US Gun Massacres: Groundhog Day? (READ MOD WARNING)

Brussels Sprout

It's become a familiar routine at this stage.

A gunman goes on the rampage murdering numerous innocent victims for no apparent reason. The media goes into overdrive examining the story from every possible angle. The politicians initially express their shock and sorrow.

After a number of days the issue of tighter gun laws is openly discussed. Liberals demand tighter restrictions. Conservatists and especially the NRA focus the blame entirely on the murderer and try and shift the focus away from the issue of gun ownership.

Eventually the news cycle moves on until the next massacre occurs.

Is this cycle ever going to be broken?

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD COMMENT:
Some of these comments are beginning to get a bit personal, as well as going off-topic. Please focus on the thread topic, and not each other.

saintsaltynuts

I'd give it another six months before another one.Sadly.

FatherTed

There might be a push to renew the assault weapons ban but imo that is not enough. As a society we have failed to demonstrate the responsibility and maturity required to justify private gun ownership. From accidents like a father shooting his son prowling his aunts house to the cowardly gang thugs to the mass shootings like Friday's, it is time to kill the archiac second amendment. No need for anyone to own a gun except law enforcement and the military. However, I really doubt there are enough politicians who the balls to do any real action.

asherbassad

Right now there's some "service" on tv and Obama is there....and quite frankly it cringe-worthingly pathetic. There's some Jewish guy wailing some dirge, then there's some guy yapping on about the bible and other such crap, now there's some kid singing in Arabic. Who on EARTH staged managed this dodgy and weak little spectacle. 20 children are dead and still they turn it into a circus.

20 dead kids is a standard day in Baghdad or Kabul for the last 10 years.....who's crying for them?

This is nauseating.

asherbassad

AND.....it's on EVERY news station!

Overheal

hell, Obama just cut off live football to talk about it again.

I am paying no heed. I havent read but scant snippets about it. Im not interested in the child interviews or watching CNN resort to child interviews or watching FOX or MSNBC or NBC or CBS or GTH or TGU or WTF run the media circus around this.

Roger Ebert:

Roger Ebert wrote:

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.” In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

And you know what is the most interesting thing? On December 10th (the shooting happened on the 14th), Jon Stewart had a couple minute bit about (in light of the uproar from Bob Costas) how the media always says 'it isn't the time to talk about it'. When is the time? He joked we already missed out window, a day about 3 weeks ago when NYC went one day without a single homicide.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-10-2012/any-given-gun-day---bob-costas---fox-news

And Obama I hear him in the other room, on some slant about nurturing. That isn't really the problem, is it. The shootings and the violence happen everywhere, but the violence is more pronounced in the US and the media is far more pronounced with the 24 hour news cycle. Do they not really see the connection or is the 24 hour news just not willing to report on itself critically?

asherbassad

Apparently the most "difficult" day of Barack Obama's presidency was friday.

Seriously?

He had nothing to do with the deaths in Newtown nor did he have anyway of preventing it. So this day was the most difficult? Unlike his multiple other days where he ordered bombers and drones to kill, at will, in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen. He weeps crocodile tears yet allows ... no orders...people to be killed.

Why aren't there any meetings and nightly vigils for the 100's of thousands of 7 year-olds...and younger massacred in Iraq and Kabul and Kandahar?

A US bomber drops a bomb the size of a small car on a wedding in Afghanistan blowingf everything and everyone to atoms. Some relative screams in horror and they are ignored or given $500 to go away. And this is a weekly occurrence.

Some nut in Connecticut stocks her million dollar house with guns "to defend herself", takes her kid and teaches him to shoot. He turns around and blasts her head off and then kills another 25 people. And we're all supposed to fly our flags at half mast because it was American kids who were killed?

I'm still mourning the kids of Fallujah who were napalmed back in 2005...I'll get to these Newtown kids in about 12 years. I need to cry over the recent wedding parties in Pakistan.

asherbassad

Never ceases to amaze me.

This will either be forgotten in 4 days or it will be used for some political agenda.

People in America are this biggest cowards in the world. They stock up on guns because they are afraid of something. Not because they want to hunt or some crap. The moron who owned all these guns was the mother of the killer. She owned these guns to "protect" herself and her own kid shot her in the face.

Be like Nutella

At the end of the day, very unfortunately

there's about 200,000,000 guns already in peoples hands in the US

a prison system which festers 2,250,000 criminals into worse criminals

500,000 guns stolen each and every year

35% of all gun sales happening off the books and

70% of gun deaths happening in poor areas

so fuk all this school shooting knee jerk ****1 there is nothing can be done about this sh1t unless we're talking about 'improving America' and that will require a hell of a lot more than political diatribe after school shootings.

The shooting was utterly heart breaking and Obama's reaction was genuine IMO.


Anyone have any ideas on how to stop these 200 million guns killing tens of thousands each and every year in the US ?

and apart from all these school shootings and gang murders
>50% of gun deaths are suicides.... that's a lot sadder to me then gangbangers shooting each other or the miniscule number of multiple shootings like this school massacre that happen in comparison each year.

old hippy

asherbassad wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me.

This will either be forgotten in 4 days or it will be used for some political agenda.

People in America are this biggest cowards in the world. They stock up on guns because they are afraid of something. Not because they want to hunt or some crap. The moron who owned all these guns was the mother of the killer. She owned these guns to "protect" herself and her own kid shot her in the face.

That's some generalising there. None of my family in the US and none of my friends bear any relation to the picture you paint above.

What are people afraid of? I guess it's the media, the idea of "otherness", the boogeyman at the door and all manner of things. But we cannot tar an entire nation for this. Can we?

Duck Soup

What I don't understand is the resistance against sensible gun laws. Is there any kind of hunting or self-defence that requires a semi-automatic rifle firing off 6 rounds a second? Why were states able to override the federal ban on felons legally owning firearms, with some states restoring the right automatically and some allowing it by petition?

The NRA has to take huge responsibility for the continuance of the high rates of gun deaths in America. They've blocked just about every attempt to put in place stricter control. Because it's limiting our freedoms, obviously. Once again, the call has gone up "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

That's rather elliptical. People with guns - semi-automatic rifles and arsenals of legally-held firearms - kill people.

Amerika

I’m a proponent of the second amendment, and the right to own guns. It has always been part of our heritage and culture. I believe statistics indicate 1 in 4 adult Americans currently own guns, and each that do own about 4. That makes almost 1 gun in private hands for almost every adult citizen. In an open and free society there will always be problems. How many deaths are caused as a result of alcohol and automobiles? Do we talk about regulating them? The vast majority of gun owners, alcohol purchasers and drivers are responsible people. I am open to restrictions of high capacity magazines, but unfortunately when it comes to regulations, I’ve found that whey you give and inch, the opposition takes a yard… so little gets accomplished.

And before someone asks if I would feel the same if something like this happened to a child of mine… it almost did! An inmate on work release showed up at my daughter’s pre-school back in 1999 with a gun, and killed himself in the standoff with police. The teachers made all the kids hunker down and lay on the floor until the police emergency response team could get everyone out safely.

If sick or evil people want to commit horrific crimes they will find a way… whether that be with guns, knives, automobiles, fire, fertilizer bombs, or box-cutters.

Be like Nutella

On the issue of the 2nd Amendment can I ask you a question?

Leaving all other reasons aside for owning a gun
i.e.
because you like guns,
hunting animals for food or game,
competitive shooting alone or in competition,
and as an option for self defense or defense of others.

Do you believe that it is important for people to be able to own guns in America so that, if required, they can rise up militarily against the government? That's not a troll question that is a genuine question for you to answer if you want. I know that there are people who believe in this aspect of gun ownership but I would assume it to be a small minority.... although I may be wrong and it fascinates me, in concept, because I know historically the capacity to rise up against the government, should that seem necessary in the future, has always been something of great importance to certain Americans, if in my opinion a complete and total fantasy, as in, it would not be possible... in my opinion.

Delineating pro-gun ownership people outside of that bracket is important to me in this debate because it says that you only care to own a gun because you simply want to for shooting matches or self defense or hunting as opposed to some greater ideal... and that allows the debate to continue on unfettered by greater concepts such as revolution which allows people to narrow down why you would want people to have the right to buy guns if only for hunting, shooting matches or self defense... and so forth until you narrow down to exactly why one would wish gun laws to remain in tact... and therein lies the truth about why Americans will never give up owning sh1t loads of guns throughout their entire modern democratic society.... so again is the 'ability to rise up against your government' a leading reason you are pro gun ownership?

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

I’m a proponent of the second amendment, and the right to own guns. It has always been part of our heritage and culture. I believe statistics indicate 1 in 4 adult Americans currently own guns, and each that do own about 4. That makes almost 1 gun in private hands for almost every adult citizen. In an open and free society there will always be problems. How many deaths are caused as a result of alcohol and automobiles? Do we talk about regulating them? The vast majority of gun owners, alcohol purchasers and drivers are responsible people. I am open to restrictions of high capacity magazines, but unfortunately when it comes to regulations, I’ve found that whey you give and inch, the opposition takes a yard… so little gets accomplished.

And before someone asks if I would feel the same if something like this happened to a child of mine… it almost did! An inmate on work release showed up at my daughter’s pre-school back in 1999 with a gun, and killed himself in the standoff with police. The teachers made all the kids hunker down and lay on the floor until the police emergency response team could get everyone out safely.

If sick or evil people want to commit horrific crimes they will find a way… whether that be with guns, knives, automobiles, fire, fertilizer bombs, or box-cutters.

You raise a ton of issues and I'll come back and address more of them later. For now, I'll content myself with just one issue.

What hunting or self-defense situations require a semi-automatic rifle that squeezes out 6 rounds a second?

BlaasForRafa

asherbassad wrote: »

20 dead kids is a standard day in Baghdad or Kabul for the last 10 years.....who's crying for them?

This is nauseating.

If you are so concerned about children being killed in Baghdad or Kabul then I suggest you start a seperate thread about it.

BlaasForRafa

asherbassad wrote: »

I'm still mourning the kids of Fallujah who were napalmed back in 2005...I'll get to these Newtown kids in about 12 years. I need to cry over the recent wedding parties in Pakistan.

Napalm was not used at Fallujah in 2005. So it could not have been used against kids as you so emotively put it.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

On the issue of the 2nd Amendment can I ask you a question?

Leaving all other reasons aside for owning a gun
i.e.
because you like guns,
hunting animals for food or game,
competitive shooting alone or in competition,
and as an option for self defense or defense of others.

Do you believe that it is important for people to be able to own guns in America so that, if required, they can rise up militarily against the government? That's not a troll question that is a genuine question for you to answer if you want. I know that there are people who believe in this aspect of gun ownership but I would assume it to be a small minority.... although I may be wrong and it fascinates me, in concept, because I know historically the capacity to rise up against the government, should that seem necessary in the future, has always been something of great importance to certain Americans, if in my opinion a complete and total fantasy, as in, it would not be possible... in my opinion.

I can’t answer for anyone other than myself. And I’ll assume you are hinting at the oath everyone in the military and government takes… "To defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." But this is so far down the list of reasons to own guns that I would put it in the same realm of protecting yourself against zombies. Might there be a time where the need to rise up militarily against the government comes about if it works to destroy the US Constitution… perhaps. But I don’t think this is a concern any of us in our current lifetimes needs to worry about. Sure, there is a very small minority that put it at the forefront of their reasoning, but I think there are more out there more worried about zombies than our government. Self-defense is the greater reasoning for owning most semi-automatic guns (automatic guns are illegal to own) and revolvers.

Delineating pro-gun ownership people outside of that bracket is important to me in this debate because it says that you only care to own a gun because you simply want to for shooting matches or self defense or hunting as opposed to some greater ideal... and that allows the debate to continue on unfettered by greater concepts such as revolution which allows people to narrow down why you would want people to have the right to buy guns if only for hunting, shooting matches or self defense... and so forth until you narrow down to exactly why one would wish gun laws to remain in tact... and therein lies the truth about why Americans will never give up owning sh1t loads of guns throughout their entire modern democratic society.... so again is the 'ability to rise up against your government' a leading reason you are pro gun ownership?

Guns are tools. Different tools have different purposes. If I wish to hunt large game I would want a high powered rifle. If I want to hunt small game I would use a shotgun and/or a 22 caliber rifle. If I want something for self-defense I would opt for a semi-auto rifle and/or handgun (or revolver), and a shotgun. If it were for target practice than whatever I wanted to become proficient in that is legal. Therein the reasoning for owning multiple types of guns. And in a situation where your are forced to protect yourself or a loved one against severe harm or possible death, I think anyone would want the most firepower available to them. A fair fight... It isn't the movies.

Personally, I think anyone that owns a gun for hunting should take hunting safety courses. Anyone that owns a gun not designed for hunting should take a safety course offered by the police. And anyone that owns a gun should be willing to become a member of a regulated militia to defend and protect law-abiding citizens against threats if needed and required.

the_syco

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Is this cycle ever going to be broken?

It happened in a state where the gun laws are pretty heavy.

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

You raise a ton of issues and I'll come back and address more of them later. For now, I'll content myself with just one issue.

What hunting or self-defense situations require a semi-automatic rifle that squeezes out 6 rounds a second?

See my previous response. (Personally, I think you would have to be one of the best shooters in the world in order to squeeze off 6 rounds a second with a semi-auto.)

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

I’m a proponent of the second amendment, and the right to own guns. It has always been part of our heritage and culture. I believe statistics indicate 1 in 4 adult Americans currently own guns, and each that do own about 4. That makes almost 1 gun in private hands for almost every adult citizen. In an open and free society there will always be problems. How many deaths are caused as a result of alcohol and automobiles? Do we talk about regulating them? The vast majority of gun owners, alcohol purchasers and drivers are responsible people. I am open to restrictions of high capacity magazines, but unfortunately when it comes to regulations, I’ve found that whey you give and inch, the opposition takes a yard… so little gets accomplished.

And before someone asks if I would feel the same if something like this happened to a child of mine… it almost did! An inmate on work release showed up at my daughter’s pre-school back in 1999 with a gun, and killed himself in the standoff with police. The teachers made all the kids hunker down and lay on the floor until the police emergency response team could get everyone out safely.

If sick or evil people want to commit horrific crimes they will find a way… whether that be with guns, knives, automobiles, fire, fertilizer bombs, or box-cutters.

You ask if we discuss regulating alcohol and automobiles.....OF COURSE we fcuking do. For starters it's illegal while driving with alcohol in your system and if you are caught you are punished even if you hurt nobody. Likewise certain standards, laws and restrictions are applied to automobiles. The wearing of seatbelts, road worthiness, speed limitations, demonstrable ability to operate the machine (test and license).

In a free society that you constantly go on about a "free man" should be able to drink and drive if he wants. But he's happy to have that freedom curtailed.
Shooting a gun is fun. So is driving fast or smashing windows. Yet nobody has a problem with the latter two being regulated. Americans always cite the Second Amendment as if they knew what the hell it meant. It states a REGULATED militia in place of a standing army. Well in America today, there is no militia.....just armed individuals and nothing about this situation is regulated from where I'm standing. There's also in place one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Overthrow the government? Don't make me laugh. When a few people get out and peacefully demonstrate and seek redress from their government or to air a grievance, agents of the state beat those peaceful demonstrators off the street. And what do the super-patriots of the 2nd Amendment do? Nothing, in fact they side with the state and dismiss protesters as enemies or domestic terrorists or some other such crap.

Gandhi was a MAN! This frail little Indian took on an Empire with just his bare hands and his bare feet.

These armed-to-the-teeth super-patriots with their stockpiles of weapons and their XXXL fatigues wouldn't even take on the local tax officer.

Amerika

the_syco wrote: »

It happened in a state where the gun laws are pretty heavy.

Laws makes it next to impossible to be a gun owner in Chicago. Yet there have been over 470 homicides in Chicago this year. Perhaps because of the heavy gun laws?

Be like Nutella

ok looks like we're ganging up on Amerika so haha... anyway right so Amerika you answered my question we can take revolution off the table as a rational reason to maintain gun laws as is... as you say certainly in our lifetimes ... fair enough... and I'd agree... as I said and I didn't assume you WERE a militia gun nut and you're not.

Which brings us to the next item... hunting.

Hunting is with rifles by and large in America... and rifles are not the gun used for the vast majority of gun homicides but yet hunting is the poster-use of guns in my mind and as represented by the NRA. Hunting seems to be a maaaajor reason people would like to maintain gun laws as is and so the question is: Is hunting with guns a good enough reason to maintain current gun law as it is.... on its own? just hunting as a reason on its own?

You can see how this argument continues.... where each supposed reason for maintaining access to powerful guns becomes irrational when compared to the harm that such access causes in your greater society.... until we all begin to realize (IMO) that none of these individual or combined reasons for having all your guns in your society makes any rational sense when the harm guns cause in your society is shown in its true light. ... which leaves.... a deeper reason WHY AMERICANS LOVE THEIR GUNS SO MUCH... and suffer so much socially for that love
of guns no matter what crap about culture and shooting matches gun lovers spout... in the face of such gross annual needless death gun ownership (UNLESS for a greater ideal such as revolution) fades into irrationality and in my opinion stems from a culture of fear, ability (ie if we can we will), lust for power, insecurity (diff to fear), pseudo manliness, incorrect view of how much self defense is offered by guns and in the criminal world - simple pure amoral competition. The wrath incurred by those who would challenge the NRA does not stem from shooting matches or shooting animals or protecting your family from the miniscule level of risk they live under.... it is something much deeper much less talked about and much more uncomfortable to face up to then an anti-gun hippy like John Stewart.... it is simply to face up to yourself... as a nation... as a society.... filled with pointless fears and insecurities and irrational patriotic fantasy which puts hunting a beautiful deer through the scope of your 1000 dollar high powered rifle ahead of responsibly curtailing access to what essentially amounts to dangerous sporting equipment which serve very little purpose from a self defense stand point.

Saruman

Anyone who wants to buy a gun in the US (or any country) should have to undergo a psychological evaluation showing them mentally capable of having one without going nuts and shooting up a load of people. Then be restricted guns that make sense. Rifle for hunting, handgun for home protection etc.
No one should have automatic weapons outside the military and certain law enforcement types.

In Ireland don't you have to prove to the local superintendent that you have a need and are of sound character to own a gun, and then it's very restrictive on what type of gun you can have.

Amerika

Hmmm… I have seen statistics shown that 100,000 deaths each year in the US are caused by the use of alcohol, that include:
5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all accidental drowning are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.

Based on the amount of horrors caused by the sale of alcohol, wouldn’t there be a greater reasoning to stop the sale of alcohol than of guns?

Be like Nutella

Amerika wrote: »

Based on the amount of horrors caused by the sale of alcohol, wouldn’t there be a greater reasoning to stop the sale of alcohol than of guns?

Unfortunately its a comment like that which makes me not want to fish any further for some incite into why you (or your kin) love your guns so much.... there is no purpose in arguing or debating with somebody who would use that alcohol argument. There is just too much wrong with even beginning to address how irrelevant it is... which I believe points to the deeper nature of the consistent staunch defense of the indefensible by American gun lovers... and that is what I believe it to be... an impractical irrational LOVE of GUNS which will require a lot more than lobbying for law change to ameliorate.... as your alcohol argument proves I think.

Saruman

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… I have seen statistics shown that 100,000 deaths each year in the US are caused by the use of alcohol, that include:
5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all accidental drowning are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.

Based on the amount of horrors caused by the sale of alcohol, wouldn’t there be a greater reasoning to stop the sale of alcohol than of guns?

I hope you are jesting there....

Might as well ban cars to prevent road deaths of which there are many (nearly 33,000 last year).

I also find it impossible to believe that 60% of homicides are attributed to alcohol. Unless alcohol is found in the bloodstream and that goes in to the statistic. The perp could have have been robbing a shop but because alcohol was found in the bloodstream, it can be attributed to the crime and the statistic.

If alcohol was a cause of such crime, then other countries with higher alcohol consumption than the US would have higher crime rates, not lower.

Rented Mule

Amerika wrote: »

Laws makes it next to impossible to be a gun owner in Chicago. Yet there have been over 470 homicides in Chicago this year. Perhaps because of the heavy gun laws?

You don't have to go far to purchase a gun in Chicago. A drive down the road and you are able to legally purchase handguns at a gun dealer. The funny thing about that is that they have traced a very large amount of guns used in crimes to one particular dealer in the south suburbs.

Illinois may be forced to change their conceal/carry law after the US Appellate Courts threw out the state’s concealed-gun ban. I highly doubt that the number of murders in Chicago is going to go down once this C/C laws are brought in. The majority of these murders are gang related shootings.

Amerika

Saruman wrote: »

I hope you are jesting there....

Might as well ban cars to prevent road deaths of which there are many (nearly 33,000 last year).

I also find it impossible to believe that 60% of homicides are attributed to alcohol. Unless alcohol is found in the bloodstream and that goes in to the statistic. The perp could have have been robbing a shop but because alcohol was found in the bloodstream, it can be attributed to the crime and the statistic.

If alcohol was a cause of such crime, then other countries with higher alcohol consumption than the US would have higher crime rates, not lower.

So I take it that it is the person behind the bottle that is the problem, not the bottle itself? The bottle only becomes a problem when abused by irrational people. Makes sense to me.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Unfortunately its a comment like that which makes me not want to fish any further for some incite into why you (or your kin) love your guns so much.... there is no purpose in arguing or debating with somebody who would use that alcohol argument. There is just too much wrong with even beginning to address how irrelevant it is... which I believe points to the deeper nature of the consistent staunch defense of the indefensible by American gun lovers... and that is what I believe it to be... an impractical irrational LOVE of GUNS which will require a lot more than lobbying for law change to ameliorate.... as your alcohol argument proves I think.

Typical. So since you don’t like guns or hunting, you believe it’s acceptable to force your agenda on a society whose constitution protects it’s citizens the right to own firearms. But if I would happen to believe alcohol is a product that produces far more evil on society than guns, I’m the one being unreasonable. Sound about right?

Amerika

Rented Mule wrote: »

You don't have to go far to purchase a gun in Chicago. A drive down the road and you are able to legally purchase handguns at a gun dealer. The funny thing about that is that they have traced a very large amount of guns used in crimes to one particular dealer in the south suburbs.

Illinois may be forced to change their conceal/carry law after the US Appellate Courts threw out the state’s concealed-gun ban. I highly doubt that the number of murders in Chicago is going to go down once this C/C laws are brought in. The majority of these murders are gang related shootings.

So the murders in Chicago are mostly caused by non law-abiding individuals, which any gun law would be totally meaningless... In effect, if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns?

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

I'm still mourning the kids of Fallujah who were napalmed back in 2005...I'll get to these Newtown kids in about 12 years. I need to cry over the recent wedding parties in Pakistan.

If you genuinely believe that I think you need to see a therapist and stop spewing on boards about your hatred of America.

asherbassad wrote: »

People in America are this biggest cowards in the world.

Clearly. They did a study I believe.

Seriously, get some help, you are becoming obsessed.

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

So I take it that it is the person behind the bottle that is the problem, not the bottle itself? The bottle only becomes a problem when abused by irrational people. Makes sense to me.

Its harder to kill a class full of kids with a bottle of booze than with an AR-15.

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

Typical. So since you don’t like guns or hunting, you believe it’s acceptable to force your agenda on a society whose constitution protects it’s citizens the right to own firearms. But if I would happen to believe alcohol is a product that produces far more evil on society than guns, I’m the one being unreasonable. Sound about right?

Sounds like your up to a good bout of whataboutery anyway.

Hunting and home defence seem to be the most common reasons given by the pro-gun lobby for the necessity to have liberal access to guns. The pro-gun lobby seem to be taking an extreme view, like people want to ban guns outright which I don't think is the case, for the most part. The lack of any hint of even a bit of compromise is a bit baffling in the wake of 20 kids being shot dead.

If the law was changed so that only bolt-action rifles could be sold and not semi-automatic rifles wouldn't people still be able to hunt perfectly well? And do people really need pistols with high-capacity magazines for home defence, wouldn't they be able to protect their home with a handgun with a 7 or 8 round magazine?

Amerika

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its harder to kill a class full of kids with a bottle of booze than with an AR-15.

True, but which has killed more kids?

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

True, but which has killed more kids?

For 2009 anyway the alcohol induced death rate for children aged 5-14 years was 0.4 per 10000, the death rate by assault (discharge from firearms) was 9.4 per 100000, second only to motor vehicle accidents.

table 11. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
Some of these comments are beginning to get a bit personal, as well as going off-topic. Please focus on the thread topic, and not each other.

Overheal

Saruman wrote: »

Anyone who wants to buy a gun in the US (or any country) should have to undergo a psychological evaluation showing them mentally capable of having one without going nuts and shooting up a load of people.

How would a psyche evaluation have prevented the CT shooting? The son was not the owner or license-holder for the weapons.

Be like Nutella

Amerika you're right I don't agree with shooting a deer for fun... if you're not killing it for food. If for food then I have no problem at all.

This event will cause the outlawing of large capacity magazines and what is reasonably considered assault rifles or nothing will. And even if all that happens there are still 100 million semi auto handguns capable of 4 or more shots per second out there anyway so it wont make a damn difference as it didn't during the 1994-2004 ban period.

Hunting has no place in the debate - nobody is against hunting and the tools needed for hunting, nobody.

AR-15's should be banned if not explain why Amerika?

Amerika

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Sounds like your up to a good bout of whataboutery anyway.

I just think if you can discuss one problem, you should be able to discuss the other. Obviously the gun ban agenda crowd doesn't.

Hunting and home defence seem to be the most common reasons given by the pro-gun lobby for the necessity to have liberal access to guns. The pro-gun lobby seem to be taking an extreme view, like people want to ban guns outright which I don't think is the case, for the most part. The lack of any hint of even a bit of compromise is a bit baffling in the wake of 20 kids being shot dead.

Personally, I'd be willing to go along with compromise. But it never seems to stop at the compromise, as compromise is just the start of getting ones agenda through. Just my opinion, but first it would be assualt weapons (which are nothing more than a mean looking semi-auto), then all semi-auto's, then guns with pistol grips. Then what would that leave you?

If the law was changed so that only bolt-action rifles could be sold and not semi-automatic rifles wouldn't people still be able to hunt perfectly well? And do people really need pistols with high-capacity magazines for home defence, wouldn't they be able to protect their home with a handgun with a 7 or 8 round magazine?

Sure people would be able to hunt perfectly well. But our Constitution does not say guns should be limited only to those used for hunting. There are already almost one gun for every American. A large amount of rifles are semi-autos and most handguns are semi-autos. Getting one would never be hard if you don't want to obey the law. The problem as I see it currently, that if you outlaw those type of guns, then only the outlaws will have them. Personally I see no need for an assault rifle, and have no plans on ever owing one. But if I did, knowing how many are "out there," I would want the right to legally purchase one.

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

AR-15's should be banned if not explain why Amerika?

Do you mean all AR-15's and similar looking rifles, or all semi-autos?

Be like Nutella

Yes, all AR-15 type rifles based on the mil spec m-16 we all know and love from the movies... basically any rifle developed for killing people which all AR-15 type variants were as you well know... before you try and give us a lesson in firearms which I'm sure you know more about then us.

Be like Nutella

I know at some point you're going to employ the pedantic assault rifle trap i.e. which means a rifle with an option for auto burst fire

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Yes, all AR-15 type rifles based on the mil spec m-16 we all know and love from the movies... basically any rifle developed for killing people which all AR-15 type variants were as you well know... before you try and give us a lesson in firearms which I'm sure you know more about then us.

Legal AR-15's are no different than any other semi-auto's here, they just "look" meaner. As I noted before, I would agree to a ban on the sale of large capicity mags... if I knew it would only stop there... unfortunately I don't. Once you demonize something, it opens the door to demonize more and more of it. Look at the history of smoking in public places here.

Fully automatic rifles and handguns are illegal to own here. And I fully agree with that.

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

I just think if you can discuss one problem, you should be able to discuss the other. Obviously the gun ban agenda crowd doesn't.

And the "gun ban agenda crowd" could say that you are just trying to deflect from the issue, that if you want to discuss deaths by alcohol, motor vehicles etc that you should start up a thread on that topic and not try and deflect this one.

Personally, I'd be willing to go along with compromise. But it never seems to stop at the compromise, as compromise is just the start of getting ones agenda through. Just my opinion, but first it would be assualt weapons (which are nothing more than a mean looking semi-auto), then all semi-auto's, then guns with pistol grips. Then what would that leave you?

Bolt-action rifles or lever-action rifles presumably. Which would be fine for hunting and target shooting.

Sure people would be able to hunt perfectly well. But our Constitution does not say guns should be limited only to those used for hunting. There are already almost one gun for every American. A large amount of rifles are semi-autos and most handguns are semi-autos. Getting one would never be hard if you don't want to obey the law. The problem as I see it currently, that if you outlaw those type of guns, then only the outlaws will have them. Personally I see no need for an assault rifle, and have no plans on ever owing one. But if I did, knowing how many are "out there," I would want the right to legally purchase one.

The constitution doesn't say what type of firearms it refers to. At the time the constitution was being writtenmuskets and muzzle-loading rifles would have been the types of firearms being produced. The modern cartridge hadn't been invented by that time let alone even thoughts of something that would fire semi-auto like is on the market now. Seeing as the constitution doesn't state what type of firearm is specified then it is up to legislators to make those kind of decisions.

Fully auto rifles and machine guns are restricted so why not semi-auto rifles?

The federal or state governments could give incentives for people to hand in "assault rifles". Possibly they could bring in rules to govern what type of rifles can be used for hunting (the season where various species are hunted is governed so why not the type of guns used?), possibly they could specify what type of guns could be used at gun ranges. I'm just throwing out some suggestions but eventually the amount of assault rifles in circulation would diminish.

Political compromise could be possible but the gun manufacturers and the NRA will throw money at politicians so that it doesn't, I doubt that the gun-control lobby has such deep pockets.

Black Swan

FINAL WARNING:
Please be advised that going off-topic may result in official warnings, infractions, and bans.

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD COMMENT:
Some of these comments are beginning to get a bit personal, as well as going off-topic. Please focus on the thread topic, and not each other.

BlaasForRafa

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I know at some point you're going to employ the pedantic assault rifle trap i.e. which means a rifle with an option for auto burst fire

Hang on a sec, we're not talking about fully auto rifles here, they are not available for sale to the public. What we're talking about is semi-auto rifles where typically there is a mechanism (like exhaust gases from the fired bullet) which moves the bolt back and chambers another round. With a bolt action rifle the person actively has to pull the bolt back themselves in order to chamber another round and ready the gun for firing.

Semi-auto rifles are easier to fire, have a higher rate of fire and typically have a much bigger magazines than bolt action or lever action rifles.

Manic Moran

Rented Mule wrote: »

Illinois may be forced to change their conceal/carry law after the US Appellate Courts threw out the state’s concealed-gun ban. I highly doubt that the number of murders in Chicago is going to go down once this C/C laws are brought in. The majority of these murders are gang related shootings.

On the experience of other areas which have loosened their carry laws, they're not likely to go up either.

The effect is at the micro scale, not the macro. Any individual who happens to be armed may be able to have a significant bearing on the outcome of his own particular interaction with a criminal, even if the larger statistics don't change.

Hunting is with rifles by and large in America... and rifles are not the gun used for the vast majority of gun homicides but yet hunting is the poster-use of guns in my mind and as represented by the NRA

It is not, however, the primary reason advocated for owning a gun by owners, with defence being an answer for over 50% of gun owners.

What hunting or self-defense situations require a semi-automatic rifle that squeezes out 6 rounds a second?

Certainly varminting is easier with a semi-auto. Especially one of those ergonomic ones which are easier to aim and carry. (Like an AR-15). As for self defence, I would wager the exact same ones that see police officers carrying semi-automatic rifles and sidearms. Criminals tend not to have 'I'll attack a private citizen with this one...' gun and a 'I'll shoot at cops with this one...' gun. The threats to police and citizenry are the same, the difference is that the police actively seek them out and, as it were, go to the sounds of the guns, whilst the private citizen generally is far less interested about chasing down criminals. But if the crime comes to the private citizen whether he wants it or not, the difference has become academic.

There are many articles on what is the 'best' home defence weapon. The average layman will take the shotgun or revolver, as they are very simple weapons which will do a reasonable job. The cognescenti, however, will take something like an AR-15 carbine as, if you know what you are doing and have it kitted out correctly, it is far better suited for a home defence scenario. It really is the Jeep of the firearms world, it will do almost anything that you want it to do, and this is why it's the most popular centrefire semi-auto in the US.

NTM

Amerika

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Bolt-action rifles or lever-action rifles presumably. Which would be fine for hunting and target shooting.

I disagree. Intelligence indicates that Senator Diane Feinstein is already working to ban pistol grips and "high-capacity" magazines. Why would you put the wording of "pistol grips" you might ask. Perhaps because some liberal judge might decide to interpret what the term "pistol grip" might mean, which is potentially just about every gun in America.

Be like Nutella

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is not, however, the primary reason advocated for owning a gun by owners, with defence being an answer for over 50% of gun owners.

exsqueeze me? hunting is not done with rifles by and large in America no?

Manic Moran

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Bolt-action rifles or lever-action rifles presumably. Which would be fine for hunting and target shooting.

But does not refer to everything that the rifle can do, which are protected specifically in some places. For example, the Delaware State Constitution holds: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use", Massachussets has "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence".

Mississippi goes even further. It's Constitution states "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned." If the Civil Power wished the aid of its people, I doubt it's for target shooting competitions, they probably would like them as lethally equipped as possible.

Article 1 Section 1 of Nebraska's Constitution: "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof".

There are 44 State Constitutions with a right to bear arms, more than half of which are explicit in the right of the individual to be armed in case of conflict. That implies modern weaponry on a par with anything they are likely to find themselves up against.

The constitution doesn't say what type of firearms it refers to. At the time the constitution was being writtenmuskets and muzzle-loading rifles would have been the types of firearms being produced. The modern cartridge hadn't been invented by that time let alone even thoughts of something that would fire semi-auto like is on the market now. Seeing as the constitution doesn't state what type of firearm is specified then it is up to legislators to make those kind of decisions.

That argument was thought of, and shot down, many years ago when one wondered if the right to free speech applied to things like that newfangled radio invention. D.C. vs Heller generally nailed the argument in terms of firearms

Fully auto rifles and machine guns are restricted so why not semi-auto rifles?

Mainly because the full-auto law has not yet been challenged in federal apellate court since Heller, and I could bore you with the legal background. However, there is less of a political and practical imperative behind removing the 1984 full auto ban. The more pressing priorities are the storage, ownership and CCW restrictions.

NTM

BlaasForRafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

But does not refer to everything that the rifle can do, which are protected specifically in some places. For example, the Delaware State Constitution holds: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use", Massachussets has "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence".

Mississippi goes even further. It's Constitution states "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned." If the Civil Power wished the aid of its people, I doubt it's for target shooting competitions, they probably would like them as lethally equipped as possible.

I wonder how many times that the "civil power" in Mississippi has exercised that particular clause, I'd imagine that its extremely rare if ever. Most governments want someone employed by them to sort out anything that needs use of weapons rather than untrained civilians.

There are 44 State Constitutions with a right to bear arms, more than half of which are explicit in the right of the individual to be armed in case of conflict. That implies modern weaponry on a par with anything they are likely to find themselves up against.

Conflict against who though? The chances of a "Red Dawn" scenario are infinitesimal, the citizenry aren't going to be needed to defend against foreign invasion are they? And even if they were, then the weapons we are discussing could be issued from State arsenals rather than be held in citizens homes.

That argument was thought of, and shot down, many years ago when one wondered if the right to free speech applied to things like that newfangled radio invention. D.C. vs Heller generally nailed the argument in terms of firearms

I get your point and I bow to your expertise on that, I figured I'd throw the argument out there.

Just taking a quick look at DC vs Heller I notice this statement "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:" Which indicates that a renewal of laws like the lapsed Assault Weapons ban are feasible, no?

Mainly because the full-auto law has not yet been challenged in federal apellate court since Heller, and I could bore you with the legal background. However, there is less of a political and practical imperative behind removing the 1984 full auto ban. The more pressing priorities are the storage, ownership and CCW restrictions.NTM

I'd imagine the chances of anyone challenging the full-auto restrictions in the near future are probably slim to zero.