Mass Shootings the last six months

[TulsaRufnex]

Yeah, Conan... your gun purchases virtually guarantee that you or someone in your house has an exponentially greater chance of committing suicide over someone else who doesn't see the need to have guns at home.  I completely understand the sentiments of those who feel they NEED a firearm at home for personal protection.  Yet the person who chooses not to weaponize gets accused of somehow being a wimp, or less of a man, or an unpatriotic "liberal" by folks who clearly have never lived in WALKABLE URBAN DENSITY.  And they've never had the experiences of the local police officer who's put in the position of facing the kind of firepower that SHOULD BE ILLEGAL in this country.

Thieves ain't gonna rob me while I'm at home.  And if I'm walking down the street, why should I be packing heat spending every minute of my walk as "a good guy with a gun" looking to shoot a mugger in the bushes?

That's vigilantism; and, IMHO, it's no way to live.  

And I feel sorry for the kids, spouses, nieces, nephews, aunts or uncles of the gun-obsessed in general or anti-gubmint conspiracists in particular who think they're John Wayne or Clint Eastwood or Walker Texas Ranger.  I also feel sorry for my ex-girlfriend who taught at Englewood HS on the southside of Chicago... a student of hers was on his way to full scholarship at any number of first rate colleges, then he got killed... use guns to hunt, kill deer, and/or keep a handgun at home, I don't care... but when a high-paid industry lobbyist with no "skin in the game" like Wayne LaPierre tells us "good guys with guns" are the answer, I want to ask him how he feels about this... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-021217englewood,0,666683.story

And... Gas proved my point by spotting exactly three black people... were these fairgrounds workers?, or people working for the gun show?...  
I didn't see any black folk in line at the fairgrounds for tickets last week, but maybe they had special backstage passes....  

Didn't see any Obama/Biden bumper stickers either...

I'm tired of the minority of gun owners who are unbelievably conspiracy driven and I'm tired of their industry's special interest dominating and ultimately silencing the debate.... I wouldn't have got this angry if it weren't for the rantings of LaPierre... and now this Alex Jones dude, who could seriously use some DECAF...


There need to be limitations to getting guns-on-demand, not unlike restrictions on "abortion-on-demand."  
And there's no reason why responsible gun enthusiasts shouldn't be asked to sacrifice a few "shiny guns" from time to time, so that a few less kids will likely die the next time this senseless crap happens in some non-descript, middle class 'burb with a relatively low crime rate...

Giffords, Kelly Say 'Enough' to Gun Violence on 2nd Anniversary of Tucson Shooting

"Enough," Giffords said.
----------------------------------------------------
Giffords, 42, and Kelly, 48, are both gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but Kelly had strong words for the National Rifle Association after the group suggested the only way to stop gun violence is to have a "good guy with a gun."

There was a good guy with a gun, Kelly said, the day Jared Loughner shot Giffords and 18 other people, six fatally, at her "Congress on Your Corner" event.

"[A man came out] of the store next door and nearly shot the man who took down Jared Loughner," Kelly said. "The one who eventually wrestled [Loughner] to the ground was almost killed himself by a good guy with a gun, so I don't really buy that argument."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I bought a gun at Walmart recently and I went through a background check. It's not a difficult thing to do," Kelly said. "Why can't we just do that and make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns?"

The debate over high-capacity magazines and assault weapons has been renewed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Kelly, a veteran of Desert Storm and a gun owner, said he doesn't believe an extended magazine is necessary for the sport.

"An extended magazine is used to kill people," he said, "lots of people."

Loughner used a magazine that had 33 rounds in Tucson, while accused Aurora shooter James Holmes had a 100-round magazine. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, used numerous 30-round magazines to load his Bushmaster AR-15.

Finally, Kelly hopes to address the issue of how the mentally ill are treated in the United States. Loughner, who was deemed incompetent to stand trial, pleaded guilty to 19 counts in August.

"Jared Loughner was clearly mentally ill," Kelly said.

"Sad," Giffords added.

Kelly said, "We have to learn how to identify these people and get them treatment. And we don't do a very good job at that."

[RecycleMichael]

"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander."

Chris Rock 

[DolfanBob]

I have no problem with guns or anyone owning one. I have never owned one or even wanted to. I have hunted with friends and shot plenty of guns. Just never got all that excited about firearms.

My problem is with assault rifles. I just don't see the need for the general public to have them. They are made for one thing. Killing people in large numbers very fast. For Military use yes. But we are not at war with our society. IMO they are just not needed.

[AquaMan]

My sentiments exactly Dolphin man. However, it seems we're not making much progress in this national discussion. We're certainly not making any progress on this forum.

Is it just me or does it seem to mirror the Republican fixation on demonizing compromise in favor of "our way or else"?

[TulsaRufnex]

Add some sanity to the debate... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

[Hoss]

I have no problem with guns or anyone owning one. I have never owned one or even wanted to. I have hunted with friends and shot plenty of guns. Just never got all that excited about firearms.

My problem is with assault rifles. I just don't see the need for the general public to have them. They are made for one thing. Killing people in large numbers very fast. For Military use yes. But we are not at war with our society. IMO they are just not needed.

As a responsible gun owner and 2A advocate, I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I own firearms, but don't believe that it is really necessary for civilians to own weapons that by definition have been used in combat.  Do you really need an AR15 to shoot deer?

Also, do we really need 30 round magazines for Glock 23?

[Gaspar]

As a responsible gun owner and 2A advocate, I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I own firearms, but don't believe that it is really necessary for civilians to own weapons that by definition have been used in combat.  Do you really need an AR15 to shoot deer?

Also, do we really need 30 round magazines for Glock 23?

The 2nd Amendment was not written so that citizens could shoot at deer.

[Hoss]

The 2nd Amendment was not written so that citizens could shoot at deer.

It also wasn't written so that citizens could use military weapons to shoot children.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It also wasn't written so that citizens could use military weapons to shoot children.

Another reason we need to fix the mental health system in this country.

[Hoss]

Another reason we need to fix the mental health system in this country.

I agree.  But that's not the only solution.

And yes, that means I'm FOR an assault weapons ban.  Don't see the need for civilians to have them.

[RecycleMichael]

Can someone make the argument on why we should allow private ownership of magazines with more than ten rounds?

[Gaspar]

It also wasn't written so that citizens could use military weapons to shoot children.

To my knowledge, no law was ever written so that citizens could harm children.  In fact, the second amendment grants no such privilege.  Your analogy is Non Sequitur.

Military or otherwise, it is not legal to use deadly force on anyone unless justified under the law.  In order to make this argument, you would need to pose that military style weaponry caused people to shoot children, and that would be a non causa pro causa statement. 

History teaches us that gun control measures are never about guns, they are primarily about control and perception, however I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs and create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control.  Criminals currently acquire illegal weapons this way, but we could make it truly blossom with just a little help from the government.  Another up-side would be the stable of new hobgoblins this would create that only government would have the authority and power to battle.  What a marvelous triumph for the professional politician.

[Gaspar]

Can someone make the argument on why we should allow private ownership of magazines with more than ten rounds?

Make the argument as to why they should be illegal?

The size of the magazine had noting to do with any of these recent killings. The assailants reloaded several times.  They had multiple weapons and were faced with no resistance.  Three ten round clips would have been just as affective as a 30 round.  One would think that intelligent proponents of gun control would focus more on rate of fire instead of magazine size, but agan, it is an argument of STYLE instead of function.

In fact, use of a 9 round 9mm handgun would have actually been just as efficient.  The reload time is arguably faster, the clips are smaller and the assailants could carry more.  Since these were close range attacks there was no need for the range capabilities of a rifle, in fact the added size and bulk of the rifle serves more as a hinderance than an advantage. You can turn, aim and fire far faster at close range with a pistol than a rifle, and blunt pistol rounds have more knockdown than tiny 22 caliber high-speed rounds at close range.

I would not be against assault rifle measures if we could show that those measures would be effective in stoping psychotic people that want to kill folks, but nothing in either of these cases indicates that.  Instead, as I've stated before, I think we need to empower healthcare providers (of which both of these individuals were under the care of) to implement policies that remove access to any firearm as dictated in existing law.  We could do that now, with little or no resistance, and actually save lives, instead of just changing the picture of the weapon used in the next massacare.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Can someone make the argument on why we should allow private ownership of magazines with more than ten rounds?

Can you make the argument on why we should allow private ownership of a car that can go more than 85mph - the highest legal speed limit in the land?  Or better yet, why - when we know cars and speed are involved in tens of thousands of deaths a year, many of them children - do we allow speed limits greater that 65mph?  Any wreck above that is exponentially much more likely to be fatal.

Can someone make the argument why would we allow a person to buy any more than 10 cigarettes in a pack.  Or buy more than one pack a day?  And yet, there is no restriction on the number of cigarettes a person can buy per day.  Or the size of the pack - why would anyone need to buy 20 cigarettes at one time??  Or worse yet, a carton!!

Or why we as a society would allow people to smoke in their houses or cars or other enclosed place if children are present?  60,000 people or so die from second hand smoke every year - many of them children - and NONE of whom are smokers themselves, but have that inflicted on them by others.  (Not even touching on the other half million plus who die every year directly from smoking.)  

[heironymouspasparagus]

I would not be against assault rifle measures if we could show that those measures would be effective in stoping psychotic people that want to kill folks, but nothing in either of these cases indicates that.  Instead, as I've stated before, I think we need to empower healthcare providers (of which both of these individuals were under the care of) to implement policies that remove access to any firearm as dictated in existing law.  We could do that now, with little or no resistance, and actually save lives, instead of just changing the picture of the weapon used in the next massacare.

We have, in fact, 10 years of empirical (real world) evidence using exactly that ban that is being proposed, that it does nothing in stopping psychopaths from doing what they want to do.  It HAS been tried.  It WAS ineffective at accomplishing what all the wringing of hands is all about.

And yet, we continue to ignore and look away from root causes.  We continue to fixate on band-aids that don't work. 

Can someone make the argument that we continue to ignore a search for root causes and again try something the has been proven ineffectual?   Wow!  This is sounding like what we do in the "war on drugs"... keep going back to the same stable of proven false conclusions and wanting the keep trying the same old ineffective hog slop!

When do we as a society start to realize; that constitutes insanity as public policy?