Printable View
I don't see that happening. Not yet, anyway, even after a year of 4 mass shootings ending in one at an elementary school that killed 20 children, all of which involved assault weapons and multiple round magazines or drums. We don't have the political will and there aren't enough people admitting some guns just don't belong in a civilian population. Too many politicians in the pocket of the gun lobby, and too many wannabe cowboys.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Is anyone asking you to buy one? Why is it people always want to impose their personal decisions on others?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Could we let people make their own decisions unless they are hurting others, or at least require that a proposed restriction would reasonably prevent harm to others? And no one has been able to make a good argument that any of the proposed restrictions do that, they only serve to mollify the emotional and irrational.
And there's the rub, isn't it? Everything is fine until somebody decides to hurt somebody with one of these killing machines. But when they do, it is horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
Just ban the damn things already.
Since the last ban didn't work, what makes you think this one will? Unless you are advocating confiscation of the existing stock of now banned weapons, the ban will be completely inneffective.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Since confiscation will not and should not happen, why don't we talk about solutions that might actually work rather than burdening law abiding citizens with even more useless laws.
Well, there's a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
The Storyteller. Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your level-headedness, and educated approach to this conversation. It's refreshing to read a members entries that reflect a sense of reality, rather than fantasy.
I cannot help but think the latest ill-thought round of words (right from the mouth of the NRA) has inspired wannabes to get a gun, so they too can join the ranks of their other wannabee counterparts, in their quest to find a "bad guy with a gun" and take care of the problem, and when/if they can't find a "bad guy with a gun", let's just hunt some poor innocent being down and pepper him/her, just because we can. Yeah!Quote:
Originally posted by The Storyteller.
Too many politicians in the pocket of the gun lobby, and too many wannabe cowboys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwest
And a good one at that! Congratulations, Midwest, on one of the best ideas yet! Great stuff!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
One thing I'm growing really sick of listening to (reading), is "it won't work". Rubbish! If the right people behind such improvements were appointed to tackle the problem, then the sooner all the puppets (along with their followers and supporters) behind slowing progress down could be housecleaned out of existence!
Housecleaned out of existence? Now there's a scary thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
Have you considered the implications of your wish?
Figuratively, Alan.
+1 RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
The thinking seems to be, since the answers are difficult and nothing solves gun violence completely, we should do nothing. Well, I think getting weapons of war out of the hands of civilians is a good start. At least the shooters will have less deadly weaponry when things to go awry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
I read the Colorado mass killer had an AR-15 with a hundred round drum. Something like that, you can do an awful lot of damage without the need to reload.
I have yet to read a rational explanation why anyone needs 30 round clips and hundred round drums, but some people don't even want those banned.
Have you ever noticed that gun-owners don't seem to want to do any of the compromising? Taking anything away........even if its mostly used to murder people, they view it as a personal attack and a loss of all their freedoms. There just HAS to be compromise on both sides. I do see non gun owners as being more compromising. I'm just finding it very strange that there's so much rigidity in many gun owners thinking. (not to mention paranoia).
I think it's going to be an interesting 2013 - I really mean this. What with noises coming out of the White House about gun control, and October 1st, 2013 being the first day of signup for ObamaCare, and the nation possibly going over the cliff and into another recession - it's going to be an interesting year. Many issues are on the table all at once it seems, and hot button issues at that, including the Supreme Court taking on gay marriage. I am thinking it's shaping up to be a roller coaster year here but.....will be interesting to see what happens with all of this, including with gun control. Rob
You captured it wholly and completely!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Were those any worse than the typical shootings with other guns? Keep in mind Cho used two common handguns, one a .22 pistol with a 10 round magazine, to kill 32 people and injure 17 others at Viginia Tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Got to figure 2012 was a bad year but overall there has not been a big increase in mass shootings, just the headline grabbing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...sShootings.jpg
But then I'm sure you know the scary assault weapon isn't really the issue, those guns are used in less than 1% of gun crimes and banning them didn't help any the last time. So why not quit this namby pamby stuff and just man up for a push to repeal the Second Amendment like you want?
Great! Translation... everything is A-OK!Quote:
Originally posted by Yossarian.
overall there has not been a big increase in mass shootings
Dead on in my book, Mrs M! To me personally, ANY increase is mass shootings is a sign something somewhere is not working.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
Well, to be clear, it isn't gun owners and non-gun owners. There are many gun owners like me who are for sensible solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CathyA
A lot of gun owners are being manipulated by the NRA and other representatives of the armament manufacturing interests.
The peak was apparently in 1929 and was trending down in the last few years, so increase is a hard thing to pin down.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
I wish they had better historic stats on mental health, but something like 38 of the last 61 mass shooters showed signs of mental illness prior to their crimes. I think as Virginia Tech points out, any gun in the hands of sick person is worse than any gun in the hands of responsible people.
If you are serious about this do you have any ideas on how we address the mental health aspects?
Ha, that's like saying many pro-choice people are being manipulated by Planned Parenthood and condom manufacturers. Do you really think that if you adopt some of these bans and they end up as failures, which they inevitably will, that the response will be to return to where we are now or will it be to try additional restrictions? And if those don't work? Classic slippery slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Storyteller
FHS (for heavens sakes)! "Mental health this", "mental health that", "he had mental health issues", she had mental health issues", "they had mental health problems". Rubbish! Mental health, even in those who are sane, isn't guaranteed as of tomorrow. Mental health, like everything else (human related), is (genetically) predispositioned to fail, so stop isolating (one contributing factor out of countless others) in your quest to disguise the murderous rampages and shootings that plague the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
Why even argue about how to address the mental health aspects of dealing with a case like this. His mom was receiving an alimony of some 24k *A MONTH* (or such is what I read, though yea it sounds unbelievable, really a month? not a year?). Let that sink in. 24k a month. And how that kind of money has nothing whatsoever to do with how life is experienced for most people. Half the country probably lives on that a year, then consider all the rest that live on that every 6 months (earn 48k a year) or every 4 etc. etc.. They didn't have money for shrinks or meds or whatever? (actually he was on meds, cue Jane)
But anyway unless they had some major hidden expense, no way, they have money for any mental health they would like to try. They have money coming out of their tiolet pretty much, with that kind of income, and yes I realized it is probably pretty well taxed, but nontheless. The only mental health argument to be made in a case like this is involuntary confinement, and that's ugly, sure you want to go down *that* particular road?
I mean sure one can argue that many people can not afford adequate mental health in this country, and so on, and I'm sure it's true, but that doesn't apply to these folks. That income probably literally puts them in the 1% (although of course that's not actually what occupy means by the phrase, they actually mean more the .1% - they mean money that becomes power in this society).
Well, for anyone who actually cares about solutions that might work, this is an important issue. Step out of your delirious fantasy world about wild west mobs roaming the streets in vigilante gun battles, it's not reality. And no matter how much you squawk and shriek, they are not going to ban guns in the US, that's not reality either. And anything short of a total ban, which isn't going to happen, is going to leave us exactly where we are today. So if you actually care, get with reality and let's see what might have a chance of reducing the number of these inidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
Yossarian, you well *know* this is about the culture war, not about any concern over effective policy. You can see it in the breathless descriptions of the character of gunowners in these recent (and previous) threads, and the total inattention to data or critical thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
As you point out they had money and by all indications the parents were attentive. But if you are looking for things that have changed over the years, the way we treat the mentally ill is one of them. If you are willing to infringe the Constitutional rights of people who have done nothing wrong and not indicated any inclination to do wrong, should you not also look at the rights of those who do show risk factors? And if not, then maybe you are admitting that this is the price for living in a free society?Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
http://www.volokh.com/files/bernardh...kh_graph.1.JPG
The bbc are reporting another shooting in new york state. Four firefighters lured to a house fire and fired on by a gunman. Some deaths reported.
+ about 1,000 RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Mrs-M
Will data or critical thinking bring back any of the deceased children in Connecticut? The few folks who died recently in PA or in the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Portland, OR? NO? Then maybe you can understand some of why others react the way they do to this issue.....As I have stated before, when I was ten I saw my father pull a gun on my mother in a drunken rage (luckily he didn't pull the trigger) - I am wondering if you had had such an experience, might you see the whole issue differently? Beyond any kind of critical thinking or data? RobQuote:
Originally Posted by bae
Another senseless tragedy and what a horrible time of the year for it to happen.....I am jealous of your citizenship today Ishbel, I truly am.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by IshbelRobertson
I do see something positive here.....While it won't get 100% of the US health coverage, ObamaCare is a good start to getting mental health care to those who are deprived it now.....RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
Blah blah blah black box warning blah blah blah. I am nothing if not predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I recently read a three-part essay called "I was Adam Lanza" in which the author described his sad, isolated adolescence, and he credits his mother with finding him a psychologist who successfully used talk therapy to turn his thinking around. He didn't specifically mention medication, but he emphasized that a psychiatrist (who prescribes) was purposefully not chosen.
It seems obvious that a lot of potential troublemakers are in desperate need of positive connections in their lives, and this is as true in the suburbs as it is in the urban core.
:+1: Right on, Rob!Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
In one of these threads we were talking about teenage men and the connection between shootings and sexual urges. I guessed you'd offer up hookers as a solution! But I don't think that's it, having a girlfriend is different (and sometimes more crazy making, granted) than having access to a hooker. You'd feel vindicated to know that in this book I've been reading We Need To Talk About Kevin the mom speculates more than once about this very thing. This is a fictional treatment of a teenage rampage shooter (only he used arrows, one reason to trip up his liberal parents at bemoaning easy access to guns) but it sure is interesting insight into possible motivations of these rampage killers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
3 fighter shoot and killed. The shooter killed himself. This type of tragedy is why I feel gun owners need to a big part of gun control in the country. You could ban all gun sales today and there still would be millions of guns out there.
We need to look at gun owners as the problem. As people say guns don't kill people do. So we need to take a close look at gun owners as the problem.
I guess I've come to terms with the culture war as part of living in a dynamic society, but some people's lack of reasoning on this issue is astounding. I think this is why they are pushing so hard to pass something soon. Good policy is good policy whenever you look at it, but the emotional blinders will (hopefully) only last so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I don't know how many of them are acting off of normal impulses. The Columbine kids, the Virginia Tech killer, the Aurora CO theater shooter, and maybe Adam Lanza were all dealing with psychological issues and on some kind of psychiatric medication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I read that book a couple of years ago, though I don't remember much about it. Maybe the speculation stuck with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I ask this sincerely as I don't understand - what is the definition of "culture war" here? I see children gunned down in Connecticut, and I think we would both agree on this much - this was a senseless act, no? I see folks gunned down in suburban Portland, OR at a mall I once shopped at when I lived there, I see folks in rural PA getting gunned down, I see a lot of shooting taking place what seems fairly regularly all of a sudden. To reduce these ugly statistics down to a phrase such as culture war - if nothing else, does it not seem disrespectful to the victims and their families? RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
Key difference being, PP isn't in the pocket of the manufacturers, as the NRA is to the gun making machine. This is precisely why it whips its membership into a frenzy over fake controversies, just so they will rush out and buy more guns and ammo, thus lining the pockets of its real clientele.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
Personally, I don't believe the NRA gives one whit about individual gun owners. It's all about the money. The members are merely willing pawns.