: http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/20/in-newtowns-shadow-chicagos-bleak-gun-toll-goes-on/