Connecticut School shooting!

[berzerker60]

"Criminals don't obey gun laws" is such a stupid argument. By that logic, there's no use for any laws ever, because criminals won't obey them anyway.

Also, the Constitution is not some holy document. It's been amended and revised many times, as evidenced by the 2nd AMENDMENT, and lots of parts of it have been reconsidered in the nation's history. We took out the part allocating certain votes for the possession of slaves, for instance. Believing everyone has a right to bear arms morally is one thing, but it being in the Constitution isn't justification for it staying in the Constitution, if it's no longer in the nation's best interest as a whole.

[AnyMal]

Originally Posted by berzerker60

"Criminals don't obey gun laws" is such a stupid argument. By that logic, there's no use for any laws ever, because criminals won't obey them anyway.

Also, the Constitution is not some holy document. It's been amended and revised many times, as evidenced by the 2nd AMENDMENT, and lots of parts of it have been reconsidered in the nation's history. We took out the part allocating certain votes for the possession of slaves, for instance. Believing everyone has a right to bear arms morally is one thing, but it being in the Constitution isn't justification for it staying in the Constitution, if it's no longer in the nation's best interest as a whole.

You're either missing or ignoring the point altogether. Laws or no laws, criminals will find the way to arm themselves. Have you noticed that no one has ever attempted to invade mainland US? Ever wonder why is that?

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by AnyMal

You're either missing or ignoring the point altogether. Laws or no laws, criminals will find the way to arm themselves. Have you noticed that no one has ever attempted to invade mainland US? Ever wonder why is that?

(1) Are you forgetting the War of 1812

(2) A little thing called the Atlantic and Pacific oceans

[berzerker60]

Originally Posted by AnyMal

You're either missing or ignoring the point altogether. Laws or no laws, criminals will find the way to arm themselves. Have you noticed that no one has ever attempted to invade mainland US? Ever wonder why is that?

Hahahahaha, sure, the lack of invasions of the US has nothing to do with the two huge oceans on either side, or the military that spends more than the next 10 combined, or the huge nuclear stockpiles we possess.

"Laws or no laws, criminals will find ways to drive through stop signs."
"Laws or no laws, criminals will find ways to steal electronics from your house."
"Laws or no laws, criminals will find ways to enter the US."
Guess we shouldn't make laws against illegal immigration or home invasions!

[AnyMal]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

(1) Are you forgetting the War of 1812

(2) A little thing called the Atlantic and Pacific oceans

1) How did it end for invaders?

2) It certainly helps, but it's not a single detering factor. Plenty of coastal or island nations have been conquered in the past.

[Geosurface]

Originally Posted by Don Vito Corleone

That doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't try, or that reasonable measures to deter these things can't work. When the federal government made high-mounted third brake lights mandatory, rear end collisions dropped in half. Under your rubric, they shouldn't have bothered to enact this law because, hey, accidents are going to happen. Why have laws at all? People are just going to break them!

Oh no, I agree.

I fully support mandatory nutrition labels on food, having health inspections of restaurants and regulations to keep food safe... I support speed limits and brake lights and seat belts being mandatory in all cars.

I support regulations about guns having safety mechanisms on them.

I don't support making it illegal to not wear your seat belt, or not wear a motorcycle helmet.

Does this distinction make sense? I'm in favor of common sense regulatory measures applied at an industry level. I'm not in favor of removing individual rights.

[berzerker60]

Originally Posted by AnyMal

1) How did it end for invaders?

Uhh, the British kicked our asses in the War of 1812, they burned the White House and the actual armed militias (you know, those things actually in the second amendment) couldn't do much against a real army. Try reading a history book.

[jpeyton]

According to the DOJ/UPenn, 98% of gun crime doesn't involve "assault weapons", just plain old handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. The deadliest shooting in US history, the Virginia Tech massacre, involved no "assault rifles", just handguns.

Banning assault weapons is an entirely ineffective way to reduce firearms-related homicides, but the anti-gun lobby isn't interested in actually reducing gun crime. They just want to give themselves a pat on the back.

[dmens]

Originally Posted by rchiu

Yeah but but but guys run around with enough ammo and the ability to kill 20~30 people by themselves before police even got there isn't high power or high capacity....(Yeah I know how you gun nutz defines assault weapon, I am going by real world killing capacity and I don't care what you people define on paper)

Go ahead and continue to defend your little toys and the need to feel more like a man through guns and your selfish need to enjoy your little hobby in the expense of child murdering tools falling to the wrong hands.

Oh and I am not surprised at all the gun people coming out of woodwork to defend their little hobby, and that's why this kind of tragedy is going to happen again and again in the US.

Guess you better ban civilian purchase of fertilizers and fuel oil, because any decently intelligent person with intent can blow up a couple hundred people then blow up the cops that arrive.

I am also not surprised that the anti-gun people coming out of the rat-holes after this tragedy to advocate for government-only ownership of guns. Because the government would never kill innocent people with guns, never.

By the way, any comment on the Korean and Norwegian mass shootings?

[berzerker60]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Does this distinction make sense? I'm in favor of common sense regulatory measures applied at an industry level. I'm not in favor of removing individual rights.

The distinction makes sense, but I don't think it's fully developed. There are very few truly "individual rights," because we live in a society. Your right not to wear a seatbelt impacts my insurance costs, the nation's health care costs, the emotional health of the EMTs and other parties around when you go flying through your windshield, etc. If we measure out those costs through the legislative process and decide they're a price worth paying, fine. But it's also fine if we, as a society, decide otherwise. There's always going to be a sacrifice. Hell, look at all the people who were so pissy about "their right" to have slaves getting taken away that they rebelled against the US and fought a long and bloody war over it.

Originally Posted by jpeyton

According to the DOJ/UPenn, 98% of gun crime doesn't involve "assault weapons", just plain old handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. The deadliest shooting in US history, the Virginia Tech massacre, involved no "assault rifles", just handguns.

Banning assault weapons is an entirely ineffective way to reduce firearms-related homicides, but the anti-gun lobby isn't interested in actually reducing gun crime. They just want to give themselves a pat on the back.

This is a good point if the efforts only extended to assault rifles and that excluded further efforts beyond that, but assault rifles are the low hanging fruit. There's a lot stronger argument for allowing hunting rifles than AK-47s. Considering the political climate in this country, no serious gun control is going to happen, but we could at least take some steps towards it.

[Alex C]

Originally Posted by Spicedaddy

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...an-experience/

"Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids."

Shit happens, you're right. It just happens a lot more in the US than anywhere else...
I doubt there's more mental illness per capita than in other countries, I'm pretty sure however that there are more guns.

I'm Canadian, and I don't know any middle-aged woman who owns a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and assault rifles. Would the killer have found a gun somewhere else if he didn't have the arsenal at home? Probably, but it would've been harder. It's not about stopping all gun deaths, it's about reducing how often it happens.

We've also spawned ~85% of the world's serial killers, very few of whom ever used guns (some of which racked up body counts higher than many mass shootings). I think we need a better understanding of violence in general and why Americans are seemingly so much more prone to it than much of the rest of the civilized world. Violence is the issue; how it's perpetrated matters much less than why.

Personally, I feel that the current method of mass shootings is heavily influenced by the media. Semi-automatic "assault weapons" are featured prominently in video games and movies, used by both heroes and villains. These shooters aren't particularly bright, and their only experience with violence thus far has come from entertainment sources, so that's what they emulate. I'm not saying these people wouldn't have done this if cable only aired shows about rainbows and puppies, just that their methodology is influenced by what they know of violence. For most people these days, that happens to be what they learned from media. If serial killers, arson, and bombings were more abundant in movies and games, I think we'd be seeing a lot more of that instead of mass shootings.

[dmens]

In case this hasn't been posted yet:

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

[Screech]

Morgan Freeman's take (not sure if it was already posted):

EDIT: Ignore me, I'm stupid....

[jpeyton]

Originally Posted by berzerker60

This is a good point if the efforts only extended to assault rifles and that excluded further efforts beyond that, but assault rifles are the low hanging fruit. There's a lot stronger argument for allowing hunting rifles than AK-47s. Considering the political climate in this country, no serious gun control is going to happen, but we could at least take some steps towards it.

Ding ding ding. You win. You've explained in clear words why no responsible gun owner should ever support firearms legislation.

Banning "assault weapons" is just your first step to get the momentum going. You're actually interested in banning a lot more.

Why allow you to get any momentum going, period?

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by Screech

Morgan Freeman's take (not sure if it was already posted):

FYI this is a hoax and not something Morgan Freeman said (moreover, while I enjoy Morgan Freeman as an actor, his off-screen life is notable mostly for rumors that he had an affair with his step-granddaughter - I'm not sure why his opinion on matters political would be anything of particular note).

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

Oh no, I agree.

I fully support mandatory nutrition labels on food, having health inspections of restaurants and regulations to keep food safe... I support speed limits and brake lights and seat belts being mandatory in all cars.

I support regulations about guns having safety mechanisms on them.

I don't support making it illegal to not wear your seat belt, or not wear a motorcycle helmet.

Does this distinction make sense? I'm in favor of common sense regulatory measures applied at an industry level. I'm not in favor of removing individual rights.

I see your point but the creed you have endorsed would provide no means for protecting the public from mentally ill people who pose an apparent danger to public safety (a la James Holmes). I think this is an entirely wrongheaded view and one which fails to provide reasonable protection of the public. I have firsthand experience with this issue both with members of my own family and with a murder defendant I represented. I am not speaking in theoretical terms.

[Geosurface]

Originally Posted by Don Vito Corleone

I see your point but the creed you have endorsed would provide no means for protecting the public from mentally ill people who pose an apparent danger to public safety (a la James Holmes). I think this is an entirely wrongheaded view and one which fails to provide reasonable protection of the public. I have firsthand experience with this issue both with members of my own family and with a murder defendant I represented. I am not speaking in theoretical terms.

I support the authorities being able to put someone into an institution indefinitely if they have made credible threats to do a mass killing and those threats can be demonstrated to have come from them. I support releasing them immediately at any time a board of psychologists agrees that they are no threat. I fully expect this board to get it wrong sometimes.

I support removing such a person's right to legally own firearms, and I don't expect this to help much.

What I cannot abide is conflating all levels of mental illness with one another, increasing the stigma of seeking help, etc...

That's why I say, credible, direct threats must be present and provable.

[Rob M.]

I have a serious question I'd like to ask, just to get some information or insight:

Should the Constitution be "re-tooled", or updated? I ask because we live in a totally different and diverse world than when it was written, and it's writers could not have forseen the sort of madness going on in today's world.

Personally, I don't think there's a problem with it .. only with the people who want to wave it around when they don't want to budge or make any adjustments. And this isn't to single out gun-owners, but in all facets of modern life.

Just a thought I was mulling over a few minutes ago.

[jpeyton]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

I have a serious question I'd like to ask, just to get some information or insight:

Should the Constitution be "re-tooled", or updated? I ask because we live in a totally different and diverse world than when it was written, and it's writers could not have forseen the sort of madness going on in today's world.

Personally, I don't think there's a problem with it .. only with the people who want to wave it around when they don't want to budge or make any adjustments. And this isn't to single out gun-owners, but in all facets of modern life.

Just a thought I was mulling over a few minutes ago.

The Constitution can be re-interpreted, and has been by the SCOTUS.

But amending it requires a very large, unified effort on both the state and national level. The majorities required to propose and approve an amendment are prohibitively large.

[berzerker60]

Originally Posted by jpeyton

Ding ding ding. You win. You've explained in clear words why no responsible gun owner should ever support firearms legislation.

Banning "assault weapons" is just your first step to get the momentum going. You're actually interested in banning a lot more.

Why allow you to get any momentum going, period?

That's also stupid. I don't think we should absolutely legalize every drug, but I do think we should legalize marijuana. Someone who DOES think we should legalize every drug will agree with me on MJ, so we can work together on that, even though they're "trying to get momentum going" and I'm not. It's not always a slippery slope. MJ is different from crack. Hunting rifles are different from assault rifles. You don't have to set a black-and-white rule for every broad category. Sometimes complexity is good.

Do you think this most recent killing could have happened on the scale that it did with a bolt-action hunting rifle that required a worthwhile licensing process to purchase? Crazy people are going to be crazy, but the impact of that doesn't have to be so awful.

[jpeyton]

Originally Posted by berzerker60

That's also stupid. I don't think we should absolutely legalize every drug, but I do think we should legalize marijuana. Someone who DOES think we should legalize every drug will agree with me on MJ, so we can work together on that, even though they're "trying to get momentum going" and I'm not. It's not always a slippery slope. MJ is different from crack. Hunting rifles are different from assault rifles. You don't have to set a black-and-white rule for every broad category. Sometimes complexity is good.

But if you view the discussion as a tug of war, I don't want to give you an inch without making you fight for it as long as possible. That way, after you've gained that inch, you'll be too tired to continue pulling. Even though you're saying that you're not trying to keep the momentum going, through my actions I'm assuring it.

[berzerker60]

Originally Posted by jpeyton

But if you view the discussion as a tug of war, I don't want to give you an inch without making you fight for it as long as possible. That way, after you've gained that inch, you'll be too tired to continue pulling. Even though you're saying that you're not trying to keep the momentum going, through my actions I'm assuring it.

And I'm saying it's stupid to view it as a tug of war. No extremist position is good for society. Banning all guns would be dumb. Having no limitations whatsoever on guns would be dumb. It's a matter of where on the spectrum minimizes unnecessary restrictions while protecting public health. It's not significantly different in that sense than requiring vaccines, but with some exceptions for religious reasons or for the immuno-compromised. It would be awful to force people to get medical procedures against their genuine religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you have to fight tooth and nail against allowing any vaccinations 'in order to exhaust me so I don't fight further.'

[Geosurface]

I don't like the idea of this guy posthumously being given power over the mother fucking constitution when he already had the power to end 26 lives.

The constitution impacts hundreds of millions of people if not more.

This guy's impact is already larger than he had any deserving right for it to be, let's not feed into his desires even more. He wanted to be important, and damned if we aren't playing along.

[jpeyton]

Originally Posted by berzerker60

And I'm saying it's stupid to view it as a tug of war. No extremist position is good for society. Banning all guns would be dumb. Having no limitations whatsoever on guns would be dumb. It's a matter of where on the spectrum minimizes unnecessary restrictions while protecting public health. It's not significantly different in that sense than requiring vaccines, but with some exceptions for religious reasons or for the immuno-compromised. It would be awful to force people to get medical procedures against their genuine religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you have to fight tooth and nail against allowing any vaccinations 'in order to exhaust me so I don't fight further.'

You absolutely have to view it as a tug of war, because both sides have their extremists and centrists, who will operate in unison with each other but towards different ends.

We had an assault weapons ban before. I'm not stupid enough to rule another one happening, but I also know that our first experience with one provided valuable data showing its ineffectiveness.

I'm also a realist who understands that when ineffective legislation produces ineffective results, the anti-gun lobby is going to push for their next hash mark.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by Geosurface

I don't like the idea of this guy posthumously being given power over the mother fucking constitution when he already had the power to end 26 lives.

The constitution impacts hundreds of millions of people if not more.

This guy's impact is already larger than he had any deserving right for it to be, let's not feed into his desires even more. He wanted to be important, and damned if we aren't playing along.

You're missing my point.

Are you giving "power to criminals" by locking your doors at night when they threaten to break in? No.

My whole point is for us to start being proactive instead of reactive all the time. Maybe we can stop of this before it happens.