Gun control

[jasonf]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:14pm

Are we at a point yet where we can have a serious discussion about gun control in this country? Today was the third mass shooting event in a month.

I wouldn't say take away all the guns - it would be impossible to do. But wouldn't stronger laws regarding availability help dissuade people from these shootings? I don't know if a wait period would make a difference, but I can't see how having one universally CAN'T be seen as a good thing.

What's your opinion on this issue?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:18pm

My opinion is that nothing will change for a very long time.

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:37pm

I wouldn't class today's event as a mass shooting. The only intended target was the former employer and reports indicate that some of those wounded were hit by cops.

There also hasn't been any info yet about how or where the shooter got his weapon. It's possible he was perfectly legal in having it.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:38pm

My opinion is that no matter how tough the laws are, those who want guns will always be able to get them. Just like anyone who wants certain drugs, or anything illegal, can get it.

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:42pm

Forget mass shootings. They just get the coverage. Look at these stats on regular old, non-glamorous day-to-day shootings:

"There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths. In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm."

I'm not saying we should take people's guns away...wait a minute...maybe I am.




guns kill people.

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:45pm

Taking away guns won't stop the suicides and homicides.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:50pm

Scallion, almost every single day I wake up to hear the news about another shooting and killing. No exaggeration.

[jasonf]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:53pm

No, of course it won't stop them.

But shouldn't the government's job be to PROTECT the people of the country? Is allowing people to have guns, which serve no purpose BUT killing, in the country's best interest? Is the government doing its job by allowing gun ownership to be so easy?

Yes, we have the right to have guns according to the Constitution, but 1)the founding fathers' guns were weapons that took a while to load and shoot - and then with minimal accuracy - not the weapons we have today that shoot many rounds a minute; 2)isn't protecting the lives of the citizenry more important than the right of those same people to own weapons?

Again, I'm not advocating getting rid of all guns. They have a place in hunting and self-defense, but if we WERE to make getting guns that much more difficult (and outlawed automatic weaponry), wouldn't that HAVE to cut down on crime?

You can't kill the amount of people with a knife (or a machete) that you can with an AK-47.

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:57pm

"Taking away guns won't stop the suicides and homicides."

You are correct. Nothing will take away suicides and homicides. But if you take away guns, I have a better chance of escaping a home invasion alive. I have a better chance of surviving a robbery alive. If I'm standing across the street from a maniac at the base of the Empire State Building, I have a better chance of not randomly dieing since he can't lash out and stab me from 40 feet away the way he can shoot from 40 feet away with a gun.

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 3:59pm

You're assuming taking away guns would mean a step down in lethality. It's just as likely to lead to a step up instead.

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 4:04pm

source?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 4:08pm

Taking away guns won't stop the suicides and homicides.

Nobody said it would. But it's a step in the right direction to reduce GUN-RELATED deaths in the US which is getting out of control. The simple fact is, Americans have abused their rights and are getting increasingly violent and irresponsible. Gun-related deaths per capita in the US is not only embarrassing, but frightening. I have no idea why fanatics are so scared about Muslim terrorists. The terrorists are on vacation just watching us shoot each other. Personally, I'm not interested in carrying a gun or being shot and I don't think the desire for either is particularly desirable or patriotic. Morons treat the Second Amendment like they treat Leviticus. Out of context to suit their personal need for power.

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 4:11pm

Oh, yes. Let's replace GUN-RELATED deaths with some other form of violence and call it successful.

This guy could have killed more people by taking a truck down the sidewalk.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 4:15pm

You're assuming taking away guns would mean a step down in lethality. It's just as likely to lead to a step up instead.

Or it's just as likely to lead to a step down. Or a step sideways. Or over the rainbow! It's better to let everything get worse than to try to make anything better because of the Constitution! And God! And my right to shoot anyone who scares me! Or makes me mad! STAND YOUR GROUND! WE HAVE A GOD-GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INCREASE GUN-RELATED DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS MUCH AS WE WANT FOR AS LONG AS WE WANT! OTHER IGNORANT MORONIC STATEMENTS!

Rubbish.

Updated On: 8/24/12 at 04:15 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 4:17pm

That phrase "take away registered guns from citizens" is used by the NRA to frighten people that their guns will be "taken away."

Gun-control supporters don't want guns "taken away." They want guns registered. ALL guns registered.

Using the phrase "taken away" is dishonest or disingenuous or simply ill-informed.

The discussion is NOT about "taking guns away." Only the NRA has a vested interest in making the discussion about that.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 4:24pm

Oh, yes. Let's replace GUN-RELATED deaths with some other form of violence and call it successful.

Okay. Because that's EXACTLY what will happen. Just like how now that gays are getting married legally, people are marrying goats all over this country. GOATS! As a matter of fact, wasn't this all predicted back during the 2008 election? No wait, when women were granted the right to vote! Guns don't kill people...CHANGE causes people to kill people! With their red-white-and-blue Freedom Glocks and All-American Assault Rifles (thank you, Jesus)! And other unsubstantiated nonsense!

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 7:41pm

That is exactly what will happen unless society starts looking to the real causes instead of allowing itself to be jerked around by extremist political jackasses. Guns don't load themselves or pull their own triggers.

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 8:10pm

No. And nuclear weapons don't set themselves off either. But we still don't want everyone to have one.

[bethnor]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 8:21pm

That is exactly what will happen unless society starts looking to the real causes instead of allowing itself to be jerked around by extremist political jackasses.

what point are you trying to make here? we know exactly what happened in the instances of cho and holmes. they were psychologically unstable individuals who had psychotic breakdowns. their psychiatry histories were longer than your arms. so knowing that, should we allow people who are psychologically unstable easy access to weapons capable of mass murder or not?

btw, our society does have the information to figure out he root causes of this. which, oddly enough, have been resisted by the right wing (and many on the left) root and stem. we are mammals. more specifically, we are evolved primates. as primates, some of us have chemical imbalances in the brain which predispose to severe psychiatric disorders. in the "luckier" ones, this manifests as depression or anxiety, which is responsive to medication and counseling. in those like cho or holmes, the imbalances are so severe that mainstream medicine (though it was my understanding that cho had not been availed to it) is not enough to restore sanity. in their instance, the imbalance has been lifelong, but in others, it can be totally spontaneous and unanticipated, as in the instance of the chinese man who beheaded his fellow passenger and the hasidic jew who vivisected that child in brooklyn.

what should also be evident from the above mentioned cases is that these imbalances do not care what race, religion, or creed you are.

another thing we know about primates is that we are easily incited to irrationality and violence. you can observe chimpanzees in the wild spontaneously going on the hunt and murdering members of an neighboring tribe without provocation. a school of dolphins was recently observed to murder a group of porpoises, similarly without clear reason. we could indeed learn much about our own behavior if we accepted this and studied it to see what we could learn about ourselves.

instead, those who are loudest about gun rights want to insist that we are created, and NOT evolved. that none of what i just said has any truth to it or is useful to us. and i will grant you that the majority of mushy liberals want that to be true, too. but under this argument, cho and holmes and that poor chinese man and hasidic jew were ALSO created in the image of god. and what does that say about god? Updated On: 8/24/12 at 08:21 PM

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 9:51pm

^^That is an absolutely bogus mixing of politics and is of no use whatsoever.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 10:27pm

Bethnor, you've stated what is exactly the problem. I agree and have stated before - there will always be mental illness. There is not enough known about the brain at this point in time to even attempt to solve the problem.

So, whether it's guns or something else, I'm afraid we won't see the end of this kind of violence.

[bethnor]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 11:26pm

That is an absolutely bogus mixing of politics and is of no use whatsoever.

what's the bogus part that you don't understand? that the people most interested in selling guns very often obstruct that search for answers that you repeatedly call for? or do you think there's a bogus political answer for people's irrationality, say, being poor or some kind of oppression?

So, whether it's guns or something else, I'm afraid we won't see the end of this kind of violence.

jane2--this point is merely a variation of the specious knife, bomb, or car argument that is made by gun proponents.

of course there will always be violence. people are quite correct, for instance, to say that it's easy to go onto the internet and make a bomb. but say someone self-immolates with a bomb at a nearby nursing home. i don't know about you, but i would find it somewhat obscene to go to the local walmart and find slack jawed yokels, gaping idiots, picknoses, and losers admiring a bomb beneath a glass case. yes, i would be disgusted that the weapon used to blow senior citizens to smithereens were sold at the store next door for a profit to just about anyone! maybe i'm alone in that respect.

also, the comparison with illegal drugs is also not cogent. the government will never be able to prevent people from putting substances into their own bodies. a reasonable (NOTE: REASONABLE) attempt, however, can and should be made to prevent others from harming you. Updated On: 8/24/12 at 11:26 PM

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 11:30pm

you and your ilk are just the flip side of the ones you rail against - neither side is constructive

Updated On: 8/24/12 at 11:30 PM

[bethnor]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 11:33pm

^^^ what's not constructive?

my "ilk" hope to study holmes and cho so that a pattern might emerge, and we might be able to predict when these psychotic breakdowns happen, so your "ilk" can have your precious guns--assuming you don't also have that pattern. the "ilk" you often side with just think they should be killed so that no taxpayer dollars are wasted, by blaming their behavior on supernatural spirits, thus destroying the only small hope we have of preventing future horror shows like colorado. capiche?

the only "ilk" who say nothing constructive are people like you, yawper, who thinks the second amendment is written in stone and there is absolutely no wiggle room. and you repeatedly (laughably) accuse others of not being constructive. what is your solution?




Updated On: 8/24/12 at 11:33 PM

[Yawper]

Posted: 8/24/12 at 11:51pm

Your assumption about my position is so far off it's laughable. I'm not a Creationist nor a radical Bible thumper (though I am familiar with the Book). I AM a trained scientist so you can get the hell down off your high horse.

You mention NOTHING about access to health care, decreasing wealth disparity, teaching coping skills, improving outcomes for the once-incarcerated, or anything else that would actually temper violence in the US. Instead you just jump to political bullsh*t and make uninformed assumptions about those who don't agree with your precious opinion.

AND, quite frankly, after these last two high profile incidents in NYC it sounds like it's the NYPD that needs gun control. BOTH incidents would have been much better resolved if ALL officers carried Tasers. Out of control government sponsored paramilitary groups are exactly what instigated the Second Amendment.