GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Midwest Spy]

Never mind. I just saw where you are getting your "facts" from the Daily Mail.

They're usually the first.

Are they 100% accurate? No.

But, I'd be glad to wager whatever you'd like that they're not mis-reporting this particular story.

[Duchess]

But, I'd be glad to wager whatever you'd like that they're not mis-reporting this particular story.

Why would this story be any different than the hundreds of others they report on?

Who do you think saw that basement room that is referred to?

[Duchess]

NOW is the time to get something done, while images of dead babies are fresh in our minds.

...and that's exactly why I don't think any decisions should be made right now.

[Midwest Spy]

But, I'd be glad to wager whatever you'd like that they're not mis-reporting this particular story.

Why would this story be any different than the hundreds of others they report on?

Who do you think saw that basement room that is referred to?

A plumber that did work there. That combined with other people who were friendly with the mother that said they'd never seen the inside of the home, or the landscaper who felt like she was 'keeping him out.'

To me, there's validity with a plumber saying he was in the home. If she had issues with something, she'd HAVE to let him in.

NOW is the time to get something done, while images of dead babies are fresh in our minds.

...and that's exactly why I don't think any decisions should be made right now.

Huh?

You mean let's wait until we've forgotten about it, and then we'll all act surprised when the next one happens?

I'm not following...

[sally]

I have a problem with people who look at the Massacre at the elementary school and say, 'Fuck you. We're not changing anything.'

Yeah it's pretty annoying. I wish they'd stick their stupid gun up their ass and pull the trigger.

[HairOfTheDog]

I have no problem with Six or Maggot or Jim or HarleyGuy having guns in their home for self-defense or hunting.

I have a problem with people who look at the Massacre at the elementary school and say, 'Fuck you. We're not changing anything.'

I understand what you're saying. I've read the thread and am not one who is confused in thinking that you ever suggested a full ban on private citizens owning guns.

As for your problem, I've read the posts and have only interpreted one as saying, "Fuck you. We're not changing anything." (I responded to that one.)

For example, the suggestion that more restrictions on the guns themselves is not a solution and rather more focus and controls should be placed on who has access to them (and treating the mentally ill) is reasonable, imo.

The suggestion that much better security and possibly arming teachers rather than restricting guns themselves is also reasonable. It's a valid point that criminally minded and violently-obsessed individuals are gonna still be driven to get guns no matter what, so those who are vulnerable to spree killings need to be proactively prepared to defend themselves.

Also some merit in further profiling these spree killers (lifestyle, brain scan, etc...) for commonalities between them and determining if there are consistent predicators that can be used to identify them in advance, imo. That would also involve implementing a public awareness campaign about what people should do if they suspect that someone is plotting something. Reports show that all of the school spree killers who have been studied (excluding Lanza, still under investigation) gave hints/clues to others, but the others didn't know how to interpret the bizarre statements/actions or what to do about it - didn't want to seem like over-reactors or snitches.

Could banning assault-type firearms help too? Maybe, imo, to the extent that it could reduce the amount of fatalities for those spree killers who would only choose a gun as a weapon and who only give themselves a certain amount of time to hit as many targets as possible and then stop. But, that would matter only if the killer hadn't gotten their hands on an older assault-type rifle post-ban, of which there are plenty floating around.

I also understand the rationale that limiting new ownership of certain types of guns would make legitimate gun owners feel outmatched by criminals using illegal means to acquire higher gun power on the black market.

I don't think any of those suggestions and opinions signify a "go fuck yourselves" ideology.

Personally, I think it's a gonna take a combination of changes to see a real reduction in gun violence. JMO...

[Duchess]

MS, I think you are gullible. Jeezus, a plumber & a landscaper? C'mon.

I don't ever think decisions should be made in the heat of the moment and that's what this would be. Everyone & their brother is jumping on this gun bullshit.

[Midwest Spy]

I have no problem with Six or Maggot or Jim or HarleyGuy having guns in their home for self-defense or hunting.

I have a problem with people who look at the Massacre at the elementary school and say, 'Fuck you. We're not changing anything.'

I understand what you're saying. I've read the thread and am not one who is confused in thinking that you ever suggested a full ban on private citizens owning guns.

As for your problem, I've read the posts and have only intepreted one as saying, "Fuck you. We're not changing anything." (I responded to that one.)

The suggestion that much better security and possibly arming teachers rather than restricting guns themselves is also reasonable. It's a valid point that criminally minded and violently-obsessed individuals are gonna still be driven to get guns no matter what, so those who are vulnerable to spree killings need to be proactively prepared to defend themselves.

Could banning assault-type firearms help too? Maybe, imo, to the extent that it could reduce the amount of fatalities for those spree killers who would only choose a gun as a weapon and who only give themselves a certain amount of time to hit as many targets as possible and then stop. But, that would matter only if the killer hadn't gotten their hands on an older assault-type rifle post-ban, of which there are plenty floating around.

I also understand the rationale that limiting new ownership of certain types of guns would make legitimate gun owners feel outmatched by criminals using illegal means to acquire higher gun power on the black market.

I don't think any of those suggestions and opinions signify a "go fuck yourselves" ideology.

Hair, to me gun control and addressing mental health issues are two separate issues.

I've had at least 3 members in here during this dabate basically say, 'No one's taking my guns. It's my right. Go fuck yourself.' (my interpretation).

I feel as though I've presented my thoughts in a very rational way. Not slung any mud (unless I've been hit by some) and have sincerely asked for an answer to a legitimate question, 'What's the need for semi-automatic weapons in our society?'

You attempted (above) to address it and I thank you. You basically said it's 'the idea that a home-owner will want to have them because they want to be as well-armed as criminals entering their home.'

I'm not going to diminish your opinion, but I will respectfully disagree.

As I stated earlier, these 'spree-killers' are different from hardened criminals. Usually loners, outcasts, mentally unstable, perhaps living in the basement with parents, or very isolated.

I don't believe they'll have the ability (at least not most) to use illegal means to obtain their weapons.

This is what I hope gun-owners and supporters take from this argument:

People advocating a ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are not OUT to take regular firearms from reasonable, responsible people.

We're trying to ensure that spree-killing with incredibly powerful, semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons becomes as hard as humanly possible to occur again.

[Midwest Spy]

Everyone & their brother is jumping on this gun bullshit.

That makes me happy.

If nothing changed after this atrocity, then nothing ever will.

I don't know if anything substantial will come of it, but I'm glad there's a groundswell of support for DOING SOMETHING.

[Duchess]

That makes me happy.

It should scare the crap out of you.

[Midwest Spy]

That makes me happy.

It should scare the crap out of you.

I'm not as frightened of debate in a democratic society, as I am of a deranged killer entering a public place with a semi-automatic weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammo, waiting to unleash his hatred.

[Duchess]

I'm not as frightened of debate in a democratic society, as I am of a deranged killer entering a public place with a semi-automatic weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammo, waiting to unleash his hatred.

It's not the debate that concerns me, it's decisions being made in an emotionally charged atmosphere that bothers me. I want cool, calm heads dealing with this & I don't think that's something I can hope for right now.

I can't do this any more, MS. My mind is overloaded with sorrow & images and I have got to get my shit together for my own personal life & the holiday that is upon us. Now you can call me selfish & it truly would apply. I'm bowing out.

[ramseycat]

I don't think you are selfish Duchess from bowing out of a heated arguemnt over gun control. Especially when it stems from a tragedy like what happened recently. We all have to take a step back sometimes to deal with the grief and the shock and the saddness. I don't believe this country will ever come to an agreement on gun control or the lack thereof.

[ZEROSPHERES]

[Jimbone]

A few important points I've noticed from the last few pages...

1. Automatic weapons are currently (and have been for a long time) illegal and are unavailable to anyone without a permit from the ATF.

2. The Assault Weapon Ban that expired in 2004 is still in place in several states that passed their own state version of the federal law, but without the sunset clause that caused the federal law to expire. They are California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts. Connecticut - where this heinous crime occurred - has a ban on weapons with assault characteristics currently in place, and is one of the toughest in the country.

3. The toughest assault weapon ban in the country belongs to Cook County, IL. Interesting to note that in Chicago (part of Cook County) - with one of the toughest gun restriction policies in the nation - there have been 2,597 shootings and 517 homicides so far in 2012.

4. Most, if not all gun laws are prospective and not retroactive... meaning weapons, magazines, and the like that are 'pre-ban' remain legal and in circulation.

Senator Joe Manchin, D-WV said something today that I think cuts to a few of the seminal points of this tragedy: "To have a productive dialogue, we also need to address a number of critical issues, including our mental health system, safety in our schools and a media and entertainment culture that glorifies unspeakable violence.".

[Midwest Spy]

A few important points I've noticed from the last few pages...

1. Automatic weapons are currently (and have been for a long time) illegal and are unavailable to anyone without a permit from the ATF.

I'm tired of this, and I don't really want to talk about it anymore, but I have to highlight points when someone is inaccurate, as I am not sure if they're trying to mislead people.

Has anyone said 'automatic weapons'? We all know automatic weapons are illegal.

I believe everyone who has said anything is talking now about adding semi-automatic weapons to the 'banned' list, like the Bushmaster AR-15 that seems to be one of the preferred weapons of choice.

[username]

A few important points I've noticed from the last few pages...

1. Automatic weapons are currently (and have been for a long time) illegal and are unavailable to anyone without a permit from the ATF.

I'm tired of this, and I don't really want to talk about it anymore, but I have to highlight points when someone is inaccurate, as I am not sure if they're trying to mislead people.

Has anyone said 'automatic weapons'? We all know automatic weapons are illegal.

I believe everyone who has said anything is talking now about adding semi-automatic weapons to the 'banned' list, like the Bushmaster AR-15 that seems to be one of the preferred weapons of choice.

The governor of Connecticut said it was very difficult to enforce their gun laws without a Federal mandate against semi-automatic weapons. I can see how that would be true.

I also heard that there's a run up on semi-automatic gun sales right now.

I'm kind of done with the topic too.

[Jimbone]

Someone edited their post to correct it, but there was a comment about automatic weapons earlier that I was responding to.

Everyone here is smart enough to know that after the AR-15, the high capacity magazines, and anything else deemed 'assaulty' gets banned another crazy fucker is going to do this again right?

Then there will be calls to ban more... and then ban more... until your liberty has been whittled away to nothing. Where is the greater movement towards personal responsibility and the causes or treatment of the mentally ill? Or even a deeper introspection as to where we are as a society in general?

THAT IS MY POINT.

Banning shit isn't going to bring those kids back, and it's not going to prevent another asshole from killing more people. But I'm glad it will make everyone feel so much fucking safer and better about themselves.

I guess I have to be done here as well. There's no point in trying to instill the concept of liberty into people who would voluntarily give pieces of it up on sheer emotion.

[username]

Umm, we had a ban. Slippery slope didn't happen but keep stoking that unfounded fear that the end result will be disarming the nation entirely if it makes you feel safer.

[Jimbone]

Yes, we had a ban and it also didn't stop the killing. So what's the point then in another ban, as it didn't do what was intended the first time?

This next ban will have to be stiffer than the last one - since the last one didn't produce the desired outcome, right?

What is it again you were saying about a slippery slope?