Hug your kids. [Sandy Hook / CT Thread]

[shiney]

I wonder how many more mass shootings we as a nation will experience before mental health is considered as an actual problem that needs resources?

How many more before we should consider if it's necessary for John Q. Public to have a semi automatic assault rifle with hundred round magazine?

How many more before we consider if we really need to "not discuss the topic at this time" and wait for it to fade into the comfortable fuzzy area at the edge of our consciousness where we are thankful that at least we weren't directly connected and nobody in our immediate families died.

For the families of at least 27 people in Connecticut, I imagine they would appreciate if we'd quit dicking around fighting for the right to have mass murder weapons and really start tackling the circumstances that lead to these horrifying tragedies.

In re: guns, guns are a right and necessary for the public...I will never argue against someone to have a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or pistols for self defense. Etc. But, do we need AKs? AR-15s...Bushmasters. Can we argue that there's a need to have these things available? It's not like the self-defense argument carries any weight. In any situation where you would need a firearm for self-defense, you sure don't need military-grade weaponry.

In re: mental health, it's time we as a nation recognize that physical illnesses are only one part of a very two-sided coin. Mental illness needs resources, study, and attention. One thing in common with these mass shootings is guns. Another one, is mental illness. We have been systematically sidestepping this as an issue, calling it crackpot science, looking the other way as the health insurance industry refuses to cover significant treatment options, gutting funding like Saint Reagan did. It's time to knock it off and get serious about these problems.

I called Al Franken's office and spoke to a staffer, and said it's time to bring this to the forefront. Gun control to a lesser extent is necessary, but by and of itself it won't stop these tragedies. We need to fix the underlying problems that drive people to these levels of desperation and insanity.

Please discuss.

Edit: The Onion got it pretty much right. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-nation-reports,30743/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default)

[Solid Snake]

In re: guns, guns are a right and necessary for the public...I will never argue against someone to have a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or pistols for self defense.

I increasingly find myself disagreeing with this sentiment.

I'm here in CT -- this isn't where I live, but it's where I was raised and where I happen to be at the moment -- and it's all been a bit overwhelming. I went through a period of incoherent rage on the matter earlier. Now I just feel hollow. What a crappy fucking shitstain of a world we live in, though.

On a side note: Here I thought you were leaving, Shiney! Good to see you.

[shiney]

I am not taking an active role, but when my choices for discussing this are limited to: my wife, who I will certainly beat this to death with later today, or Fark, where trolls ruin any hope for rational discussion either through lulzing or threadshitting about gun control being the wrong choice (Limbaugh has already suggested WHY WEREN'T THEY ARMED), then here I am.

I disagree with gun control in totality; we as people may someday not too long from now need a means by which to defend ourselves from an increasingly oppressive government (no strawmen* please about how worse other countries have it; things are assuredly worsening domestically) as well as outlaw; only outlaws; et al. Additionally, hunting for food/sport, 2nd amendment rights. Blah blah. But we need to start working on limiting the kinds of guns available, the limits on magazine sizes, and particularly a thorough and comprehensive mental health check on those applying to purchase guns as well as recertification. You have to recertify your driver's license, should need to recertify gun owner's license. It could help catch some of these people before another ColumbinePortlandmallSigncompanyAuroraSandyHook happens.

* not directed at you but at potential responses

[Doc ock rokc]

In re: mental health, it's time we as a nation recognize that physical illnesses are only one part of a very two-sided coin. Mental illness needs resources, study, and attention. One thing in common with these mass shootings is guns. Another one, is mental illness. We have been systematically sidestepping this as an issue, calling it crackpot science, looking the other way as the health insurance industry refuses to cover significant treatment options, gutting funding like Saint Reagan did. It's time to knock it off and get serious about these problems.

I called Al Franken's office and spoke to a staffer, and said it's time to bring this to the forefront. Gun control to a lesser extent is necessary, but by and of itself it won't stop these tragedies. We need to fix the underlying problems that drive people to these levels of desperation and insanity.

Please discuss.

Edit: The Onion got it pretty much right. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-nation-reports,30743/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default)

Uh? Do you honestly think they don't dedicate enough to mental health? Trust me when I say this They do. They go about it in some the most ineffective ways possible but they do understand that the mind is important. How do i know this? For years of my life I have had to battle several systems to prove I wasn't insane. To prove once and for all that my god damned shit hole of unfortunate events that I call a life didn't drive me off the deep end like it should.

However it isn't about me. The fact of the matter is that It's literally impossible to figure out when, where, how, and why some people just snap. not because psychologists don't have enough money. Rather It is because of the sheer number of possibilities that can occur. Some one can be perfectly fine one day. Having a good job, great friends, possibly a good family to go home to. Then the next day he could run out with nothing but his underwear on his head screaming about how he is Lord high priest of the great vortex.

It would take for freaking ever to try to figure out exactly it would happen and even then it would be so unique to just him that it would be hard to tell if anything would be a factor for others.

Then there is the shaky definition of Mental illness. Where the variations can be anything from a almost raving lunatic to a child with a overactive imagination.

Then we have the problem of psychologists themselves. As not only is the field extremely complicated and convoluted in theory but also extremely stressing on the psyche. Its not surprise to me that psychologists have some of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Then there is Shrinks, who are (by a stretch of a definition) People who fancy themselves psychologists but don't have the formal training. They can and have misdiagnosed and mistreated patients and pocketed their money.

Psychology isn't a crack pot science but it is still in it's infancy compared to more concrete sciences. It also lacks much needed regulation on some very VERY important parts.

[shiney]

Is significant mental health service and treatment covered by insurance? According to my own provider Blue Cross Blue Shield, no, it is not. At least this is what I found out when they stated they would not cover mental health treatment for my wife and me.

There may be study, there may be infrastructure, but people also need access. It is cost-prohibitive for a great number of the people who would benefit, in my experience.

[Doc ock rokc]

Is significant mental health service and treatment covered by insurance? According to my own provider Blue Cross Blue Shield, no, it is not. At least this is what I found out when they stated they would not cover mental health treatment for my wife and me.

There may be study, there may be infrastructure, but people also need access. It is cost-prohibitive for a great number of the people who would benefit, in my experience.

a fair number of health services do cover mental health services. there is also some actual psychologists that set up shop in churches for free...although be weary of those. Some of them are shrinks.

[Bells]

I can't say i agree with any co-relation of owning a guy with a "partialy because" connect to "fight of against the government" Shiney. However, this is not a thread for -that- i would think.

Also, indeed, each country has a case... so i can understand when people say that in the USA there should not be a ban on owning weapons, it's a thing of the country, i can understand that just as much as i can also understand that there is no justification to owning military grade weaponry "just'cause".

I heard of this shooting while i was at work, so i'm slim on info about, but it's a tragey for sure and one that happens from time to time in the USA (and other parts of the world, but not really with the same consistency and certianly not with the same shining spotlight thrown over it)

I mean, it's weird for me that on nearly the same breath you mention more regulation ("better regulation" is a better term to understand your position instead of more?) to control who owns guns and then talks about how people should own guns because the government increases it's control over the people nonstop... maybe i understood your line of thought wrong?

I would suggest that the issue lies more in a cultural sense than in a clinical sense...

[Nique]

Wow just a couple days ago we had a Guy run through our local mall and kill a couple of people now this.

I'm sure we will find a way to arm ourselves for the great revolution comrades but in the meantime what if no one was armed hey then this actually couldn't happen at all? Also then maybe the police wouldn't need them either what's that this IS starting to sound pretty good.

[Bells]

Not really a thing possible Nique.

I understand the sentiment, but, kinda like the internet... firearms are an evolution point that we can't "undo" for society and culture worldwide.

I mean, if you take away firearms, people will use something else or make their own. Seriously, take away guns and we will see worst tragedies when people start using home-made explosives, cause they can't get guns no'more...

I think what is more important is to NOT have a radicalized youth.

Have you noticed that for as much as there is always talk of these "white old grumpy men and their guns" most of these horrible tragedies come out from a younger demographic? Think of the worst tragedies like these in recent memories... how often we seen Under 30 young adult males in those? How man wearing combat fatigues or talking or writing about "combat tactics" and similar talks?

This is a dangerous line to talk over cause it's very easily blurred with "video games and movies did it" when in reality, more often than not, they are just a part of an individual that is already very trouble from different sources... that's when they are a part at all and not just made up easy to blame bullshit.

To me, one of the worst aspects of this is the "legacy" is like these people WANT to be remembered by these monstrous acts. The setting, the method, their "costumed look", their targets.... it's always to cause not the most damage or send the biggest message or to enact a revolt or change... is simply to cause the greatest gaping hole possible on everyone else.

Those elements combined create a very, very disturbing landscape that i think addresses a bigger problem than simply a medical condition or gun legislature.

[Magus]

Yeah I've pretty much decided that they should just outlaw the things totally. If they want handguns for defense then design a revolver that holds three bullets. And also you can legally only buy and own three bullets at a time. Also there should be as many hoops to jump through as legally possible to ever own a gun, including extensive background and psychological checks, months-long waiting periods, and intensive training that you have to take every time you want to renew your license, which is once a year. It should also cost hundreds of dollars to have the license. Guns should also have a price-floor of one thousand dollars. And again, you can only buy that one gun that holds three bullets. And absolutely no assault rifles.

There, it's still constitutional, they've just regulated that shit out the wazoo. If you want to own a gun you have to be extremely rich and extremely dedicated. You can still own a handgun, just not be able to afford anything else.

EDIT: @Bells: if they punished gun ownership the way they did owning say, marijuana or whatever, you'd see people voluntarily turning the things over in droves.

Obviously we can still look at the underlying mental and societal problems that drive people to shoot other people but in the meantime we should just mitigate the damage and outlaw the things. Like I heard in China some psycho managed to stab a bunch of kids, but presumably they didn't all die because the news said they were just in the hospital (so far). So all these arguments about how you can still kill people other ways--people need to just stop. Yes, you can. It's also way harder and far less deadly overall. Guns make killing easy and widespread.

[Bells]

For me, bullet control is more important than gun control. Sure, you can still make your own ammo... for some weapons, but for a collector, you don't really need ammo. Or at least much of it. For hunters, it's easy to control how much ammo a licensed hunter buys over a season.

For people that require guns in the line of work (off duty military, police, and the such) you can still have some control.

And for regular civilians, you just add in the harsher control methods... look, i would be less worried about the guy that owns 39 empty assault rifles that and more about the guy that owns just one, but stockpile 100 cases of ammo under it.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

See, we make people take tests to prove they can drive a car safely, but do we really have any tests to make sure a person can handle a gun safely? Or is even mentally fit to own one?

[Inbred Chocobo]

Whats worse about this issue is how the media is handling it. I turn on the news, and I see reporters interviewing kids and talking about the killings and expecting an adult response, and going on about how violent video games are the cause as they desensitized him and got the idea of a mass shooting into him.

I've also heard gun control being tossed around. I own a gun, and I've gone through the trouble of getting a permit to carry it concealed on me. I've done this for over a year now, and have only fired the gun on a gun range. For the gun, ammo, and the rest of the funds, I've played well over a grand already. Is it stupid of me the own one?

I've taken safety classes, I've done a lot of research and have fired the gun multiple times and have gotten decent accuracy. The only time I would ever pull a gun out is if I truly wanted the person I was pointing it at dead. I've met others in my time, and you can basically call these people responsible gun owners.

Thing is, these people decide for one reason or another to own a gun is a good reason. Faith and Religious reasons, distrust of Government protection, sporting events (Gun sports, not football), hunting, collectors, or just believing that the only person that can protect you is you, there are some valid reasons and concerns to want to own a firearm. Should we deny 20 responsible people the ability to own a gun if 1 person is going to give it up? T

The key would be to keep the gun away from the crazy people, but then how do we determine that? Background checks say they don't have a history, but I am willing to bet that our shooter here, and most shooters in the recent past, are young, and don't have much of a background to check in the first place. Psychology views have been expressed as well, and how difficult it can be to diagnose such mental issues like this.

So then do we just take the guns away? In an idealized world, it would be wonderful, but I have concerns about such a thing. First biggest thing is, how would you implement such an idea? Just send a letter to everyone registered with a gun to bring it in for disposal? Those honest citizens paid good money they worked hard for to buy them, and you want them to throw it away? You would have to compensate them for each gun. I will admit, I have a pricey handgun, you are looking at roughly 500 a gun. There were roughly 5 million guns manufactured this year, and another 3 million imported (http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf). Where is the money going to come to pay everyone for the guns they purchased? How many citizens will want to give up their purchases easily because Uncle Sam said they couldn't have them anymore, and what happens to them? They have guns, and a common reason is distrust of the government to own one, so if the government comes after them, there are going to be quite a few that would want to use it.

Then you are looking at ruining collectors, all the sporting events that revolve around gunmanship, and hunting. I've seen a lot of rural areas where people had to hunt to survive. You get the ability to press your own ammo, and know gun maintenance, know how to skin and cook a deer or other wildlife, you can live off a dollar or two a month honestly, and some families actually have to do that to live. Should we take away their guns because a couple of crazies shot up a school that his mom worked at?

Let's not forget the gun industry either. It generates roughly $2-3 billion dollars a years. There are a lot of jobs there as well. Guns are banned that is a lot of jobs and families on the streets starving. Higher ups would obviously start re-working assets and such, but most likely its going to be sell everything and bail out and start fresh, or get with another company, and it would be a long time before something else starts out.

Guns are too integrated into society and American culture that they simply cannot be banned. Trying to do so would cause severe problems with economical and cultural issues and the backlash would be far greater than any potential shooting would cause.

In truth, the question should be how to we keep guns out of the hands of the people that cannot be responsible for them. I wish that question has an easy answer, but it doesn't, as the one that seems simplest, just ban guns, has too many problems with it that you can't ignore.

[Amake]

"Again?" is pretty much the only thing I can think about this. I can't think about the waste of human life or the bottomless conceit and judgment of their killer or I might start crying and not stop. So anyway.

I haven't done any numbers on this, but I think these spree killers are about as common as serial killers, another problem almost exclusive to the US. Where does this great willingness to kill people come from? I really don't know, but it may be a more important question than how many guns you should have. In my opinion as a gun control enthusiast.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Don't be so sure Amake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_country)

[Flarecobra]

I've been thinking about how to best express how I feel about this stuff... and this I think sums it up best.

"The law does not exist to stop evil, it exists to punish it and ensure justice is brought to those who commit evil acts. Evil will always exist and continue to commit atrocities, regardless of laws."

The only one that, if you ask me, that can stop evil from occuring is people. Those who seek to commit these sort of acts will always find some way to commit them.

[Amake]

Well, I had that all wrong. Not so much almost exclusive as comparable to the rest of the world put together. Though I think you'll agree it's still a noteworthy trend.

[Krylo]

England: Population ~51,000,000
Serial killers (according to list, counting killers who worked together individually): 55


US: Population: ~511,000,000
Serial killers: (using same metric as above) 262

Serial killers per 1 million residents
US: .51
England: .93


Conclusion: England has nearly twice as many serial killers per capita as the United States.

Further Conclusion: Taking only a small part of the equation and pulling an answer from it isn't a good way to base your statements in fact.
Edit: Even that's an incomplete picture. How many serial killers, in say, rural china, never go reported or noticed? Also: violent crime of all sort is more prevalent the larger and more urban an area people live in. Or, more concisely, greater population density = greater incidence of violent crime, in general. What's the population percentage in England/The US compared to Argentina that live in cities? What's the average population density of a city? Etc. etc.


That said: It is a problem of culture in many countries promoting violent acts more than it's a problem of controlling weaponry of any type. And more than a problem of culture it's a problem of wealth disparity, a lack of proper focus on mental and emotional well being, and all sorts of other things.

With school shootings in particular, I'd guess the problems lie in many of the same places as our flagging test scores in this country. Too large class sizes, under paid and over worked teachers, and not enough infrastructure to give students the support they need or to notice when a student is in a particularly poor place.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I had a lot of things to say but people using hunting/2nd amendment rights as a reason to own firearms is pretty much equivalent to saying the government should allow me to have a taser to control my uppity slaves.

[Geminex]

"The law does not exist to stop evil, it exists to punish it and ensure justice is brought to those who commit evil acts. Evil will always exist and continue to commit atrocities, regardless of laws."
No, it isn't. Rather, it shouldn't be. The purpose of criminal legislation is, according to criminology, fourfold. Law and punishment exist as a social guideline, as a threat to potential criminals, as a means of removing dangerous individuals from the public, and finally also as a means for rehabilitation. "Revenge" should not come into it.

I'm perfectly aware that the social drive for revenge rears its ugly head all too often, and the criminal justice system as it is in many countries often seems to enable that drive for revenge more than it actually fullfills any of the goals I've listed above.

But revenge is not a justification for a state's actions against its own citizens. Saying that it should be, that we should make our laws with the aim of taking revenge on the "evil" would utterly take away any remaining semblance of humanity from the criminal justice system as it it, and, more to the point, make it even more destructive than it already is.

[Azisien]

I am appalled by this and can't begin to imagine what the people in that community have to go through now, for the next however many years. This will be passe for us in a few weeks perhaps, but there are now parents without children that were just coming into their own.

We could certainly do better. Our society has a lot of sickness and I doubt it helps the situation (of people occasionally rampaging).

However, the gun control thing couldn't be more knee-jerk reaction. I'm not surprised it is the only thing I read on social media now, but come on, you all seem to hold yourselves to some higher standard.

Guns exist, they are out now, and yes, there are pretty great arguments in favor of the common populace having the right to arm themselves. I'm completely for mandatory checks, tests, safety courses, what have you. If your particular town, county, state, country lacks these things, then shame on you, promote it. We license drivers, and drivers are horrible. Over 30,000 people this year (and every year) will not come home to their families, or perhaps die with their families, because of motor vehicle accidents, and that's the United States alone.

But honestly, it's a moot point. Weapons can be made, or found, or modified. If someone snaps, and that person has a will to do damage, they WILL do damage. People will die. Unless you want to have everybody in strait jackets at all times. How many assault rifles did Timothy McVeigh need? We should probably ban chemistry textbooks, and ammonia. The blame of this is on the gunman alone, as it always is.

And seriously? An opposing opinion to knee-jerk gun bans is automatically threadshitting? Okay. I think politicizing this immediately is also threadshitting.

I'd rather just mourn. Or celebrate some of the day's heroes. Teachers that literally stood their ground in the middle of a shooting rampage, hid away many of the children, and according to some of the articles I've read, even confronted the gunman or acted as human shields for the kids.

[Nique]

Az's post made it sound like I missed something cause I am not seeing anything about threadshitting but like, I think wishing things were/ were not a certain way in familiar terms (like "politicized" gun control debates) is a part of the mourning process for a lot of people.

Plus like, what is the proper amount of time to pass before we can discuss gun control? It's bound to be called a 'knee-jerk' reaction at literally almost any given point. And those for gun control are hardly the only ones "knee-jerking" - I've heard plenty of people advocating for teachers etc to be armed. And as stupid as I think that is, I also respect that they're processing the event in a way that makes sense to them.

[Azisien]

Knee-jerk: The day of, thrown into a conversation. And the argument for gun control is "because this happened." It is an emotional response, as you say, part of the mourning process. I don't know about you, but I'm all for NOT passing laws and regulations based on emotional arguments made on a day that something terrible happened. The argument automatically ignores or overwhelms any other because of the weight of the tragedy. For how dare someone have other reasons to support bearing arms, kids died yesterday. Argument over.

Also: the threadshitting comment was in reference to...Shiney's second post. His viewpoint is odd too because he like, is okay with the right to bear arms generally? And I concur. But limiting the types of arms is pretty pointless. We have limitations in Canada. We have mandatory safety courses. It honestly doesn't matter to people who snap. And people have indeed, snapped in Canada. It is not hard to half-ass a gun course and pass, just as it is not hard to half-ass a driving test and pass. Guns are frequently, and easily, modified. With Google and some YouTube, a 5-round restricted cartridge can become a 30, 50, 100, whatever round one. Or in other words, the dilithium concentrations are rising to dangerous levels! We could experience full blown atonian radiation exposure any second! The reversing polarities, it does nothing!

The much better arguments are for helping people be better people, not restricting tools and information. NPF usually fights the latter. Unless kids died yesterday.

[Nique]

I don't know about you, but I'm all for NOT passing laws and regulations based on emotional arguments made on a day that something terrible happened.

The arguments people are making or pointing towards are probably based on their own reasoning from before this event, political philosophies, and possibly research. I don't think it's really fair for you to claim that just because some of us are expressing that specific opinion as it relates to this event and that discussion is a part of grieving over events like this, that we are advocating for laws to be passed based on an emotional reaction.

The much better arguments are for helping people be better people, not restricting tools and information. NPF usually fights the latter. Unless kids died yesterday.

Now, hold on just a sec. Is it ok to "politicize" this or not? You can't have it both ways and you're clearly expressing your opinion about gun control issues so???

[Bells]

I agree with the sentiment that crazy people will do crazy things regardless of law.

I mean, if you banned weapons, through and through, to civilians today... you would simply have a crazy person going the extra lenght to get the guns illegally, and he would be able to find it.

Harder? Certainly. Maybe would make these things more unlikely to happen? I believe so. But it would not prevent it entirely.

On the other hand... leaving things "as is" is not really a good option either. It really bothers me the amount of similarities between these cases, it speaks to a trend not a punctual issue. Everyone talks louder right after it happens, that's the emotional response, but those that aren't riding the media circus wave know only full well that this is a repeating issue in more ways than just one... that is not a sentiment that can or should be cheapen out on.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Guns exist, they are out now, and yes, there are pretty great arguments in favor of the common populace having the right to arm themselves.
And what are they? Because I have never heard a single one.


But honestly, it's a moot point. Weapons can be made, or found, or modified. If someone snaps, and that person has a will to do damage, they WILL do damage. People will die. Unless you want to have everybody in strait jackets at all times. How many assault rifles did Timothy McVeigh need? We should probably ban chemistry textbooks, and ammonia. The blame of this is on the gunman alone, as it always is.
Except you know, all these things have an actual practical use.
This is like when people are like "Banks will just try and hide from regulation and they're pretty good at it so there is no point regulating them". It makes no sense as an argument.


No, it isn't. Rather, it shouldn't be. The purpose of criminal legislation is, according to criminology, fourfold. Law and punishment exist as a social guideline, as a threat to potential criminals, as a means of removing dangerous individuals from the public, and finally also as a means for rehabilitation. "Revenge" should not come into it.

I'm perfectly aware that the social drive for revenge rears its ugly head all too often, and the criminal justice system as it is in many countries often seems to enable that drive for revenge more than it actually fullfills any of the goals I've listed above.

But revenge is not a justification for a state's actions against its own citizens. Saying that it should be, that we should make our laws with the aim of taking revenge on the "evil" would utterly take away any remaining semblance of humanity from the criminal justice system as it it, and, more to the point, make it even more destructive than it already is.

That's a bit of a fantastic drawing of our justice system there that doesn't really cross over with reality at any point. As a fantastical outline its ok, though really you should only have 2 platforms in your justice system- rehabiliation and education. The idea of punishment and righting the wrongs is completely ridiculous as you stated thouhg.

[Azisien]

The arguments people are making or pointing towards are probably based on their own reasoning from before this event, political philosophies, and possibly research. I don't think it's really fair for you to claim that just because some of us are expressing that specific opinion as it relates to this event and that discussion is a part of grieving over events like this, that we are advocating for laws to be passed based on an emotional reaction.

Fair enough. But your argument could be completely reversed, and still be valid. Many people are just doing this. As certain as you are people are logical, rational beings that had solid philosophical and statistical arguments before yesterday, and only chose yesterday to start voicing them again, I can be as certain that just as many or more people are reacting with arguments based partly or purely on emotion.

And that isn't okay, and it's part of mourning maybe, but not discourse. And that's the problem with "knee-jerk." Even if there are plenty of valid arguments for gun control on all sides of the spectrum, whatever you believe, the sense is lost in the noise of the tragedy. You may call knee-jerky-ness arbitrary too, but it's not. Proximity to events matter. I'd rather have a gun control discussion in, I dunno, two or three weeks after Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift's latest escapades take back the airwaves.

Now, hold on just a sec. Is it ok to "politicize" this or not? You can't have it both ways and you're clearly expressing your opinion about gun control issues so???

True, I'm kinda doing it because it became a topic of the thread, and that it was a topic bothered me. Yea, I may have extended its tenure, but whatever, I'm having a pretty good time. I'm prepared to stop, though. I'll set my watch for two weeks and if I see any gun control debates before then, regardless of side, I'll just pretend I heard Star Trek technobabble instead.

[Nique]

Many people are just doing this. As certain as you are people are logical, rational beings that had solid philosophical and statistical arguments before yesterday, and only chose yesterday to start voicing them again, I can be as certain that just as many or more people are reacting with arguments based partly or purely on emotion.

How exactly are you discerning who specifically here on NPF is being rational and who is not?

And like, even if the only thing anyone was saying was 'Arg this is terrible! I wish there were no guns!', that is probably a 'knee-jerk' thing to wish for! But I think it is 'okay' to say that.

EDIT:
True, I'm kinda doing it because it became a topic of the thread, and that it was a topic bothered me. Yea, I may have extended its tenure, but whatever, I'm having a pretty good time. I'm prepared to stop, though.

So it's not ok to (left) politicize about gun control because it's disrespectful somehow, but it is ok to (right) politicize in response because, hey, good times?

Like, maybe I'm picking to hard at this now but this kind of fallacy really bothers me. No one is saying 'Hey Az don't argue against gun control that is disrespectful to this tragic event!'.

[Azisien]

How exactly are you discerning who specifically here on NPF is being rational and who is not?

I'll be 100% honest with you, I never drew up a list. But as you have discussed honourably with me over this past hour, you are now on the Cool Dude column of Azisien's Rationality List.

And like, even if the only thing anyone was saying was 'Arg this is terrible! I wish there were no guns!', that is probably a 'knee-jerk' thing to wish for! But I think it is 'okay' to say that.

I'll agree. Not sure what okay means to you in apostrophes though. Like, they're allowed to say it and I won't suppress their right to say it and stuff. I might disagree, though. Or agree, but amend the end to "I wish there were better mental health facilities/education/parenting/any number of institutions that could better someplace." Anyway, not to drag this back into a circle. Yes, they can say that. I don't think they're right, though.

e: I'll even go as far as admitting they are on a better track than the folks that hop on the video game blame-train, because no one ever went crazy before video games, or for that matter, electricity. (http://kotaku.com/5968683/mob-blames-mass-effect-for-school-shooting-is-embarrassingly-wrong)

So it's not ok to (left) politicize about gun control because it's disrespectful somehow, but it is ok to (right) politicize in response because, hey, good times?

Yea, I shouldn't have responded to it at all. Oh well, I did. I'll happily delete it all though, if everybody else does. I do reject the left/right clumping though. My views are pretty far from conservative, and really, really, really, really far from United States conservative.

[Nique]

I don't think they're right, though.

That's fine. But 'I disagree' is different than 'people shouldn't say things I disagree with'.

EDIT:
I do reject the left/right clumping though. My views are pretty far from conservative, and really, really, really, really far from United States conservative.

I understand why you are clarifying this and I'm sorry if I made this bit sound like more than what it was. For the record, I was talking about the issue of gun control only and your opinion as stated relative to it, and not your overall political leanings.

[Azisien]

That's fine. But 'I disagree' is different than 'people shouldn't say things I disagree with'.

I don't remember silencing folks and I couldn't find the part where I said it, because I would remove it. My initial agitation was probably overkill. I'm slightly emotional. I interpreted one of Shiney's statements as, essentially, 'if you aren't for restricting firearms, or more, you are an internet troll' (since the people at Fark are apparently for the opposite, or trolls, or probably both, and fuck Limbaugh). Taking his other words in context though, my bad. But I mean, yeah, I'd be happy to go into detail on my own reasoning and thoughts on gun control, but probably at a later date. But it does also need to be stated, AGAIN, that I think other social institutions need far more investigation and improvement than those regulating firearms. Like so much more.

[Nique]

Saying that politicizing was threadshitting was part of it, and then the implication that it would be better to 'just mourn' and that anything more was an emotional 'knee-jerk'. That is what I understood from those statements, though I think we have pretty much come to an understanding. I don't think you were really 'silencing' anyone exactly.

[shiney]

Honestly this knee-jerk thing rubs me the wrong way. This happens, again and again, and unless we discuss it in the immediate aftermath it goes away from public consciousness. It is a discussion we as a nation actually do need to have. To call it knee-jerk, after we still haven't had the discussion after at least a half dozen mass shootings this year alone, is every bit as crass as someone who insists we should immediately ban all guns.

As far as threadshitting, that was in relation to a different website altogether where people like to troll in favor of unrestricted gun ownership because Obama's gunna take er gunz away.

e: The discussion needed, by the by, is not one of gun control, it's one of a comprehensive package to try and prevent these tragedies, including aspects of gun control, availability of social services and accessibility to mental health treatment. Increasing desperation, decreasing public assistance and high accessibility to lethal semi-automatic weaponry creates a situation where it is getting easier for these people to grab a big gun and take it out on innocents.

[Solid Snake]

Saying that politicizing was threadshitting was part of it, and then the implication that it would be better to 'just mourn' and that anything more was an emotional 'knee-jerk'. That is what I understood from those statements, though I think we have pretty much come to an understanding. I don't think you were really 'silencing' anyone exactly.

The irony appears to be that, by his own admission, Azi was emotionally overreacting in his arguments against gun control advocates 'emotionally overreacting.'

Well, here's 'emotionally overreacting' for you.

Someone needs to explain to me why advocates of guns Killing Machines feel we can't even restrict quantitative access. Even if self-defense or hunting justifies ownership of a gun, why should the Lanza family have owned SIX of the goddamn things? At that point, there's no further utility in ownership except "the ability to kill even more people." You can't hunt with six guns at once.

Not to mention the notion that a .223 Bushmaster is apparently a totally legit gun to own. (http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the-connecticut-shooter-used-a-bushmaster-rifle-like-the-dc-snipers-2012-12) Even if it wasn't used yesterday as reported, it was used in the DC Sniper killings, which terrorized the metropolitan area I resided in at the time. Who the fuck needs that kind of firepower to hunt? Do you get points awarded for the force applied to the deer as it's dying? Is there a competition I'm unaware of where hunters are graded on a scale of animals eradicated? What the hell do we need assault rifles for? I don't know, but the NRA felt convinced it was justified to overturn a ban of them.

Our culture of gun Killing Machine worship is corrosive and we need to heavily regulate them. Even assuming that it's true that mentally unstable killers would still prowl our neighborhoods, limiting their access to deadly firearms would dramatically decrease the severity of incidents, as exhibited yesterday in China, when a madman stabbed a bunch of kids and NONE of them died.

Yes, it's true that other devices -- including, most notably, automobiles -- can be used to inflict serious bodily harm. But we as beings with intellect are capable of attempting a cost-benefit analysis and weighing the beneficial utility of a tool against the harm it is capable of inflicting. Cars and airplanes are necessary instruments for long-distance transportation; deaths as a result of their use are undeniably tragedies and require heavy regulation to prevent, but we tolerate such incidents in exchange for the expected benefits -- including saved lives -- that the technology endows.

What societal benefits are derived from gun Killing Machine ownership? The answer can't be self-defense, because Killing Machine use by civilians against thieves, for example, only respond to crime with aggravated force. A robbery intending merely to take property from a still-living victim is made worse if its prevention requires the death of the robber. Unless we value property over lives. Actually, that's a legitimate question to ask most Americans given the way our capitalist society runs: Do we value property over lives?

At best, one could argue that Killing Machine ownership can prevent an attempted murder or rape, which would justify its use. So, again, I come to my earlier conclusion: It's okay to own one Killing Machine, so long it's use is highly regulated, the instrument is capable of the minimal force necessary for deterrence, and so long as you only own one of them, and access is restricted to all members of your household who haven't been trained in its use.

...Oh, and, maybe we should ban men from gun ownership. Objectively speaking, a vastly disproportionate percentage of killers and criminals are boys and men, who seem biologically and culturally predisposed to commit such atrocities, through their testosterone or their assumption of privilege (and inevitable disappointment that 'real life' cannot match undue benefits that generations of institutional privilege have promised its recipients) or some combination thereof.

And, if we restrict ourselves to the earlier-stated sole utility of gun ownership being for victims to protect against murder and rape, then women, by virtue of their lesser muscle mass and their statistical likelihood of being targeted due to male-propagated rape culture, need the weapon to 'level the playing field' against an assaulter.

...Now that's an emotional reaction.

[RobinStarwing]

You see me and you would probably expect me to say something asininely ridiculous or make a crack and could go on about me being a shithead douche.

No, not this time. TWENTY KIDS died because a guy for some reason days after an altercation at this school and when he couldn't get his own gun, used his mother's guns and shot her dead then drove to this school and proceeded to shoot it up with 1 Bushmaster and 2 Handguns.

So no, this is not the time to crack a joke or say something snarky. We are ALL in pain and feeling for twenty sets of parents who had their kids taken away from them at the worst time of year to lose them. Parents who probably bought their kids something they wanted for Christmas. Kids who had yet to show they could make a difference in the world.

And as we all feel this, keep in mind my belief in Psychic powers existing and the idea of Empaths and that I am one and imagine that on top of what I feel, which is sadness for the dead and outrage at how WE let this shit happen again and again without seemingly learning from it what truly needs to be truly learned for them.

Honestly this knee-jerk thing rubs me the wrong way. This happens, again and again, and unless we discuss it in the immediate aftermath it goes away from public consciousness. It is a discussion we as a nation actually do need to have. To call it knee-jerk, after we still haven't had the discussion after at least a half dozen mass shootings this year alone, is every bit as crass as someone who insists we should immediately ban all guns.

The Rules for Being Human state this as a rule; "A lesson is repeated until it is learned. A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you have learned it, you can go on to the next lesson." This thing with people going on rampages with weapons is the lesson being repeated and we do the same thing the Alcoholics do with Insanity...we do the same things over and over again and expect different results.

So yeah, the time to discuss it and get on our soapbox for the causes of this bullshit IS FUCKING NOW!!!! When the Second Amendment was conceived, guns could only at most fire 10 rounds a minute. The Founding Fathers understood that we may need to update the Constitution ever so often and gave us a system to do so. So as far as anyone screaming "Don't take away our guns!" I don't want to take away your guns if you are responsible, sane, rational owners. Keep in mind my brother and father are collectors/shooters, my dad is ex-Army, and I come from a family of Hunters. Responsible weapon use and respecting them was INGRAINED into me.

The people who cry "You will have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands" I find are NOT respecting the power in their hands. Rights come with responsibilities of how you apply them. I also want to hear from them where it is necessary to own something that can fire 100 rounds a minute or can put a bullet through the engine block of a car from 2 miles away.

On the flip side, people will find ways to hurt or kill others and snap. Yeah, it's a crapshoot to figure out the causes for any one person or what could be their big red self-destruct button. Does this mean we shouldn't? No, we should try so shit like this doesn't keep happening.

We also need, as a society, to stop thinking that no one thing affects us as EVERYTHING affects us each. Everyone screaming doomsday on the 21st...well it might be if what happens is we go through a change of conciousness and enter an Age of Aquarius where we start caring about and helping each other and embracing our differences instead of what we have done before.

We have two paths at this point. We can continue on as we have been or actually start changing things for the better and beat the crap out of anyone who thinks the status quo works. I think we all know where I stand.

As N said in the newest pokemon game;


"To make a the world better,you must accept different ideas."'


I think this applies here and also, one side has NOT been doing this (I am looking at Rush Limbaugh and the NRA and the GOP as I know they will start screaming bloody murder rage against any form of gun control and I say to them UNFUCK YOURSELVES AND PISS OFF!). If they don't want to help, FINE!! I will be happy to leave them in their stone age, patriarchally fucked up minds that power means everything and having it without the responsiblity to use it is a good thing.

Goddess, stand with the children now back in your bosom and with the parents, families, and all of us mourning the dead.

As far as threadshitting, that was in relation to a different website altogether where people like to troll in favor of unrestricted gun ownership because Obama's gunna take er gunz away.

Read above.

Also, apologies if it seems like I rambled and vented. As I said, like all you, I am fed up and emotional with all this.

EDIT: Mom helped correct a few things so changed it up a little.

[Solid Snake]

...Wait.
I agree with Robin on an issue?

[Bells]

"we must change" and "we must do better" do not mean anything. At all. If you can't make sense of what actions would constitute "better".

Yelling "this is a bad thing that i don't like" means absolutely nothing and makes no different. That, actually, is the true emotional response. An outcry of confusion and anger in response to what horror one person can unleash upon thousands by himself. That's what happens every time, everywhere and it fades away after a few weeks when the winds of rage slow down a bit and somehow people feel like "something was done" cause the rage ain't as big as it was a few weeks ago.

And thus the cycle begins anew.

Nobody is debating that things need to improve and be better, also, i THINK nobody here is missing the point that this is actually not a cataclysm of a situation, but just the worst of human nature and the realization (that we forget sometimes) that a single bad intentioned individual can bring horror to thousands by himself.

If we can't agree of where the problem actually is, how can you possibly expect anybody to fix anything? If the dumbest of your nation have the loudest voices can you expect anybody to listen to reason? If your outcry is limited to "i'm sick and tired of this and i want change" how can you expect others to have a clue on what to actually do?

Again, for my money on the table, i think this is cultural... is that people think one of the top reasons to own guns is that "the goverment might come for you in the middle of the night" ... i mean, for crying out loud that is more common than "i need guns cause criminals and gangs are a serious treat" !! This is not Ok. This is not a healthy mentality.

Besides... if the government turned on it's people, 3 things could happen... A) the military would stand with the government, and in that case your "militia" or whatever the fuck you might call it, will be curb stomped into oblivion. B) The military turns on the Government, and in that case, your basement filled with sawed off shotguns ain't much of an issue anymore... or C) The military splits between the two and anything you might have will surely be taken away by people with better stuff or you will get better stuff by siding with people who have better stuff.

The "Gran Torino" "red dawn" fantasy model doesn't hold up. Backyard militias and armed neighborhood watches are soon to become a vigilante problem faster than any might rise to make a positive difference in any scenario that includes a "Aggressive overtake of the people by the Government" or really, any sort of "Blitzkrieg" scenario people create to justify this.

For this particular tragedy, you might want to think real hard about what you would consider a solution. Take your solution to the extreme conclusion and see if you would still be Ok with it... see how much control you are willing to give your government of defining who is mentally sound, stable, or harmful to others. How much control over entry and exist in schools you are willing to take, how much of your life and past you are willing to share with a purchase or a hobby...

If you want to control violence, you can only control 2 things, the guns or the people who use the guns. Which one are you willing to stick the knife into? And how deep are you comfortable with? Cause THAT'S the hard questions that people have trouble answering...

Or.... If you think no extra control should be in place, answer this... how many dead people (not just children or minorities, everybody.) are you willing to accept as "consequence" of options for no control? Is 100 people a year ok? 20? 50% more elderly? Infants? Those are the uncomfortable numbers people don't face.

Rage and yelling is fine, natural and human... but anybody willing to try and solve this issue is going to have to to look at uncomfortable things and make hard choices, unpopular with many even...

[Solid Snake]

I always find it hysterical that the same conservatives who're all like "Our military is amazing!" and "God bless America, the greatest country in the world!" Are the first ones to throw out conspiracy theories regarding how the government and our soldiers will betray us all to justify gun ownership.

[RobinStarwing]

Why not work on both sides of the issue Bell? Fix the holes in Gun Laws and get the help and put up the road blocks needed to make it harder for asshole like this to carry it out. Granted, this means they will turn to other methods like knives and/or IEDs.

It is a Cultural thing but the components are individuals. We need to look at EVERY component to what happened, not single one out over the others.

[Bells]

Because you can't "roadblock assholes"... you have to Roadblock everyone and hope your system and the people applying the system are good enough so that the Assholes will natural fall trapped into the roadblock system while the non-assholes will get through just fine.

Which falls into the category of Government Controlling People, how much control are you willing to give to your government in order to have such a system be put in place? Cause you can be damn sure it will split the people down between "too much" and "not enough"

And then you add in the fact that you guys in the USA have a Bi-partisan system with both sides dealing with different, but overlapping, group of corporate and global interests while at the same time being polar opposites in almost everything and soon enough you can understand why a "just fix everything at the same time" approach is nearly unfeasible.

[rpgdemon]

I will keep saying this: I hate the media attention on all of this. The story should be, "An ill person killed many of his classmates in CT." They shouldn't now spend weeks glorifying what he did, and making him the most famous person in the US.

Of course, they will. And, it's been shown that in cases like this, you get 2-3 related attacks, by people inspired by what they saw on the news.

If you want to make a change: Write your news agencies. Call them out on being responsible for such atrocities. Tell them that you're disgusted that they promote these horrific situations by giving them full spotlight, and thrusting them into the focus of the US. More kids can see that they'll be heard, and get what they think that they need, if they murder their classmates.

[Krylo]

A robbery intending merely to take property from a still-living victim is made worse if its prevention requires the death of the robber. Unless we value property over lives. Actually, that's a legitimate question to ask most Americans given the way our capitalist society runs: Do we value property over lives?


Suggestion: Google deaths in home invasion, deaths during robbery, etc. etc. It's, literally, impossible to find reliable statistics for it, in part because home invasion, itself, isn't generally considered a crime, but it's rather easy to find many many news stories wherein people were gunned down, stabbed, burned alive, or otherwise killed for the heinous crime of being home while a robber was taking their things.

The assumption that someone who breaks into your home is only there to take some stuff and will leave you alone entirely so long as you just sit in the corner quietly and wait for them to leave is a pretty dangerous one.

Also, the 'Killing Machine' thing is a little overblown. Makes it hard to take the post seriously when I'm rolling my eyes once per paragraph.

Pretty neutral on gun control, myself. I've seen compelling arguments both for and against it, but have never seen any actual hard evidence (that isn't immediately refuted by oppositional hard evidence) that across the board gun control either aids or hurts anything. Only thing I've seen hard evidence for is gun control being a situational thing that is very unhelpful sometimes and very helpful other times, generally relating to an area's culture, its proximity to (or existence as) an urban center, the number of firearms already in the area, and the general availability of them in nearby areas though both legal and illegal channels.

We, as a people, should spend less time having emotionally charged arguments about boolet launchers and more time actually trying to figure out what's going to make an actual measurable impact on violent crime rates, up to and including spree murder.

I've already tossed out earlier in the thread that better pay for teachers, lower class sizes, and better benefits for teachers would probably lead to over all fewer school shootings as students who are feeling emotionally distressed or trapped are noticed and helped along sooner. Some psychological training for teachers couldn't hurt either.

Legislation trying family members as accomplices might be a valid avenue to look down as well--would it actually deter families from having a million guns where their teens could easily access them if this were the case?

But when considering gun control, or the control of any other object regardless of purpose, one can't simply ask themselves, "Would this have happened if guns weren't available?"

The reason being that this kind of thinking is what leads us to ineffective airport security measures which have failed to stop bombs, poisons, and knives from getting on planes at every turn (all of whom were stopped by passengers or air marshalls, thankfully), while significantly decreasing the quality of life for average people who want no part of it.

It's purely reactionary. Someone does x, take away tool y to the best of our ability. It makes sense outwardly but in practice has only actually stopped x from happening wherein the culture of an area supports taking away tool y and/or x happening was an outlier case.

What one needs to ask instead is a slew of questions, from 'would anything similar have happened without this' to 'can we actually effectively regulate this' to 'does this save more lives than it takes away' to 'do the pros of this including potential lives saved outweigh the cons of this including potential lives lost'?

Now you might argue that OF COURSE gun control is going to save more lives than it costs, or that any life saved is worth more than any other cons, and while I may agree with the latter there's plenty of evidence that the opposite is actually true in the case of the former.

Take for instance the fact that the UK instituted a 'gold standard' for gun control in 1997. What happened afterward? Violent crime was on the rise. Incredibly so.

By 1999 they had overtaken the violent crime rates of the US in everything other than murder and rape, and in 2001 it had gotten bad enough that armed men were raiding court houses to free defendants.

A trend that continued through 2009 at the least (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html).

Meanwhile countries like Sweden with high rates of gun ownership over all are sporting violent crime and homocide rates that are ridiculously low.

While I doubt that gun control, enacted properly, will result in a rise of violent crime, and I doubt that gun control, alone, is responsible for the UK's issues--the fact of the matter is I remain unconvinced that it's actually helpful either. And if legislation is unhelpful, it probably shouldn't be carried out.

What we need to do is correct the cowboy and vigilante culture of the United States that worships violence almost as much as it denigrates sexuality with its puritan values. We need to correct the underfunding of necessary public institutions. We need to correct our tendency to neglect our children on both a personal and societal level. We need to correct the growing wealth disparity between the rich and the poor.

This, most likely, is where our violent crime issues lie, and if we can correct the first of those issues gun ownership will drop off without the need for legal action, and correcting the rest will simply make the US a better place in general--and given the US's pull in global politics, maybe the world.

[Sifright]

In the future when trying to make a point Krylo at least use a source that isn't the uks equivalent of fox news.

The figures that the daily mail article use are completely bupkiss it includes in the uk stats violent crime in which the victim wasn't hurt including death threats, Harassment and assault with out injury.

Also Violent crime figures have been constantly dropping in the uk as a whole for a least the last decade.

According to the ONS the uks official government body for recording stats of a rather huge variety, Violent crime peaked in the UK in 1995 and dropped after gun control was brought in.

[Kim]

What we need to do is correct the cowboy and vigilante culture of the United States that worships violence almost as much as it denigrates sexuality with its puritan values. We need to correct the underfunding of necessary public institutions. We need to correct our tendency to neglect our children on both a personal and societal level. We need to correct the growing wealth disparity between the rich and the poor.

I agree with this.

Significantly restricting access to guns would probably reduce the number of victims in situations like this, but it would not prevent the events themselves. I 100% support much stricter gun control, but too often people reduce these events to a gun control argument, which is insulting to the victims and to basic logic. When shit like this goes down, it reflects greater issues in society. There is something DEEPLY, INHERENTLY WRONG with our culture as it exists now. Everything from our entertainment media to access to health care play a role in stuff like this going down. We need to stop reducing these things to "Why no gun control?" when there are many things they point to that need fixing.

[Krylo]

In the future when trying to make a point Krylo at least use a source that isn't the uks equivalent of fox news.

That particular link was supposed to troll smarty, not you.

You ruin everything, Sif.

EVERYTHING.

[Nique]

I agree with this.

Significantly restricting access to guns would probably reduce the number of victims in situations like this, but it would not prevent the events themselves. I 100% support much stricter gun control, but too often people reduce these events to a gun control argument, which is insulting to the victims and to basic logic. When shit like this goes down, it reflects greater issues in society. There is something DEEPLY, INHERENTLY WRONG with our culture as it exists now. Everything from our entertainment media to access to health care play a role in stuff like this going down. We need to stop reducing these things to "Why no gun control?" when there are many things they point to that need fixing.

I think there are lots of 'sound bites' that sound like everything is being reduced to the most basic elements, but I would also like to think that most thinking people understand the need for comprehensive solutions.

[Sifright]

That particular link was supposed to troll smarty, not you.

You ruin everything, Sif.

EVERYTHING.

Well it's good to see, that my opinion of you is warranted.

[McTahr]

Well it's good to see, that my opinion of you is warranted.

Let's go ahead and keep the discussion about the horrible tragedy that happened and potential ways to address the situation based on our opinions and experiences, and not bring up personal opinions of other members and whatever grudges we might be fostering on this board. If you have an issue with a member this is the last place to bring it up.

E: Edited for clarity.

[Premmy]

I really wish people would stop making the "we have to have guns in case we need to rebel against the government" argument because, man, Unless you're advocating the ownership and creation of consumer tanks, clone armies, and nukes, no amount of personal weaponry will help the people meaningfully oppose the government if it decides to go slightly more nuts.

That shit was valid in the 1700's but the nature of warfare today means the major value in revolt is a simple willingness to fight and die until the ruling bodies either run out of resources(unlikely), decide they'd like to retain some amount of people to rule over and acquiesce in some form(less likely),The rest of the world, possessing nukes, tanks, and armies, realizes your government is horrible and steps in, (most likely) some random motherfucker or group of motherfuckers somehow manages to luckily capture/murder the leaders(very unlikely).

Gun ownership as a law pretty much boils down to issues of personal rights re: what you can and cannot own. As far as allowing people to have weapons that possess a limited, easily mitigated threat to the rest of society, to the point where they are no more dangerous than someone who knows what a gun is and can maybe create one? I'm down with that. Having a bunch of AKs will not make you more capable of resisting the government should it choose to oppress you because it's not about your ability to successfully kill anyone. It's your ability to survive and be a pain in the ass.

As for social conditions and mental health? Well that's always true, has never stopped being true and will probably not stop being true for a long time. If anything, our country's relationship with guns is an example/symptom of the social conditions that eventually lead to this type of thing.

[CABAL49]

I really wish people would stop making the "we have to have guns in case we need to rebel against the government" argument because, man, Unless you're advocating the ownership and creation of consumer tanks, clone armies, and nukes, no amount of personal weaponry will help the people meaningfully oppose the government if it decides to go slightly more nuts.



That's the thing though. There are Libertarians who advocate that people should have ownership of nuclear weapons.

[Solid Snake]

Oh God all the media outlets have pictures of the children on the front page
I can't take it just seeing the images makes me so sad


Also, to the fuckwit who interrupted a church service in Newton today with a threat requiring evacuation: Fuck you and enjoy a nice long time in prison, dipshit

[Osterbaum]

Significantly restricting access to guns would probably reduce the number of victims in situations like this, but it would not prevent the events themselves. I 100% support much stricter gun control, but too often people reduce these events to a gun control argument, which is insulting to the victims and to basic logic. When shit like this goes down, it reflects greater issues in society. There is something DEEPLY, INHERENTLY WRONG with our culture as it exists now. Everything from our entertainment media to access to health care play a role in stuff like this going down. We need to stop reducing these things to "Why no gun control?" when there are many things they point to that need fixing.
This.

And also gun control. Over here the gun laws were tightened during the past several years due to a fairly recent surge of mass shootings; school shootings in 2007 and 2008 and other shootings, the most recent this year when a guy with a rifle started shooting at people getting out of clubs at night. The gun laws here were tighter than in the US already before these incidents. But afterwards they were tightened for example so that for the first gun permit you apply for, you need to be examined by a doctor for any signs of mental instability, interviewed by the police issuing the gun permit and need proof that you have already been a member of two years in a organization that practices shooting and/or hunting.

[RobinStarwing]

This.

And also gun control. Over here the gun laws were tightened during the past several years due to a fairly recent surge of mass shootings; school shootings in 2007 and 2008 and other shootings, the most recent this year when a guy with a rifle started shooting at people getting out of clubs at night. The gun laws here were tighter than in the US already before these incidents. But afterwards they were tightened for example so that for the first gun permit you apply for, you need to be examined by a doctor for any signs of mental instability, interviewed by the police issuing the gun permit and need proof that you have already been a member of two years in a organization that practices shooting and/or hunting.

Now that I can get behind!

But seriously, anything we come up with might be too simplistic and won't cover everything. Still though, something seriously needs to be done while flipping the NRA a big "Unfuck you!" at them.

[Bells]

The problem is not reeeeeeeeally the NRA, it's more the slice of the civilian populace that will say that doing that is overreaching of the government, excessive control, Oppression of the people's will, dictatorship, etc etc etc... and the very first time this system fails, you will have a huge outcry of how the system is corrupt and useless...

That's what i'm getting at. You can't build anything on this terrain yet, you need to treat the soil first, or anything you want to build beyond a flimsy first floor will crumble down.

You need to work on the people's mind and culture, and make sure that the basis of the generation understand that it is Ok to loosen up on some freedoms in order to assure certain benefits, that you don't have to legislate to the craziest amongst the people and that your first choice to regulate and control your government will be to vote out the people that are hurting it together with all their friends, instead of prancing around a town hall meeting with an assault rifle "just to let them know."

[RobinStarwing]

The problem is not reeeeeeeeally the NRA, it's more the slice of the civilian populace that will say that doing that is overreaching of the government, excessive control, Oppression of the people's will, dictatorship, etc etc etc... and the very first time this system fails, you will have a huge outcry of how the system is corrupt and useless...

That's what i'm getting at. You can't build anything on this terrain yet, you need to treat the soil first, or anything you want to build beyond a flimsy first floor will crumble down.

You need to work on the people's mind and culture, and make sure that the basis of the generation understand that it is Ok to loosen up on some freedoms in order to assure certain benefits, that you don't have to legislate to the craziest amongst the people and that your first choice to regulate and control your government will be to vote out the people that are hurting it together with all their friends, instead of prancing around a town hall meeting with an assault rifle "just to let them know."

You really think they will let their minds me changed? If they are how you portray them...your better off with a construction roller rolling them over, putting down steel-reinforced concrete, and then new soil on top of it.

and the NRA is a big part of the issue...or rather it's more vocal insane side. That's the part that no matter how hard you try, they BELIEVE you are in the wrong no matter how you word it or what facts you give them.

Solution is easy in theory but not so easy in practice.

[Magus]

The NRA and gun companies and various other lobbying groups pay big bucks to politicians' election campaigns to vote against any kind of gun-control laws. They are a significant force in the matter.

Anyway, now that all the facts are out I can't really see any solution to this scenario other than not allowing this guy's mother to own these guns in the first place and have them in the same house with him (which, by the way, why ARE people allowed to own more than one handgun? That just seems like basic idiocy on the part of regulation to me). Even federally mandated gun locks might have prevented this. Like even just a few basic things. Basically he killed his mother and stole the guns, then broke into the school through the plate glass doors and shot his way through the office. The only way to prevent this scenario is to not let guns be in that house. That's it.

[stefan]

In re: guns, guns are a right and necessary for the public...I will never argue against someone to have a shotgun, or a hunting rifle, or pistols for self defense. Etc. But, do we need AKs? AR-15s...Bushmasters. Can we argue that there's a need to have these things available? It's not like the self-defense argument carries any weight. In any situation where you would need a firearm for self-defense, you sure don't need military-grade weaponry.

All weapons are "Military Grade" weapons by any civilian-meaningful definition. A shotgun is not any less lethal than an Ar-15 simply because it has a wood stock and has plastic shells, and indeed its easier to convert to a concealable "massacre" weapon, requiring only a saw and some files (which is already illegal.) Restricting hi-cap magazines will do nothing, because there's nothing stopping a determined shooter from simply carrying a shitload of low-capacity ones.



Someone needs to explain to me why advocates of guns Killing Machines feel we can't even restrict quantitative access. Even if self-defense or hunting justifies ownership of a gun, why should the Lanza family have owned SIX of the goddamn things? At that point, there's no further utility in ownership except "the ability to kill even more people." You can't hunt with six guns at once.

Utility arguments are dangerous and unfounded. This is not a country of "utility," we do not own thing purely for the purpose of utility. Also, more to the point, you can hunt with six guns, if you invite friends to hunt with you and lend them your guns.


Not to mention the notion that a .223 Bushmaster is apparently a totally legit gun to own. (http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the-connecticut-shooter-used-a-bushmaster-rifle-like-the-dc-snipers-2012-12) Even if it wasn't used yesterday as reported, it was used in the DC Sniper killings, which terrorized the metropolitan area I resided in at the time. Who the fuck needs that kind of firepower to hunt? Do you get points awarded for the force applied to the deer as it's dying? Is there a competition I'm unaware of where hunters are graded on a scale of animals eradicated? What the hell do we need assault rifles for? I don't know, but the NRA felt convinced it was justified to overturn a ban of them.

couple things:

-.223 is actually weaker than several perfectly normal hunting rounds, and part of the reason the m-16 platform is mocked by fudds is that the .223/5.56 round is less powerful than the 7.62x51 cartridge used by the m14, even though the m14 was replaced for very good reasons.
-The civilian version of the Ar-15 is, by definition, not an assault rifle, because it can only be fired in semi-automatic mode. converting it to selective fire is something you can only do with a very specific gun license, which is incredibly difficult to acquire and owners of these licenses tend to be watched like hawks.
-AR-15 type rifles were never illegal, and thus there was no ban for the NRA to overturn.
-The assault weapons ban was infamously toothless, and was infamous for banning weapons that did not exist.

I agree with you that gun culture in the US is poisonous, but it's poisonous because it results in a feedback loop of reactionary madness where gun owners become more vitriolic and insular, inspiring fear and mistrust of gun owners, which forces them to be more vitriolic and insular, et al.

Now that I can get behind!

But seriously, anything we come up with might be too simplistic and won't cover everything. Still though, something seriously needs to be done while flipping the NRA a big "Unfuck you!" at them.

The big problem with the bolded area is that it leads to massive corruption and bullshit. I know multiple people in Sweden who qualify for all of the on-paper, de jure qualifications for gun ownership and yet constantly get dicked over on technicalities simply because they pissed off the wrong person or didn't pay the right middleman or were guilty of being suspiciously brown. Currently, a guy I know has been fighting for months in court for the right to own a specific firearm and keeps getting shot down because it uses a "military cartridge" (.50BMG,) even though the rifle itself is hilariously impractical for anything except range use, as it has no magazine and only holds one round at a time. His situation is exacerbated because the "official experts" brought on to contest his argument have openly stated that they have not handled firearms at any point in their lives, and consider reading thirdhand reports sufficient qualifications.

Now, do not get me wrong: I think gun control is a good idea! I don't want any asshole running around with anything they can afford! that's dangerous. The problem is that gun control that outright bans vague things causes infinitely more problems than it solves! Just look at california, where in spite of mad restrictions like bullet buttons, lo-cap mags, pistol grip restrictions, and the like, still has significant gun crime on the level of much of the US.

Like, just to put this in perspective, if I'm in california, I can maybe buy an AR-15 chambered in 5.56 with a limited magazine and a bullet button that makes changing the magazine a massive pain in the ass, that I have to have delivered to a FFL holder after a waiting period if everything maybe works out, for over a thousand dollars.

Alternatively, if I'm in california, I can pay $20 to get a curio and relic license, wait for the paperwork to finish, and then pay $100 plus shipping to have a surplus bolt-action mosin nagant delivered directly to my door, unmodified in any sense, that takes 7.62 rounds in stripper clips that a competent gunman can fire and reload rapidly enough to kill a significant number of people before being stopped.

An entry gate of mental health screening, subsidised to prevent cost-of-entry restricting gun ownership to the upper-middle class, would be the best place to start. Because really, most shootings like this are much more the result of mental illness than uncontrolled gun use.

[Bells]

To play devil's advocate once more...

On the bitter other side of this, however, even though it already is like that... if you were to expose even further or improve in any sense a notion that Richer people can more easily have guns than poor people.... that's one shitstorm nobody want's to have their name attached to.

So, "making gun ownership more expensive" although functional to some degree (there will always be a black market for this) is one of the farthest things possible to happen.

One thing though, i would suggest experimenting with is more Bureaucracy to gun ownership. Longer waiting periods, constant renewal of licenses, multiple registries to be filed to multiple agencies, multiple screenings and interviews...

All done in a streamlined manner, step A to B to C to D etc... so it's comprehensible and not just a jumbled mess but being more of a pain in the ass on purpose. Be it a crime of passion, be it a cheating husband or wife, be it a criminal mind or a sick mind, isn't possible that a Bureaucratic wall between a person and a gun might help out in dialing the reactionary anger down?

[stefan]

To play devil's advocate once more...

On the bitter other side of this, however, even though it already is like that... if you were to expose even further or improve in any sense a notion that Richer people can more easily have guns than poor people.... that's one shitstorm nobody want's to have their name attached to.

So, "making gun ownership more expensive" although functional to some degree (there will always be a black market for this) is one of the farthest things possible to happen.

I think you misunderstood what I said, though? I mean that mental health screenings prior to ownership of gun ownership is a good idea, but if you want to implement it, you need to subsidize the cost somehow to prevent the cost being too high for the average citizen to afford it.


One thing though, i would suggest experimenting with is more Bureaucracy to gun ownership. Longer waiting periods, constant renewal of licenses, multiple registries to be filed to multiple agencies, multiple screenings and interviews...

All done in a streamlined manner, step A to B to C to D etc... so it's comprehensible and not just a jumbled mess but being more of a pain in the ass on purpose. Be it a crime of passion, be it a cheating husband or wife, be it a criminal mind or a sick mind, isn't possible that a Bureaucratic wall between a person and a gun might help out in dialing the reactionary anger down?

Bureaucracy is by definition unstreamlined, and deliberately making a bureaucratic wall to "slow things down" will only prevent gun ownership from being realistically possible for the normal, non-massacrey person.

[Osterbaum]

I think you misunderstood what I said, though? I mean that mental health screenings prior to ownership of gun ownership is a good idea, but if you want to implement it, you need to subsidize the cost somehow to prevent the cost being too high for the average citizen to afford it.
Somethign that isn't a problem if such screenings are free of charge, or include only a nominal fee of around 20€. Hint hint, coughhelthcearereformcough.

It has been criticized for putting a bigger workload on doctors without allocating any real new resources for it. And at least already in one case, a shooter was issued a gun besides going through these screenings. So it isn't fool proof, but it's a place to start. Also something else I remembered is, that while the ammount of guns you own isn't restricted, your first gun can't be a handgun.

[Bells]

Ah i see! Quite honestly though, i would redirect all of that cost into the military budget ... it won't be popular, but i think it's better usage for safety at home than those projects to shoot the 100 thousand dollar smart bomb to increase the hole of the previous bombing raid in a place where "blown back to the stone age" might be considered an upgrade...

As for using bureaucracy to try slow things down, i dunno, just a thought really... either way it bothers me that pretty much anyone can have a gun delivered to their home or pick one in the same place (or next to) they buy their groceries.

Over here, if you buy an Airsoft gun for instance, as soon as the Post office identifies the package it gets sent to the nearest Army Base and you have to go there to their offices with your special license and after it gets tagged and registered if the gun is fully within the law than you can have it.

I'm pretty sure the US has similar stuff like this, but i would just spread it further... might not really do much, but at least for me i would be a tad more comfortable knowing that people would have to sign forms in their nearest military base to pick their guns instead of the UPS truck or Walmart counter...

[RobinStarwing]

The ironic twist to all this... (http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111148/three-miles-tragic-shooting-bastion-gun-rights#)

I haven't finished reading the whole article but maybe they might decide to help change things considering it happened on their doorstep?

[Aerozord]

Somethign that isn't a problem if such screenings are free of charge, or include only a nominal fee of around 20€. Hint hint, coughhelthcearereformcough.

It has been criticized for putting a bigger workload on doctors without allocating any real new resources for it. And at least already in one case, a shooter was issued a gun besides going through these screenings. So it isn't fool proof, but it's a place to start. Also something else I remembered is, that while the ammount of guns you own isn't restricted, your first gun can't be a handgun.

better question, why dont we just have mental health screenings like, it being a normal thing you just do. Imagine how much better our society would be if instead of poorly trained guidance counselors that just slap whatever label is trendy at the time on every "problem child" we had licensed psychologists that can accurately identify and treat both mental illness and the sadly common traumas of growing up, in schools.

[shiney]

better question, why dont we just have mental health screenings like, it being a normal thing you just do. Imagine how much better our society would be if instead of poorly trained guidance counselors that just slap whatever label is trendy at the time on every "problem child" we had licensed psychologists that can accurately identify and treat both mental illness and the sadly common traumas of growing up, in schools.

This. Physical screenings are a normal thing. Why can't mental screenings be as well?

[Bells]

mostly stigma i would assume... most people still co-relate "Seeing a Psychiatrist" with being a sick individual that need special medical treatment, instead of natural maintenance of the mental health of anyone living in a modern world just like you do with your body...

[Sifright]

mostly stigma i would assume... most people still co-relate "Seeing a Psychiatrist" with being a sick individual that need special medical treatment, instead of natural maintenance of the mental health of anyone living in a modern world just like you do with your body...

and the way to change this would be to implement mandatory mental health screenings for the purpose of maintenance and help for people that need it.

The best way to change how a thing is viewed is to make it 'normal' for the next generation growing up.

Eventually all the old fucks who hold bigoted views die out and a new normal is folded into society.

[Kim]

We could also stop demonizing people with mental illness.

We could stop equating mental illness with being dangerous, which people have an INCREDIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE tendency to do whens stuff like this happens, before they even know if the shooter had a mental illness. (NOTE: They will only do this if the shooter is a white man.)

We could stop media portrayals of those ~CRAAAAAAAZY~ mentally ill people, written by people who have no understanding of how those things work and zero empathy for the people who go through them.

Of course, the mental health care industry is a mess itself, with too little emphasis on helping the victims live happy lives and too much about giving them so many drugs they can't be a danger, giving them so many drugs they can't think straight, locking them up when the system that failed them continues to fail them.

[Bells]

Which ties right back into half the country hearing the words "government" and "mandatory" in the same paragraph and automatically go flipping the fuck out...

Which points out that some of the medicine for the ills of a nation is to be force fed to a sizable and vocal portion of it's people... which is fine for those who think they are in the right, but is "oppressive dictatorship" for those who are not.

Although i actually agree with the idea, i just don't see it as something actually doable... simply cause you have a large chunk of a country that wouldn't feel comfortable having Europe and Germany whispering in gossip "everyone in that country needs to have their sanity checked periodically...".

That said, i still like the idea... i just can't imagine it happening.

[PhoenixFlame]

We could also stop demonizing people with mental illness.

We could, yes. I hate to hear the words 'mentally unstable' and 'warning signs' from the other room's TV every 6PM when I take my medication. Doesn't that sort of encourage paranoia? It's not paranoid if it's true, is it? Insane people aren't stupid, they're insane, and a great many have become good at pretending to be normal for this very reason. It took me six years to admit I had a problem to anyone because I was afraid they'd kill me.

This is horrible, it's true, and I won't deny that. However, the average human being is not a killer, and requires significant mental training to become one. A dedicated individual with maleviolent intent will kill several ordinary people before he will be stopped, and that is regardless of weapons. Be they guns, knives, sharp sticks, clubs, bare hands, murder is murder.

It is this mental gymnastics that need to be performed in premeditation that must be cured.

[Aerozord]

mostly stigma i would assume... most people still co-relate "Seeing a Psychiatrist" with being a sick individual that need special medical treatment, instead of natural maintenance of the mental health of anyone living in a modern world just like you do with your body...

dont forget the assumption that its abnormal to not be content.

Main reason I stopped trying to talk to my family about my depression is I was sick of hearing
"that means there is a chemical imbalance" and them trying to get me on drugs instead of them actually caring about why I was unhappy with my life. Yes some people do have chemical imbalances, differing neurology, ect. But part of psychology is environmental. Sometimes the issue is the external stimuli not internal issues

[Seil]

Just a feel good message here. (http://www.upworthy.com/when-you-are-done-hugging-your-kids-too-tightly-elmo-will-help-you-figure-out-wh?c=upw3)

[pochercoaster]

So here's an article about the shooting that's worth reading since it deals specifically with masculinity and the gendered nature of violence in our present culture. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-katz/men-gender-gun-violence_b_2308522.html) I haven't thoroughly deconstructed it or anything so IDK if I agree with everything in it but yeah.


Many of us whose work touches on the subject of masculinity and violence have long been frustrated by the failure of mainstream media -- and much of progressive media and the blogosphere as well -- to confront the gender issues at the heart of so many violent rampages like the one on December 14 in Connecticut.

My colleagues and I who do this type of work experience an unsettling dichotomy. In one part of our lives, we routinely have intense, in-depth discussions about men's emotional and relational struggles, and how the bravado about "rugged individualism" in American culture masks the deep yearning for connection that so many men feel, and how the absence or loss of that can quickly turn to pain, despair, and anger. In these discussions, we talk about violence as a gendered phenomenon: how, for example, men who batter their wives or girlfriends typically do so not because they have trigger tempers, but rather as a means to gain or maintain power and control over her, in a (misguided) attempt to get their needs met.

We talk amongst ourselves about how so many boys and men in our society are conditioned to see violence as a solution to their problems, a resolution of their anxieties, or a means of exacting revenge against those they perceive as taking something from them. We share with each other news stories, websites and YouTube videos that demonstrate the connection between deeply ingrained cultural ideas about manhood and individual acts of violence that operationalize those ideas.

And then in the wake of repeated tragedies like Newtown, we turn on the TV and watch the same predictable conversations about guns and mental illness, with only an occasional mention that the overwhelming majority of these types of crimes are committed by men -- usually white men. Even when some brave soul dares to mention this crucial fact, it rarely prompts further discussion, as if no one wants to be called a "male-basher" for uttering the simple truth that men commit the vast majority of violence, and thus efforts to "prevent violence" -- if they're going to be more than minimally effective -- need to explore why.

Maybe the Newtown massacre will mark a turning point. Maybe the mass murder of young children will force the ideological gatekeepers in mainstream media to actually pry open the cupboards of conventional thinking for just long enough to have a thoughtful conversation about manhood in the context of our ongoing national tragedy of gun violence.

But initial signs are not particularly promising. In the days since the shooting, some op-eds and blog posts have spoken to the gendered dynamics at the heart of this and other rampage killings. But most mainstream analysis has steered clear of this critical piece of the puzzle.

What follows is a brief list of suggestions for how journalists, cable hosts, bloggers and others who will be writing and talking about this unbelievable tragedy can frame the discussion in the coming days and weeks.

1) Make gender -- specifically the idea that men are gendered beings -- a central part of the national conversation about rampage killings. Typical news accounts and commentaries about school shootings and rampage killings rarely mention gender. If a woman were the shooter, you can bet there would be all sorts of commentary about shifting cultural notions of femininity and how they might have contributed to her act, such as discussions in recent years about girl gang violence. That same conversation about gender should take place when a man is the perpetrator. Men are every bit as gendered as women.

The key difference is that because men represent the dominant gender, their gender is rendered invisible in the discourse about violence. So much of the commentary about school shootings, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary, focuses on "people" who have problems, "individuals" who suffer from depression, and "shooters" whose motives remain obtuse. When opinion leaders start talking about the men who commit these rampages, and ask questions like: "why is it almost always men who do these horrible things?" and then follow that up, we will have a much better chance of finding workable solutions to the outrageous level of violence in our society.

2) Use the "M-word." Talk about masculinity. This does not mean you need to talk about biological maleness or search for answers in new research on brain chemistry. Such inquiries have their place. But the focus needs to be sociological: individual men are products of social systems. How many more school shootings do we need before we start talking about this as a social problem, and not merely a random collection of isolated incidents? Why are nearly all of the perpetrators of these types of crimes men, and most of them white men? (A recent piece by William Hamby is a step in the right direction. )

What are the cultural narratives from which school shooters draw lessons or inspiration? This does not mean simplistic condemnations of video games or violent media -- although all cultural influences are fair game for analysis. It means looking carefully at how our culture defines manhood, how boys are socialized, and how pressure to stay in the "man box" not only constrains boys' and men's emotional and relational development, but also their range of choices when faced with life crises. Psychological factors in men's development and psyches surely need to be examined, but the best analyses see individual men's actions in a social and historical context.

3) Identify the gender subtext of the ongoing political battle over "guns rights" versus "gun control," and bring it to the surface. The current script that plays out in media after these types of horrendous killings is unproductive and full of empty clichés. Advocates of stricter gun laws call on political leaders to take action, while defenders of "gun rights" hunker down and deflect criticism, hoping to ride out yet another public relations nightmare for the firearms industry. But few commentators who opine about the gun debates seem to recognize the deeply gendered aspects of this ongoing controversy. Guns play an important emotional role in many men's lives, both as a vehicle for their relationships with their fathers and in the way they bolster some men's sense of security and power.

It is also time to broaden the gun policy debate to a more in-depth discussion about the declining economic and cultural power of white men, and to deconstruct the gendered rhetoric of "defending liberty" and "fighting tyranny" that animates much right-wing opposition to even moderate gun control measures. If one effect of this tragedy is that journalists and others in media are able to create space for a discussion about guns that focuses on the role of guns in men's psyches and identities, and how this plays out in their political belief systems, we might have a chance to move beyond the current impasse.

4) Consult with, interview and feature in your stories the perspectives of the numerous men (and women) across the country who have worked with abusive men. Many of these people are counselors, therapists, and educators who can provide all sorts of insights about how -- and why -- men use violence. Since men who commit murder outside the home more than occasionally have a history of domestic violence, it is important to hear from the many women and men in the domestic violence field who can speak to these types of connections -- and in many cases have first-hand experience that deepen their understanding.

5) Bring experts on the air, and quote them in your stories, who can speak knowledgeably about the link between masculinity and violence. After the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide, CNN featured the work of the author Kevin Powell, who has written a lot about men's violence and the many intersections between gender and race. That was a good start. In the modern era of school shootings and rampage killings, a number of scholars have produced works that offer ways to think about the gendered subtext of these disturbing phenomena.

Examples include Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel's piece "Suicide by Mass Murder: Masculinity, Aggrieved Entitlement and Rampage School Shootings," Douglas Kellner's "Rage and Rampage: School Shootings and Crises of Masculinity," and a short piece that I co-wrote with Sut Jhally after Columbine, "The national conversation in the wake of Littleton is missing the mark."

There have also been many important books published over the past 15 years or so that provide great insight into issues of late 20th and 21st century American manhood, and thus provide valuable context for discussions about men's violence. They include Real Boys, by William Pollack; Raising Cane, by Michael Thompson and Dan Kindlon; New Black Man, by Mark Anthony Neal; Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft; Dude You're a Fag, by C.J. Pascoe; Guyland, By Michael Kimmel; I Don't Want to Talk About It, by Terrence Real; Violence, by James Gilligan; Guys and Guns Amok, by Douglas Kellner; On Killing, by David Grossman; and two documentary films: Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, by Byron Hurt; and Tough Guise, which I created and Sut Jhally directed.

6) Resist the temptation to blame this shooting or others on "mental illness," as if this answers the why and requires no further explanation. Even if some of these violent men are or were "mentally ill," the specific ways in which mental illness manifests itself are often profoundly gendered. Consult with experts who understand the gendered features of mental illness. For example, conduct interviews with mental health experts who can talk about why men, many of whom are clinically depressed, comprise the vast majority of perpetrators of murder-suicides. Why is depression in women much less likely to contribute to their committing murder than it is for men? (It is important to note that only a very small percentage of men with clinical depression commit murder, although a very high percentage of people with clinical depression who commit murder are men.)

7) Don't buy the manipulative argument that it's somehow "anti-male" to focus on questions about manhood in the wake of these ongoing tragedies. Men commit the vast majority of violence and almost all rampage killings. It's long past time that we summoned the courage as a society to look this fact squarely in the eye and then do something about it. Women in media can initiate this discussion, but men bear the ultimate responsibility for addressing the masculinity crisis at the heart of these tragedies. With little children being murdered en masse at school, for God's sake, it's time for more of them to step up, even in the face of inevitable push back from the defenders of a sick and dysfunctional status quo.

[Osterbaum]

And here's an article that touches on the wider culture of violence behind these kinds of things. (http://socialistworker.org/2012/12/17/how-does-this-happen)

I'm quoting the just the last part of the article here:

POLITICAL LEADERS AND the media portray spasms of violence like the killings in Newtown as isolated occurrences--the fault of single individuals who "snapped."

But this ignores how U.S. society is steeped in anger and alienation. This doesn't originate with the poor and powerless--it originates with a world in which, for many, daily existence is a struggle filled with constant reminders of their helplessness and meaninglessness to society as a whole.

On the day of the shooting at Sandy Hook, Barack Obama told reporters at a press conference, "'There's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do. Whether it's an elementary school in Newtown or a shopping mall in Oregon or a temple in Wisconsin or a movie theater in Aurora or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children."

Obama's words no doubt moved millions of people. But the disconnect that they represent is profound. How can the head of the most powerful government in the world--a government that tortures, that justifies bombing innocents, that sanctions the assassination of its own citizens–make a serious plea to end violence?

It's the same disconnect that Martin Luther King was talking about in his 1967 speech "Beyond Vietnam," when he challenged the hypocrisy of a nation engaged in a barbaric imperialist war halfway around the globe, while condemning individuals driven to violence in their own lives:

I have tried to offer...my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But, they asked, what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted.

Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, my own government.

It is the same disconnect that Vonda and Michael Shoels talked about in 1999, after their son Isaiah was murdered in the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, in which two students, armed with an array of assault weapons, killed 12 fellow classmates.

Then, as now, the U.S. president expressed deeply felt words of sympathy. Then, it was Bill Clinton, who called for "a culture of values instead of a culture of violence"--as he was inflicting devastating violence from the air in a war on Serbia. In a letter to Clinton, the Shoels wrote: "Those who made pipe bombs may well have cheered your bombs dropping over Kosovo and Yugoslavia. There is a connection."

As Paul D'Amato wrote in the International Socialist Review,

The Shoels hit upon a central hypocrisy of capitalist politicians. They make a lot of noise about the impermissibility of violence–except when it is the violence they employ in pursuit of their own interests. Then, everything from blockades that murder hundreds of thousands of children to the use of tactical nuclear weapons is permissible. "The most 'humane' governments, which in peaceful times 'detest' war," wrote the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, "proclaim during war that the highest duty of their armies is the extermination of the greatest possible number of people."

At a vigil for the Sandy Hook victims on Sunday, Barack Obama told the crowd, "Surely we can do better than this."

Surely we can. But not unless the real causes of violence are addressed.

[Bells]

can we take a small break to see a positive silver lining?

Members of the quasi-religious group, Westboro Baptist Church, planned to gather in Connecticut to protest the funeral of Newtown, Conn., shooting victim Principal Dawn Hochsprung. However, Good Samaritans were already there to thwart any possible protest with a human wall.

The Westboro Baptist Church announced plans to picket Hochsprung's funeral on Wednesday in Woodbury, Conn., and "sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment." The group has blamed the mass shooting on Connecticut's same-sex marriage legislation. On Dec. 14, 26 people were shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School, 20 of those victims included children ages 6 and 7.

Motorcylists lined up on Wednesday to protest the possible protesters. "All these guys see us and think we're bad. We're not. It's solidarity, is what it is," New York native Jim Hannigan told Newtown Patch. "I just felt I had to be here."

The hacktivist group Anonymous, which targeted Westboro after their threats to protest, tweeted that members of Westboro were staying in a Motel 6 in Connecticut on Wednesday, according to the Examiner.

“I can't put you through to those rooms,” a desk clerk at the motel allegedly told Examiner. “I wish those people weren't staying here. I hate them and what they stand for.”

As part of operation #OccupyNewtown, Anonymous enlisted the help of followers to head to Connecticut to block Westboro members from protesting any of the victims' funerals, according to BetaBeat.

On the FDNY-oriented website The Bravest,* a posting asked firefighters and police officers to go to Newtown in plain clothes and block any protesters from the victims' families and friends during the funeral processions.

The group Angel Action, which were ready to counter Westboro Baptist Church protests at the funerals of the Tucson, Ariz., shooting victims in 2011, created a Facebook event to gather others to protect the Newtown funerals as well.

UPDATE: Newtown Patch reports that those offering to block any Westboro Baptist Church protesters from the victims' families are leaving because the group has allegedly left the area.

Many supporters leaving North Green after hearing protesters were here and left

UPDATE 2: At around 3:20 p.m. on Wednesday, applause erupted in Woodbury when Nicole Sabel of the Women's Center of Greater Danbury made the announcement that Westboro Baptist Church members were not coming to protest at Hochsprung's service, according to Newtown Patch.

Newtown Patch told HuffPost that Westboro members had allegedly contacted area hotels and were reportedly spotted in the town.

Clarification: The website The Bravest is not the official FDNY website. The official website for the FDNY is www.nyc.gov/fdny.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article reported that motorcyclists organized by the Patriot Guard Riders attended the service. However, an official in the group reported to HuffPost that the Patriot Guard Riders did not orchestrate or officially participate in any services. A change has been made to reflect this.

[RobinStarwing]

I heard about this and my only thought was this; "If there was any group or establishment that deserved to have a madman shoot them all dead, it was WBC...fucking wastes of resources."

I'm glad to hear that it seems they got run out of town by everyone that could and bonus points to Anonymous for their part in it.

[Nique]

I heard about this and my only thought was this; "If there was any group or establishment that deserved to have a madman shoot them all dead, it was WBC...fucking wastes of resources."

I'm glad to hear that it seems they got run out of town by everyone that could and bonus points to Anonymous for their part in it.

I sort of understand the semtiment but I'm just gonna straight up say that wishing revenge/ death on people is kind of messed up. The WBC is a cult whose members are being controlled/ abused by it's leadership, some of whom have escaped to a life of normalcy and in some cases activism.

[RobinStarwing]

I sort of understand the semtiment but I'm just gonna straight up say that wishing revenge/ death on people is kind of messed up. The WBC is a cult whose members are being controlled/ abused by it's leadership, some of whom have escaped to a life of normalcy and in some cases activism.

I should of rather said "My first thought..." *sighs*

[Magus]

I didn't feel like mentioning this yesterday but we just had a shooting near Altoona here in PA. Luckily the man only killed three people and wounded a police officer before the state troopers shot him.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/motive-sought-in-central-pa-shooting-deaths-of-2-men-woman-decorating-church-gunman-killed/2012/12/22/f7941f6c-4c9e-11e2-8758-b64a2997a921_story.html)

HOLLIDAYSBURG, Pa. — The shooting of a man who went on a rampage in central Pennsylvania, killing two neighbors and a third person before wounding three state troopers during a gunbattle, was a justifiable homicide, authorities ruled Saturday.

Investigators are still trying to figure out what set off the gunman, identified as 44-year-old Jeffrey Lee Michael of Geeseytown, a tiny village about 70 miles west of Harrisburg, the state capital.

0

Comments

Weigh In
Corrections?

Personal Post

“We’re not sure of the motive. We’ll be trying to find out by talking to people who knew him, see if he gave any indication,” Blair County District Attorney Richard Consiglio said of the violence, which began Friday morning in Frankstown Township and spanned five separate crime scenes across a 1.5-mile area.

Authorities said Michael knew his two males victims, who were related to each other, but investigators do not yet know whether he knew the third, a woman who was slain while decorating a church hall for a children’s Christmas party.

Michael fired into the Juniata Valley Gospel Church from outside, then entered the church and fired again, killing Kimberly Scott, 58, of Duncansville, State Police Sgt. Gregory Bernard said.

Either shortly before or after that, Kenneth Lynn, 60, a neighbor of Michael’s, was shot in the driveway of his home, authorities said.

Bernard said Michael drove his pickup truck along rural Juniata Valley Road and intentionally rammed another pickup driven by Lynn’s son-in-law, 38-year-old William Rhodes Jr. Rhodes died of blunt force trauma from the crash and from a gunshot wound, police said.

Michael was leaving the area in his truck when he saw two state police cars heading his way, and he opened fire as he was passing them, police said. One round went through the windshield of one of the patrol cars, and a trooper was injured in the face by flying glass and possibly a graze from the bullet, they said.

Both troopers turned around and pursued the suspect, and a third patrol car arrived and tried to block the path of the pickup, which rammed the car head-on, injuring the trooper driving, police said. One of the other patrol cars then rammed the back of the suspect’s truck, and a gunfight with the first two troopers ensued. One was hit in the chest and wrist.

“His body armor saved his life,” Bernard said.

The suspect was struck by police gunfire and was pronounced dead at the scene. The three troopers were treated at a hospital but are expected to be all right, authorities said.

The district attorney’s office classified Michael’s death as a justifiable homicide and said it would not pursue criminal charges against the troopers.

Police have not released information about the weapon or weapons used by Michael. Bernard said police had had some contact with Michael but declined to go into detail.

“We’ve had other incidents, but nothing to this extent,” the sergeant said. Online court records show no criminal record for him in Pennsylvania or in the state’s federal courts.

[synkr0nized]

I didn't feel like mentioning this yesterday but we just had a shooting near Altoona here in PA. Luckily the man only killed three people and wounded a police officer before the state troopers shot him.

I wouldn't say that's all that lucky.
But also whoa. That's super close to me [well, within 30 or 40 minutes, which relative to most stuff posted here is like right next door], and I hadn't heard about it.

[Kim]

Five people shot at three different gun shows on gun appreciation day.

Just thought I'd share that fact.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

They are appreciating their guns to the max.

[Flarecobra]

Turns out what happoned was an accident. (http://news.yahoo.com/three-hurt-firearm-accident-north-carolina-gun-show-234451916.html)

It happoned as the shotgun was being taken out of it's case. If you ask me, that is a case of improper storage... because seriously, why store a firearm that is LOADED?

[Kim]

i do like that gun advocates are going full-in on proving how incompetent they all are so we can stop taking them seriously

[Bells]

Turns out what happoned was an accident. (http://news.yahoo.com/three-hurt-firearm-accident-north-carolina-gun-show-234451916.html)

It happoned as the shotgun was being taken out of it's case. If you ask me, that is a case of improper storage... because seriously, why store a firearm that is LOADED?

You just gave this being too much credit. It's not a case of improper storage, it's a case of Improper Brain Functions! Holy hell... you know the type of people who when you ask them for a knife, they give it to you blade first with a thrusting motion? Sometimes as they move towards you? Yeah... those people

[Flarecobra]

In other words, lack of common sense.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Common sense is code for I hate poor people. It would be better if less people had it.

[Magus]

Not only was it loaded, he had apparently racked the first round into the chamber as well (when a shotgun is empty, it won't fire until you pump it once after putting the shells in). Obviously it shouldn't have been loaded in storage at all but to also have the first shell in the chamber...pure idiocy.

There are also safeties on most shotguns now, so that was apparently off as well.

[stefan]

Not only was it loaded, he had apparently racked the first round into the chamber as well (when a shotgun is empty, it won't fire until you pump it once after putting the shells in). Obviously it shouldn't have been loaded in storage at all but to also have the first shell in the chamber...pure idiocy.

Not that it isn't peak stupidity and incredibly irresponsible to be handing around loaded weapons at a gun show where there's guaranteed to be (ironically) a large number of people who have never fired a gun before and have no idea what they're doing, but loading one, chambering it, and then loading the rest is how you're actually supposed to load a shotgun in the first place.

[Magus]

Yes, but even assuming a scenario where, I dunno, ROAD BANDITS drive you off the road and you just have to have the shotgun you've been storing in your car loaded, you could at least assume you'll have enough time to rack the first round before having to fire. Sure you're a shell short but this is multiple levels of idiocy here.

[Osterbaum]

Besides anyone with the least bit of gun training should know that you only keep a gun loaded and/or chambered when you are actually going to use it and even if you *know* it's empty it's always treated as if it were loaded.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Haha Ost you are such a fascist

[Osterbaum]

Surely you weren't expecting to fight off fascists with your words.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No I'm going to recklessly murder them. You are a fascist because there are times you aren't shooting your gun. Constant revolution mofo.

[Marc v4.0]

No I'm going to recklessly murder them. You are a fascist because there are times you aren't shooting your gun. Constant revolution mofo.

Hell, I'm with him on this one

[Osterbaum]

Smarty is such a trot.

[stefan]

Besides anyone with the least bit of gun training should know that you only keep a gun loaded and/or chambered when you are actually going to use it and even if you *know* it's empty it's always treated as if it were loaded.

The first part is wrong, its entirely normal to keep guns loaded and chambered if they aren't in long term storage, just so long as they're properly secured. (e: obviously transporting a gun from one location to another is an exception) I mean, if someone breaks into my house, I can't exactly plan on them chilling out long enough for me to load a shotgun one by one. For instance, one of the reasons 1911-pattern pistols are popular for CCW is that they can be carried in Condition One (full magazine, bullet in the chamber, hammer cocked) safely because of the thumb and grip safeties, meaning that they can be drawn and fired in a single motion with only a thumb sweep to get it ready.

The second part is true, but that's because literally one of the first things gun owners are taught is to treat every gun as if it is loaded, even if someone tells you its not.

Yes, but even assuming a scenario where, I dunno, ROAD BANDITS drive you off the road and you just have to have the shotgun you've been storing in your car loaded, you could at least assume you'll have enough time to rack the first round before having to fire. Sure you're a shell short but this is multiple levels of idiocy here.

I don't really see how this is any sort of compelling argument to keep a weapon deliberately under capacity since I don't generally make a habit of letting other people handle a firearm I own, and I can count on myself being Not Fucking Retarded enough to forget that a gun is live when I loaded it myself and, as above, treat all guns as loaded until safety checked.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

As someone who breaks into houses rather than living in them I just want somewhere warm so you'll have plenty of time to load a gun.

[stefan]

As someone who breaks into houses rather than living in them I just want somewhere warm so you'll have plenty of time to load a gun.

You'll find plenty of warmth in hell

[Osterbaum]

The first part is wrong, its entirely normal to keep guns loaded and chambered if they aren't in long term storage,
Well in the army we only kept a full clip (either blanks or real ammo) when we were actually using them for practice. And then we only chambered the first round as little before as possible that we were going to use it. And obviously the safety is on most of the time and even when it's not you gotta keep "finger safety".

Only time we had a round chambered all the time was when we were doing wargames.

[Kim]

I don't really see how this is any sort of compelling argument to keep a weapon deliberately under capacity since I don't generally make a habit of letting other people handle a firearm I own, and I can count on myself being Not Fucking Retarded enough to forget that a gun is live when I loaded it myself and, as above, treat all guns as loaded until safety checked.

I guarantee you that almost everyone else who does this and fucks up thinks exactly what you're saying here, though the ableism is unnecessary to your point.

Regardless, nobody thinks they'll ever in a million years fuck up, or put themselves in a situation where they let someone else fuck up. Until it happens. Just once.

Of course, after that, they tell themselves they learned their lesson and it'll never happen again.

[RobinStarwing]

I guarantee you that almost everyone else who does this and fucks up thinks exactly what you're saying here, though the ableism is unnecessary to your point.

Regardless, nobody thinks they'll ever in a million years fuck up, or put themselves in a situation where they let someone else fuck up. Until it happens. Just once.

Of course, after that, they tell themselves they learned their lesson and it'll never happen again.

Kim, as someone who comes not only as an Army Brat but a family full of Sports Hunters... while there is some truth to the forgetting but most military trained gun owners (I.E. Anyone who is or has been in the military) but the training for this does it's damnest to drill this into yoru skull so hard it's practically an automatic response to holding a firearm of any kind. MY own cousin and little brother trained all my girl cousins in firearm safety.

The people that got into the news from Gun Shows this weekend? Uh...no I would not want them to exercise their Second Amendment rights...too stupid to live is an understatement.

[Kim]

most military trained gun owners

You mean like Osterbaum?

[RobinStarwing]

You mean like Osterbaum?

Yes and others like my dad who passed that training on to my little brother somewhat.

[Magus]

The first part is wrong, its entirely normal to keep guns loaded and chambered if they aren't in long term storage, just so long as they're properly secured. (e: obviously transporting a gun from one location to another is an exception) I mean, if someone breaks into my house, I can't exactly plan on them chilling out long enough for me to load a shotgun one by one. For instance, one of the reasons 1911-pattern pistols are popular for CCW is that they can be carried in Condition One (full magazine, bullet in the chamber, hammer cocked) safely because of the thumb and grip safeties, meaning that they can be drawn and fired in a single motion with only a thumb sweep to get it ready.

The second part is true, but that's because literally one of the first things gun owners are taught is to treat every gun as if it is loaded, even if someone tells you its not.



I don't really see how this is any sort of compelling argument to keep a weapon deliberately under capacity since I don't generally make a habit of letting other people handle a firearm I own, and I can count on myself being Not Fucking Retarded enough to forget that a gun is live when I loaded it myself and, as above, treat all guns as loaded until safety checked.

Well even in the revolvers in the old west were deliberately kept under capacity by most people, although obviously those were much more likely to go off than any modern weapon through just sheer shock. The modern revolvers have the guard inside between the pin and the bullet until the hammer is pulled back. But keeping a gun under capacity even in a modern context is not uncommon.

Obviously not being an idiot is the first line of defense, though. We're just arguing scenarios where reasonable people would disagree, obviously in this one the guy transported a loaded and racked shotgun with the safety off in a case in his car to a gun show. It's just idiocy.

Like if you keep a loaded shotgun (which I still think is a bad idea, but anyway) I assume it's in a gun cabinet/safe and not just lying around. Some of these people can't even do that properly.

[stefan]

Well in the army we only kept a full clip (either blanks or real ammo) when we were actually using them for practice. And then we only chambered the first round as little before as possible that we were going to use it. And obviously the safety is on most of the time and even when it's not you gotta keep "finger safety".

Only time we had a round chambered all the time was when we were doing wargames.

Fair enough.

I guarantee you that almost everyone else who does this and fucks up thinks exactly what you're saying here,

Well, obviously. Thing is, accidental gun injuries happen to something like less than a tenth of a percent of gun owners in the US. It gets reported a lot, but it nearly isn't as prevalent as people think. Most of the people who own firearms and are aware of proper handling rules actually, you know, follow them strictly, and thus do not shoot themselves in the dick because they had their finger on the trigger when they weren't supposed to.


Of course, after that, they tell themselves they learned their lesson and it'll never happen again.

I have only ever met exactly one person who has accidentally injured themselves with a firearm, as a direct consequence they are actually one of the most fastidious people about safety I have ever met. Turns out, putting a bullet through your thigh makes you think really carefully about safety whenever you ever hold a firearm again.

Well even in the revolvers in the old west were deliberately kept under capacity by most people, although obviously those were much more likely to go off than any modern weapon through just sheer shock. The modern revolvers have the guard inside between the pin and the bullet until the hammer is pulled back. But keeping a gun under capacity even in a modern context is not uncommon.

Early revolvers were kept with one chamber empty because they had nothing resembling a safety and the firing pin on the hammer would literally be resting against the primer/blasting cap when uncocked, meaning that a rough bump or (more likely) the hammer getting caught on a rein and springing back to uncocked position would set off a round. Most modern firearms have multiple steps of disassociation between the hammer (if they even have one) and the pin, and many pistols are literally impossible to fire while in the safe position because the firing pin cannot be engaged. For instance, most revolvers have a plate or bar that slides over the pin when the hammer is cocked, that is only moved out of position when the trigger is fully engaged to prevent accidental discharge.


Like if you keep a loaded shotgun (which I still think is a bad idea, but anyway)

I haven't actually owned a shotgun personally for a few years, but I have to ask: Why do you think that? I live 30 minutes from the nearest police station, and even if I did call for help, they would not make a point of arriving in haste. Literally the only thing I can depend on to protect myself is, well, myself.

[rpgdemon]

If you're asleep, and have a loaded shotgun next to your bed or somewhere easily accessible in case someone breaks in, and you are asleep? They're going to take it, and use it to threaten you, while they take your stuff.

What is this hypothetical scenario where someone breaks into your house with a weapon to murder you when you're awake, and you need to defend yourself?

Like, I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure more people get injured due to improper gun safety than people get injured because someone broke into their house with a weapon already and wanted to injure them deliberately.

[shiney]

What is this hypothetical scenario where someone breaks into your house with a weapon to murder you when you're awake, and you need to defend yourself?

There have been like three stories in the news cycle in the past week alone of jackasses breaking into houses and getting shot the hell apart by homeowners. Unfortunately these stories are trumpeted as Proof That Guns Are Totes Cool Y'Guys because they are being used for their actual purpose (and are also notably not assault rifled BUT I DIGRESS) and not brushed under the rug like that forgettable incident in some new england state where I guess a kid got hurt or something, you know the one the hippy liberals are using to perform the greatest gun grab since the Third Reich seriously it's going to happen any day now you guys.

Way more people get injured due to gun safety, or just straight up street shootings, but those inconvenient statistics are also unhelpful to the greater narrative that Guns Mean You Love Jesus.

[stefan]

If you're asleep, and have a loaded shotgun next to your bed or somewhere easily accessible in case someone breaks in, and you are asleep? They're going to take it, and use it to threaten you, while they take your stuff.

because at no point in the time it takes someone to break open a door/window, run up a set of stairs, and kick in a door am I going to wake up, right.

Of course, the big gaping hole in here is that you are literally saying that it is better to have no means of self defense if someone breaks into your home what the fuck is wrong with you. If someone is breaking into a home they know is occupied, they are almost certainly armed. They are not Solid Snake and the average american home is not Shadow Fucking Moses and they are not forced to acquire all weaponry on site. I would rather risk the miniscule chance of someone somehow managing to ninja their way into my bedroom to take a gun if that means I actually have the means to defend myself in the case of someone breaking into my house with ill intent and weapons on hand.


What is this hypothetical scenario where someone breaks into your house with a weapon to murder you when you're awake, and you need to defend yourself?

The same hypothetical situation where you aren't desperately pulling strawman situations out of your ass that make no fucking sense?


Like, I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure more people get injured due to improper gun safety than people get injured because someone broke into their house with a weapon already and wanted to injure them deliberately.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

an average of 3.7 million burglaries occured each year from 2003 to 2007, and 7% of these resulted in injury or death to an occupant, meaning a little over 250,000 people on average per year were injured during a burglary.

Compare this to gun-related injury or death, (http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf) where in 2008 there were 78,622 nonfatal injuries in total (E: In 2011, CDC numbers indicate that the total number of accidental injuries related to guns was 14,675) and, on average, there were 32,300 deaths from firearms each year from 1980 to 2007. E: In 2010, the CDC reports the total number of accidental deaths resulting from gun usage was 606.

In other words, your argument is entirely wrong, as Home Invasion-related deaths and injuries are over ten times higher in frequency than death and injury from firearm mishandling.

EXTRA FUN TIME STATISTIC OF COUP DE GRACE: In 2011, more people were injured from motherfucking BB guns (16,451) than there were by accidental firearm discharge (14,675).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If someone is breaking into a home they know is occupied, they are almost certainly armed.

I think certainly means the opposite of what you think it means.

[Osterbaum]

Even if they are, maybe they wouldn't be if it wasn't so easy to get a gun.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But they're not so we shouldn't waste time talking about it.

[Osterbaum]

And this is when someone says "criminals will be able to get guns just as easily without it being legal!" Which is such a huge load of alarmist crap.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No they won't because we have thrown out the argument that criminals have gone- well you haven't because you hate poor people but I have so I don't need to deal with that follow up.

[Bells]

you know what works better than a gun to keep Robbers out of your home? A fucking huge alarm system.

Unless you live in an awesome neighborhood full of expensive stuff where master thieves and super burglars are coming to get you... this is how it usually plays out... dude wanting to break in a house to get some stuff sees 2 houses, one clearly has an alarm system, the other does not... contrary to popular sci fi believe, thieves aren`t looking for the highest of the XXX thrills... they are looking for easy cash, so they go to the house without an alarm system.

Buuuuuuuuuuut maybe they don`t now which house has an alarm or not... well, the god damn thing ringing a siren that can be listened to from a mile away will be a good tip i would think.....

i won't go as far as to say that Home Alarms are fail proof or that a gun to defend a home is always a fantasy, but you have a better chance of having someone run away from your home because the alarm went off than from you awakening your inner Rambo-Ninja spirit that allows you to counter intruders on the go.

Plus it defends your home when you are NOT in it, which guns won`t do...

[Osterbaum]

Well I already called you a trot, but it bears repeating. @Smarty

[Bells]

Well I already called you a trot, but it bears repeating. @Smarty

Trot may also refer to:
Trot (horse gait), the specifics of trotting in horses
Trot (music), a genre of Korean pop music
Trot (Oz), a character from the Oz books of L. Frank Baum
Trot (lai), a medieval Old French poem
A trotline, a heavy fishing line

For those of us from across the globe, can someone please clarify?

I think it`s just another way of saying Asshole... but i`m not sure

[Osterbaum]

Short for Trotskyist. Usually but not always an offensive term, used by opponents of Trotskyism of both left and right persuasions (usually as a descriptive noun, "the trots").
.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I am totally down with trostkyism- it's not an insult when pointed at me, it's an accurate description.

[Magus]

I live 30 minutes from police response as well, I feel no need to keep my shotguns or rifles loaded. The most recent murder in this area was one drug addict beating another drug addict to death with a two-by-four. They also knew each other. There was another murder before that that was one drug dealer shooting another drug dealer. Again, it's hardly a B&E scenario.

If I were a woman I would probably feel differently but I have basically zero expectations of someone breaking into my house with a gun with the purpose of killing me.

EDIT: Since when are we vilifying Trotskyism anyway? I can see an argument within the context of all geopolitical beliefs but if it's simply a binary choice between Trotskyism or Stalinism I think the choice is clear.

[Osterbaum]

I am totally down with trostkyism- it's not an insult when pointed at me, it's an accurate description.
eh, I've got plenty of opinions about Trotsky and trotskyism, which I don't feel like getting into now except I don't really consider it such an insult either

but you are a complete sectarian, which is what people usually mean when they use "trot" as an insult

Since when are we vilifying Trotskyism anyway? I can see an argument within the context of all geopolitical beliefs but if it's simply a binary choice between Trotskyism or Stalinism I think the choice is clear.
See above. Also stalinists are obviously the most terrible. "Hardcore" or "literal" Maoists are almost as bad. Trotskyism is just the most common insult thrown around (often by anarchists) to people who are perceived as sectarian since Trotsky had in his day already a bit of a reputation about that. It's like when you want to lightly insult someone within the left who you disagree with on some issues (or who disagrees with you), without actually thinking so badly of them as to call them a stalinist.

That's my perception of it anyway.

[stefan]

And this is when someone says "criminals will be able to get guns just as easily without it being legal!" Which is such a huge load of alarmist crap.

Explain how you will prevent criminals from gaining access to firearms when there are already 300 million guns in circulation in the US plus several million illegal ones plus a thriving black market.

[Osterbaum]

I've never ever, not once, seen anyone present proof along with the black market argument. Believe it or not, most criminals are just regular people without access (or money) to some vast underground criminal network that will readily sell anyone a gun.

[stefan]

I've never ever, not once, seen anyone present proof along with the black market argument. Believe it or not, most criminals are just regular people without access (or money) to some vast underground criminal network that will readily sell anyone a gun.

If I was stupid enough to waste money on bitcoins, I could literally fire up Tor right now, go to The Armory, and order a motherfucking Bazooka. Or a dozen AK-47s. Or landmines. This is just if I wanted to do online sale, there are plenty of avenues if I wanted to do it the old fashioned way. There very much is a Black Market out there these days that is thriving in business.

Also, you've conveniently ignored the other half of my argument, being: There are already over 300 million firearms in the US. Where exactly do you think those are going to go in the case of a ban?

I live 30 minutes from police response as well, I feel no need to keep my shotguns or rifles loaded. The most recent murder in this area was one drug addict beating another drug addict to death with a two-by-four. They also knew each other.

Good for you? the last break-in in my neighborhood involved the occupants being assaulted and restrained while everything was stolen from their house. Your experience is not typical.

[Osterbaum]

Also, you've conveniently ignored the other half of my argument, being: There are already over 300 million firearms in the US. Where exactly do you think those are going to go in the case of a ban?
I don't have definitive answer and I'm not sure what the right one would be. But surely the problem isn't diminished at all by allowing to continue the lax gun laws that led to such a wide circulation of guns in the first place.

[Sifright]

man, the ban shit getting ridding of weapons is fucking easy.



What you do is just put a few hundred million dollars aside and the government buys the weapons from people at list price.

Guns for Dollars scheme or some such shit.

edit: thats like a 5 second thought if i can come up with that in such a small time frame im sure some one actually dedicating real effort to the problem could come up with better ideas as well

[stefan]

I don't have definitive answer and I'm not sure what the right one would be. But surely the problem isn't diminished at all by allowing to continue the lax gun laws that led to such a wide circulation of guns in the first place.

We have already established that negligent gun usage harms less people than BB guns do, and less than a tenth of a percent of all firearms in the US cause injury or death per year on average.

The fact is that gun laws are not 'lax' because the overwhelming majority of gun owners are demonstrably responsible in usage of firearms.

Sandy Hook was not caused by the abundance of AR-15s.

Columbine was not caused by the commonality of shotguns.

Virginia Tech was not the fault of .22LR pistols.

Firearms are not the problem. Firearms have never been the problem. The problem is that modern society takes people who don't perfectly fit in the mould and pushes them over the fucking edge, where they lash out with any tools they can find. Trying to attack firearms is a kneejerk reaction, a shortsighted feelgood response that will cause more damage than it would solve, because the vast majority of legislators pushing for AWB-type laws are demonstrably ignorant of what firearms really are or what they do.

Meanwhile, the actual causes for these tragedies are ignored, because they aren't as obvious a target as scary black rifles and confronting them would be to expose all the ugliness and evil in American society that the majority have spent their lives carefully ignoring. Do you really think that any of these massacres would have been prevented just by the absence of guns? Do you really think that these people would have just said "WELP, NO GUNS TO USE, OFF TO BE A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF SOCIETY"? No, they would have just found another way to express their self destructive urges.

Certainly, there are some changes to gun laws that should be made. But this is not the time and this is not the atmosphere, because people are trying to rail against that which they do not understand and are going to impact millions of largely inoffensive people in the process.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Retroactively make it illegal to own a gun then arrest everyone overnight.

E: I could address Stefan's point but somewhere in the middle of his misuse of statisitcs, his flaming bigotry against poor people by stereotyping them all as gun waging supercriminals or his massive hardon for every person being able to shoot people who looks a bit different fort hem, sorry invades his home, I got so angry I took a gun and shot out my frontal lobe. Its hard to type now.

Can we like ban the use of the word "criminal". While it has legit uses nobody is going to use them and we don't allow racial slurs so we should cut out class based ones

[Kim]

I don't think banning the word criminal is going to fly, but a thread about the justice system as a tool of oppression, the class-based and race-based nature of criminal law, and the fucked up nature of prisons might be worthwhile.

Wait we had a thread that only touched on the least controversial elements of that and it was terrible.

Fuck.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But why won't it fly? It is used pretty much exclusively as a stereotyping slur designed to stop discussion and oppress people.

[Bells]

Certainly, there are some changes to gun laws that should be made. But this is not the time and this is not the atmosphere, because people are trying to rail against that which they do not understand and are going to impact millions of largely inoffensive people in the process.

This is exactly the point where you trip and fall over your argument.

Look... i understand where you are coming from, a gun by itself will not do harm. Take away guns and you`ll see a rise in homemade explosives... i get it. There is always a way for evil crazy people to do evil crazy things...

However... and this is a foreigner speaking... North American culture COMBINED with the fact that normal people have access to Theater-Of-War grade weaponry, is a dangerous mix.

When you have a culture where people think it's a legit thought process to own an assault rifle just in case their government turns on them overnight... when you have a culture where people migrate to the woods to form gun-centric communities ( look up "The Citadel" for one example) with guerrilla training and pretty much "neo anything" forms of philosophy behind it... then you get US levels of gun violence, which are higher than the average of everyone else everywhere ever.

There is no "one" solution... it's a package. You need better control over yours guns and you need a cleaning on the cultural mindset (not censorship, not brainwashing... a better focus) and you certainly do need at least SOMETHING else between innocent people and ön the edge" crazy evil people....

Sure you can say that society made them that way... but you know what? If they are already like that, they are already like that... maybe that's fixable, but right now you should be focusing on making sure that person won't harm innocent children just to make a political or personal statement... "now is not the time" does not fly anymore.

[Kim]

But why won't it fly? It is used pretty much exclusively as a stereotyping slur designed to stop discussion and oppress people.

Because people forget that we never refer to rich people as criminals, and they think that they know "not all criminals are bad" and that therefore its okay for them to use because they only use it when they should.

Worth noting that typically we refer to criminals by the crimes they've committed and that the word criminal only has use as a broad brush of "anyone who breaks the law (unless they're rich)".

EDIT: Fun fact for all this criminals breaking into my home talk. The vast majority only target unoccupied homes without alarm systems that have an unlocked means of access. So, keep your house locked and either have an alarm system or (just as good) have a sticker that says you have an alarm system. Besides that, most break-ins are only going to take place when you aren't home so your gun is more likely to be stolen than preventative.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I propose a wordfilter which replaces "criminal" with "starving father trying to feed his kids". At a stroke this will improve discussions around here. Why aren't I an admin?

[Bells]

Why aren't I an admin?

Maybe cause you just equated Hitler to a Starving Father Trying to Feed His Kids?

GODWIN`S LAW!! I WIN! Except not really....

[Kim]

At a stroke this will improve discussions around here. Why aren't I an admin?

Your naivety is one reason.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think its your outrageous slur campaign actually.

[Kim]

I think its your outrageous slur campaign actually.

You just mad cuz I'm right.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You are never right

[Kim]

You are never right

Anyway, the real reason the filter wouldn't work is because hey sometimes people steal shit because they're addicted to drugs and stuff and are trying to feed that addiction, but rather than seeing these people as examples of the system failing the lower class, people will instead frame it as proof that criminals are dangerous, selfish monsters that will kill us at a glance with their guns.

Because if you can't afford drugs you can definitely afford guns and ammo at black market prices.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That is why my filter will force them to confront this- I'm going to change it each week so it is a new reason for comitting "crimes".

[Kim]

That is why my filter will force them to confront this- I'm going to change it each week so it is a new reason for comitting "crimes".

This will really only cause every thread to devolve into people defending their prejudices no matter the overwhelming evidence presented them and stalling any other possible discussions.

[stefan]

However... and this is a foreigner speaking... North American culture COMBINED with the fact that normal people have access to Theater-Of-War grade weaponry,

They don't have access to "theater of war grade weaponry." Assault rifles, as well as any other weapon that has burst or full-auto capability, have been illegal since 1986. If you took even the slightest amount of effort to research the subject you would be aware of this.

Basically the rest of your post is doing nothing but conflating "gun owner" with "crazy libertarian" and/or "neo nazi" isn't really worth addressing at all.

Anyway, the real reason the filter wouldn't work is because hey sometimes people steal shit because they're addicted to drugs and stuff and are trying to feed that addiction, but rather than seeing these people as examples of the system failing the lower class, people will instead frame it as proof that criminals are dangerous, selfish monsters that will kill us at a glance with their guns.

Because if you can't afford drugs you can definitely afford guns and ammo at black market prices.


A baseball bat can kill you just as dead as a gun though?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't know anymore. I thought gross stupidity could kill too but you seem to be doing alright.

[Kim]

A baseball bat can kill you just as dead as a gun though?

I'm sure the gun you aren't home to use will do a great job of keeping professional baseball players from robbing your unlocked, alarm-free house.

[stefan]

Like I know you guys probably mean well by painting all criminals as oppressed people/drug addicts who only need a desperate helping hand, but that doesn't change the fact that pretty much all the people who rob houses in my area are bored white drunken rednecks, not desperate single mothers trying to support their children. Not that it really matter since, as I said quite a while ago, I had to sell my shotgun some years ago and the only firearm I currently own is a ruger mark III that would be hard pressed to kill a groundhog, much less an actual person.

But no, keep on painting all gun owners as murderboner-seeking psychopaths and all burglars as helpless little angels looking for some ~understanding~ if that's what gets you hot or whatever, just keep on truckin' pretending that the easiest target is always the right one.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Hahahahahahahaha yes the easiest target is the rich white dude who is statisically the most likely to own a gun. Oh man.

[stefan]

Hahahahahahahaha yes the easiest target is the rich white dude who is statisically the most likely to own a gun. Oh man.

Makin' a huge mistake responding to a smartypost but whatevs, I was referring to attacking firearms being easier than admitting that hey, maybe the problem isn't the availability of firearms at all and it's all the other cultural baggage in the US that drives people to violence?

But then you'll all just ignore that because its easier to paint me as some sort of right wing psychopath despite literally all the political statements I have ever made here being in direct opposition to this, because that's easier than admitting that your echo chamber is maybe kind of dead fucking wrong when approaching an issue none of you are even remotely familiar with.

[Amake]

In my murder simulators war games, I never use burst or full auto, cause semi-auto always gets me more kills per second. Not to split hairs, but I have heard arguments that this is precisely what happens in many of these mass shooting events since semi-automatic assault rifles are very common in the US.

I've also heard some arguments that we should only allow guns with three bullets, and only three bullets at a time per person. Kind of like this comic book I read where a superhero went around and stole all but one nuke from every country. I find it quite ridiculous to debate the exact degree to which people should be allowed the means to murder each other.

Either you're okay with killing people, or you're not. stefan is apparently okay with it, and I guess all the rest of the forum thinks different. But I think we can live with that. So to speak.

Certainly you're right, stefan, that the larger issue than gun control is you've got a country whose highest authority has been killing people both abroad and at home for generations and implicitly telling you that's how you should fix problems, as an example of that baggage you mention. I don't know what happened in this thread to get people hung up on technical details like the gun market. . .

[Kim]

Like I know you guys probably mean well by painting all criminals as oppressed people/drug addicts who only need a desperate helping hand, but that doesn't change the fact that pretty much all the people who rob houses in my area are bored white drunken rednecks

I like how rather than confront my points you jump to, "Some criminals really are bad people!!"

No shit, Sherlock.

Bad people exist in every walk of life.

I did some research!

Most offenders of burglary are "young agile". From what I can parse from what I read, these people aren't particularly strong and this plays a role in their short criminal careers. They don't have the career lifespan of other burglars. In other words, most burglars are these but they don't commit a lot of crimes individually.

The second largest group are vagrants! Who could have predicted this! (Anyone)

Vagrant burglars garnered numerous charges related to their transient status and appeared to burglarize for material gain and maintaining survival during winter months. Although the present investigation is hampered by a lack of clinical mental health and life circumstance variables, it may be that vagrant burglars are afflicted with mental health disorders and lack skills for gainful legal employment.

Third largest group is... *drumroll* ...drug addicts!

Sexual predators are the last group, making up a very, very small proportion of the criminal list.

Drug addicts and sexual predators are the ones with the most repeat crimes per person and the most likely to commit violent crimes. The latter are scum. The former are, as I said earlier, the results of our system failing the lower class.

So, yes, there are terrible people that people need to protect themselves from, but those people are in the vast minority.

EDIT: Note that it is only the final and smallest group that would intentionally break into a house while people are inside. This group would still be deterred by such things as alarm systems and locks. (Alarm systems are also more reliable than guns because you don't need to get them out of your locked safebox to use them.)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Makin' a huge mistake responding to a smartypost but whatevs, I was referring to attacking firearms being easier than admitting that hey, maybe the problem isn't the availability of firearms at all and it's all the other cultural baggage in the US that drives people to violence?

But then you'll all just ignore that because its easier to paint me as some sort of right wing psychopath despite literally all the political statements I have ever made here being in direct opposition to this, because that's easier than admitting that your echo chamber is maybe kind of dead fucking wrong when approaching an issue none of you are even remotely familiar with.

when you paint "criminals" as a seedy underclass of people constantly trying to break into YOUR house and steal YOUR stuff you are a right wing psycopath. Deal with it.
I didn't address the rest of your arguments because they were stupid reactionary bullshit that have been disputed in many threads on this forum and the rest of the internet, many times over and if you were willing to learn you would have by now.

[Osterbaum]

But no, keep on painting all gun owners as murderboner-seeking psychopaths and all burglars as helpless little angels looking for some ~understanding~ if that's what gets you hot or whatever, just keep on truckin' pretending that the easiest target is always the right one.
It's not about his man. But guns are meant for killing and a society that so much glorifies violence and by extention guns is a dangerous one. Like I agree with what you said earlier, that the guns are really more of a symptom of a culture of violence. I don't think though that criminals are responsible for that and further I think that restricting gun use would go a long way to dismantling that culture of violence.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Wait I've got a solution, you can get a gun but only if you earn below the poverty line. I think that solves all problems pretty neatly.

[Kim]

You can only own a gun if you steal it from a cop.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

We give the rich people all the guns but the poor people all the bullets

[Osterbaum]

In my murder simulators war games, I never use burst or full auto, cause semi-auto always gets me more kills per second. Not to split hairs, but I have heard arguments that this is precisely what happens in many of these mass shooting events since semi-automatic assault rifles are very common in the US.
They told us that the full-auto setting on our assault rifles was basically worthless in all but very specific situations. The only time we used full-auto was when shot full clips of blanks in the air to get rid of them so that the officer who was supervising wouldn't have to count them and put them back in storage. So like I'm saying that the argument that it's ok to sell assault rifles to civilians because "they aren't really military grade since they lack full-auto" is possibly the weakest argument ever.

[Sithdarth]

They told us that the full-auto setting on our assault rifles was basically worthless in all but very specific situations. The only time we used full-auto was when shot full clips of blanks in the air to get rid of them so that the officer who was supervising wouldn't have to count them and put them back in storage. So like I'm saying that the argument that it's ok to sell assault rifles to civilians because "they aren't really military grade since they lack full-auto" is possibly the weakest argument ever.

Not to mention it isn't particularly hard for the mechanically inclined (with some quick google searching) to convert from semi to full-auto.

[Bells]

They don't have access to "theater of war grade weaponry." Assault rifles, as well as any other weapon that has burst or full-auto capability, have been illegal since 1986. If you took even the slightest amount of effort to research the subject you would be aware of this

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/takes-minutes-buy-assault-rifle-day-newtown-massacre-article-1.1223241

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-enthusiasts-pack-shows-buy-assault-weapons-212525968.html

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Tactical-Rifles.cfm?cat_id=552

whatever you say tex....

[Magus]

The only thing I can figure is I'm actually an hour from police response because stefan said he lives in a "neighborhood".

I mean the fire department did take 40 minutes to show up when our car caught on fire...

[Krylo]

Note to self: Rob Magus.

Secondary Note: Use money to buy bullet proof vest.

Rob Stefan.

[stefan]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/takes-minutes-buy-assault-rifle-day-newtown-massacre-article-1.1223241

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-enthusiasts-pack-shows-buy-assault-weapons-212525968.html

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Tactical-Rifles.cfm?cat_id=552

whatever you say tex....

All of those are semi-automatic, which means that they are by definition not assault rifles, as the common definition for assault rifle requires the weapon to be able to fire in either full auto or 3-round burst mode. The only gun in that entire listing in the third link not specified as semi-auto is the "AK-47," which I'm fairly certain is either a fraudulent listing or the seller not understanding what he actually has, as there are dozens of AK clones in semi-automatic on the market and, if it was a legal "grandfathered" AK-47 from before 1986 he would certainly be selling it for over twenty thousand dollars.

This is one of those cases where news outlets are blatantly and repeatedly using terms they do not fucking understand.

Not to mention it isn't particularly hard for the mechanically inclined (with some quick google searching) to convert from semi to full-auto.

Manufacturing Lightning Links or Drop In Auto Sears is already incredibly illegal. Also not as easy as people like to say it is, since it depends on you having a specific type of bolt carrier or lower assembly. And, again, this is hardly specific to "scary black AR-15s".

Note to self: Rob Magus.

Secondary Note: Use money to buy bullet proof vest.

Rob Stefan.

You may as well forget the vest and invest in crash pads, as I don't have a PD suitable gun and will be forced to beat you to death with an oil heater.

They told us that the full-auto setting on our assault rifles was basically worthless in all but very specific situations. The only time we used full-auto was when shot full clips of blanks in the air to get rid of them so that the officer who was supervising wouldn't have to count them and put them back in storage. So like I'm saying that the argument that it's ok to sell assault rifles to civilians because "they aren't really military grade since they lack full-auto" is possibly the weakest argument ever.

A) an AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

B) Its the lack of full-auto AND 3 round burst. Having only semi-auto means that the AR-15 is, effectively, just a scary looking hunting/target rifle.

C) Name a modern military that uses an exclusively semi-automatic service rifle as their primary infantry weapon.

[shiney]

For anyone concerned, the straw dispenser has been restocked for all who wish to continually grasp. Feel free to partake in this generosity as you continue to shift the argument into increasingly hilariously granular points that have no overall impact.

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff149/sandra_le/restaurant%20equip/DSC00273.jpg

GRASP AWAY

[Sithdarth]

Manufacturing Lightning Links or Drop In Auto Sears is already incredibly illegal. Also not as easy as people like to say it is, since it depends on you having a specific type of bolt carrier or lower assembly. And, again, this is hardly specific to "scary black AR-15s".

So we are to believe that government hating militia types (who by they way are the most likely to commit domestic terrorism) care about what the government says is legal. Are we also to believe that these people that tend to like to live in self-sufficient compounds and train like they are military are incapable of teaching one or more of their members to do full-auto conversions? Further are we to assume these people, should the need for money arise, will not sell these skills and or products of these skills?

I mean sure they could make a full auto weapon from scratch but that's balls harder and more dangerous. That and at first glance I bet you can't really tell the difference between the semi-auto versions of these weapons and modified ones and I highly doubt the ATF is super keen on busting in on these guys. But the main point is no one needs an AR-15 or the like. We lose nothing by making them illegal. No one should need more than say 3 bullets in a gun at one time. If you need more than 3 bullets you probably aren't trained well enough to properly use a gun. We lose nothing by limiting magazine capacities. You don't need a firearm capable of defeating class III body armor. You don't even need a firearm capable of defeating class IIA body armor. I mean hell you almost don't need anything but blanks. Most assailants will be deterred by the sight of a gun and/or the sound of a discharge. If there are people in class III or IV body armor coming at you trained well enough to keep moving through a hit then you must of broken some major laws and frankly have no right to resist arrest. Using an overpowered gun is in fact drastically more dangerous to everyone around you than using an underpowered gun is dangerous to you.

There is absolutely no use at all for the amount of lethal force we currently allow people in America to own/carry. We can easily reduce those limits with zero impact on the ability of people to defend themselves from the extremely rare home invasion.

Actually to go even further one can make the argument that the good of society as a whole outweighs your personal safety. America as a whole would be a better and safer place with less bullets and less lets call it "heavy artillery" since you dislike assault rifle. Stricter gun control in terms of less bullets and less powerful weapons can be accomplished with zero impact on the ability of people to defend themselves with guns. If 4 people attack you and you shoot one the rest will either flee or be on top of you taking that gun before you can shoot at most one more of them. At the very least because there is literally no downside to decreasing capacity and power we owe it to society to make the attempt and determine if indeed the overall safety of the nation does increase. We give up nothing and laws are repealed all the time when they are found to be ineffective and there is enough public support. There is literally no reason not to at least make the attempt and see what happens.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No wait we are all in the second amendment right- you can have a gun but you have to shoot at least 1 government official for every gun you buy.

[Satan's Onion]

No wait we are all in the second amendment right- you can have a gun but you have to shoot at least 1 government official for every gun you buy.

Finally, a practical solution to the problem of Congressional term limits!

[Osterbaum]

A) an AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
I guess it isn't by definition, but if plenty of military forces use the semi-auto setting almost exclusively, then in practice I think that makes the AR-15 just as deadly as an assault rifle.

Like from personal experience and what we were told, the full-auto setting is just too inaccurate, wastes your ammo too quickly and is just all around almost completely useless when you're actually looking to kill people and do it with accuracy.

B) Its the lack of full-auto AND 3 round burst. Having only semi-auto means that the AR-15 is, effectively, just a scary looking hunting/target rifle.
Ok, well many assault rifles in the world lack a 3 round burst setting. Once again the gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_62) our military uses (and it's more modern version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rk_95_Tp)) being a prime example.

C) Name a modern military that uses an exclusively semi-automatic service rifle as their primary infantry weapon.
According to our officers the full-auto was more of a remnant setting from a time when it was thought it had more uses. So probably all assault rifles, by definition, have at least a full auto setting. But if in practice it's not used and even deemed entirely useless, then an exlusively semi-auto (with a comparable clip size to modern assault rifles) comes close enough.

[Sifright]

the only thing full auto is useful for on assault rifles is murdering crowds of people that are protesting.

Like massive crowds full auto is aces because fuck accuracy i just want to gun down some commies amirite?

[Bells]

commies... libertarians... liberals... anti-freedom people.... grass eaters.... hippies.... people you disagree with...... there are many labels used to point at people with guns these days.

i still see no value on allowing civilians to be able to gun down an small neighborhood with just the bullets in their clip, regardless of what weapon that clip is in...

On the very least, have a better control of WHO has the guns, because it`s clearly not working as it is right now...

[Magus]

So did Obama say anything about gun locks or gun safes because presumably that would have actually prevented Sandy Hook from occurring (since he took her gun while she was asleep and shot her in the head with it, I'm assuming it was accessible by him)? All his recommendations seemed to contain were magazine limits and banning the semi-automatic assault-style rifles (you have to say assault-style because if you just say assault it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT because the AR-15 has a bunch of other differences with the M-16 besides firing rate, such as...uh...well the Bushmaster specifically has a .223 bullet instead of 5.56NATO and I guess that's different? The 5.56 is deadlier and has more stopping power, so when shooting innocent civilians they have less of a chance of convalescing afterwards).

EDIT: This is TOTALLY tangential and only related to the NRA's involvement in the media with this: apparently George H.W. Bush wrote a letter to the NRA and Mr. Wayne LaPierre resigning his lifetime membership in the organization after LaPierre responded to
Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing as justified attacks on "jack-booted government thugs".

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bushnra.asp

[Sinvael]

What we need, is to get all these second-amendment militia types to buy into laser tag. If they don't like what the government is doing, they shoot some officials with a light-gun, decreasing those officials' score, and alerting the governmental structures at large of the existence and nature of a problem.

I believe in the past this sort of game was called 'writing letters to your congresspersons', but apparently we need a more wargame-like implementation.
Also, we need a better way to track score and performance and have them impact the game.

[Sifright]

What we need, is to get all these second-amendment militia types to buy into laser tag. If they don't like what the government is doing, they shoot some officials with a light-gun, decreasing those officials' score, and alerting the governmental structures at large of the existence and nature of a problem.

I believe in the past this sort of game was called 'writing letters to your congresspersons', but apparently we need a more wargame-like implementation.
Also, we need a better way to track score and performance and have them impact the game.

Man I'd partake of that the only problem is i would spend days upon days shooting them all so if it had an effect no one would be allowed to run.