[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We need to deal with the nutjobs.

This ISN'T the fault of a gun, but a failure of parents, schools and medical folks.
Banning guns has not worked. Banning clip due to size is BS.

If your planning to commit murder, why would you care about clip size?

So the fact that these guns were easily accessible due to absolutely no regulations didn't make this mass murder possible?

It's my understanding that Connecticut does in fact have regulations on guns. Do you have a source on this?

Had there been a law in place mandating that these guns were stored in a secure locker AT ALL TIMES unless at a shooting range or enroute there, this could not have happened.

Unless he knew where the key was. Who enforces this law anyway? The police now have to patrol our homes?

And you know, that aspect of a law actually works, regardless of how stupid you believe people to be, or how stoned you believe ME to be.

By "works," you mean you surrender the right not to have police do unannounced inspections of your homes. I don't think we're ready for that here.

Here, we had a school shooting some years ago, in Winnenden. The kid shot himself after a lengthy stand-off with police. Kicked off another massive round of discussion over gun regulations (though when they discovered that they couldn't really make them more secure, it sort of turned over to first-person-shooter games and then fizzled out).

But the other aspect was that HIS FATHER, who owned the guns but had failed to secure them properly, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 15 cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I hope you don't expect that to increase compliance. The reason a person neglects to secure their gun is because they think nothing will go wrong, not because they think they won't be punished when something goes wrong. Dead kids is already pretty much the maximum deterrence. I'm not saying further retribution isn't warranted, but it's not going to increase compliance, it's purely punitive.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

She wouldn't be if she'd locked up the ****ing guns.

Locks only keep honest people honest.

A gun safe keeps guns safe from dishonest people.

What are you arguing here, exactly? My point is about keeping legal guns secured against abuse, under penalty of jail time administered to the owner.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why can't we use something better than a lock? Is a gun safe easy to break into?

Some are, some aren't. My small quik-boxes a man could get into with some patience and a crowbar, my big safe can resist the blast of a 200 kiloton nuke @300m.

Not so artful dodging.

Says you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

A gun safe keeps guns safe from dishonest people.
What are you arguing here, exactly? My point is about keeping legal guns secured against abuse, under penalty of jail time administered to the owner.

My point is, real security costs real money.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Bigger than usual grain of salt. Unlike most topics, the actual raw data is incentivized to lie to those collecting it. Why would they reveal their methods if doing so could contribute to the closure of those methods?

Criminal regularly reveal their methods for better deals. Why would this be any different?

They also regularly lie if they can get away with it. This circumstance doesn't strike me as one that is confirmable.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Because I'm calling something that's technically already illegal a "loophole?" Ok, what do you call it when a teen hires a stranger to buy them some alcohol?

I didn't say it wasn't a loophole, I said the loophole isn't the problem.

Then I'm lost. What is the problem?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, context is relevant only so far as it aids prevention of further deaths (such as enforcement; if people see that they can get away with murder then there will be more murders). If I die in an accident it will be exactly as tragic as if I die in a shooting. Of course if a cute baby dies in an accident it is more tragic than if I die in an accident; I assume that's not the kind of context you meant.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree. If someone dies from a car accident, or lung cancer, or a baloney sandwich, that's useful information. (Hell, with the car accident you could drill down further – was it flaws in the car design, alcoholic impairment, or a poorly regulated intersection)

Or don't drive

Do you disagree because you don't consider this situation preventable?

It's preventable in the same way that car accidents are preventable: with enormous effort and significant trade-offs for questionable, probabilistic results.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Had there been a law in place mandating that these guns were stored in a secure locker AT ALL TIMES unless at a shooting range or enroute there, this could not have happened.

Unless he knew where the key was. Who enforces this law anyway? The police now have to patrol our homes?

Police have the right to search your children just for ****ing going to school. You see absolutely no problem with that, like it's totally normal.

But see below.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And you know, that aspect of a law actually works, regardless of how stupid you believe people to be, or how stoned you believe ME to be.

By "works," you mean you surrender the right not to have police do unannounced inspections of your homes. I don't think we're ready for that here.

That is the issue, not any of what you wrote above.

Things change. Perceptions change. You're already seeing it these past few days. The problem, as I've written several times, is how to get there from here.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Here, we had a school shooting some years ago, in Winnenden. The kid shot himself after a lengthy stand-off with police. Kicked off another massive round of discussion over gun regulations (though when they discovered that they couldn't really make them more secure, it sort of turned over to first-person-shooter games and then fizzled out).

But the other aspect was that HIS FATHER, who owned the guns but had failed to secure them properly, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 15 cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting

I hope you don't expect that to increase compliance. The reason a person neglects to secure their gun is because they think nothing will go wrong, not because they think they won't be punished when something goes wrong. Dead kids is already pretty much the maximum deterrence. I'm not saying further retribution isn't warranted, but it's not going to increase compliance, it's purely punitive.

Uh, no. Actually, you've got that COMPLETELY backwards.

We don't do punitive punishment here. We're more into the corrective style. It's one of the reasons we consider the death penalty savage and barbaric, and one of the reasons you think we're pussies.

The guy got a suspended sentence, which is a legal conviction that affects his entire future.

Maybe your country really *is* full of complete retards who simply refuse to comply with laws, even when faced with prosecution for failing to comply. Maybe that's something that's socially acceptable and even expected where you live.

I find this difficult to believe or understand.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

A gun safe keeps guns safe from dishonest people.
What are you arguing here, exactly? My point is about keeping legal guns secured against abuse, under penalty of jail time administered to the owner.

My point is, real security costs real money.

So?

Not keeping stuff secure costs real jail if something happens.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So?
Not keeping stuff secure costs real jail if something happens.

Yeah, more laws have helped so much, so far. The fix isn't more legislation, it's enforcement of existing laws and education.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Uh, no. Actually, you've got that COMPLETELY backwards.

We don't do punitive punishment here. We're more into the corrective style. It's one of the reasons we consider the death penalty savage and barbaric, and one of the reasons you think we're pussies.

The guy got a suspended sentence, which is a legal conviction that affects his entire future.

Maybe your country really *is* full of complete retards who simply refuse to comply with laws, even when faced with prosecution for failing to comply. Maybe that's something that's socially acceptable and even expected where you live.

I find this difficult to believe or understand.

Your abusive tone is starting to get on my nerves. Maybe if you didn't have police stomping through your homes you wouldn't be so uptight

So anyway, explain to me why your local "retard" didn't lock the gun safe that day, if it's not because he didn't think it was necessary.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

my big safe can resist the blast of a 200 kiloton nuke @300m.

I saw that in the Indiana Jones movie.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

A gun safe keeps guns safe from dishonest people.

It might also have kept this murderer from stealing his mom's guns, killing her with them, then murdering a bunch of kids.

I mean, heaven forbid, that guns should be locked away from people with no rightful access to them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So anyway, explain to me why your local "retard" didn't lock the gun safe that day, if it's not because he didn't think it was necessary.

Oh come on!

Negligence, carelessness?

It's kind of unlikely that he "didn't think it was necessary."

People here tend to take guns pretty seriously. They can kill people, you know.

We've had eight or nine cases, as far as I can tell, of school violence since 1985. Two of them involved guns, the others had knives and didn't result in any deaths IIRC.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Some more rambling:
So here's my question to the more fervent gun advocates: Am I misreading the situation or has your side effectively set-up a no-win situation in regards to gun control? i.e., More regulation would only put people at a disadvantage is gun crimes are becoming more prevalent; If gun crimes are going down, more regulation isn't needed.

Not entirely sure what you're asking, but many gun advocates believe more guns in society makes it safer.

I happen to believe violent crime has gone down in the US over the years. The majority of stats I see say this... I don't wish to get into a petty stat war since they can be made to say anything... and I wont really go to any lengths to defend my position here; But personally I can say I used to be a lot more afraid to walk down the streets of the big city slums in the old days that I am now.

I've been to some of these countries in Central American, Africa, where guns are banned only to find the threat of someone coming up to rob you at gun point there is much higher than in the US. I think the media is increasingly portraying us as violent society; simply because thats where the money is and they have the technology now to cherry pick the most violent shocking stories to send around the nation. Before computers took over all this only big stories were inputted into the feed; and only the biggest of the big were pulled from the output across the nation. It's hard to say whether a school room massacre would be considered a big story or be completely covered up 100 years ago.

I think we become complacent to the fact that the population is ever increasing and with it so should the crime and reporting of it. i.e. US population has gone up by 1/3 since 1970, so I would expect there to be at least 33% more crime now than in 1970 before I start accusing our society of some mystery change-for-the-worse thats leading to these events. I don't think we should allow our government to have some knee jerk reaction because guns are used in some really violent crimes.

I find it surprising that I can't recall any(many?) of these shooters being taken down by private citizens rather than law enforcement or their own hand. Given the supposed broad enjoyment of the second amendment, am I right to have expected differently?

This happens all the time here in Texas. It doesn't make the news most the time down here... We don't really consider it news so our media probably isn't putting it on the national feed would be my guess. Think about it, would this massacre story have made much news and generated any talking points had a security guard or teacher shot the kid as soon as he pulled his gun? News isn't news if it's not violent.

I don't really look for this stuff or anything, but recently we had a guy try to rob a fiesta mart who was quickly gunned down by 2 vigilantes. A few months ago my coworker was at a government building when 3 gunmen came in to rob some people. As soon as they made their intention known within 2 seconds my coworker had shot all 3 dead. It is illegal to bring guns into most businesses here, and even more illegal to bring them into government buildings, but that doesn't stop criminals, and thankfully doesn't stop our private citizens. Even in TX most people don't carry. The law abiding people who do carry are gun fearing, well prepared excellent shots. It's not like Texans are foaming at the mouth, trigger happy rednecks ready to shoot anyone who gives them the evil eye; in fact there's almost nobody like that.

Gun proponents – what suggestions do you have to decrease these types of incidents in the future that do not require an increase in either armed personnel (i.e., air marshals only for schools) or increased proliferation of an armed populace?
(Regulation advocates – I challenge you to do the same substituting increased regulation for increased arms in the question above)

Some schools require translucent backpacks and medal detectors...

As Waragainstsleep pointed out and people don't want to address; most these people have a history of mental illness; this is about the mentally ill, not gun control. There needs to be better programs for the mentally ill and needs to be more regulated. For example, the government currently hires someone to take care of your mentally ill child.... But whats happening is parents who don't want to work are using that as a free handout, to hire themselves as the caretaker. If this is going to be the case there needs to be mandatory classes on how to deal with, and talk to the mentally ill, as to monitor their progress and not set them off. They are unpredictable like wild animals, you never know what you might say that might set them off. For all we know this person's mom said something 'mean' to him so he decided to show HER. We could also require classes before you're allowed to legally own a gun or acquire a hunting license. This wouldn't stop criminals but it would help prevent accidents and maybe minimalize theft.

If it were shown that increased regulation did curb related crime, would advocates then feel that increased gun crime (and death) is a passable price to pay for the increased security from tyranny that guns are supposed to provide or would you become amenable to some regulatory concessions?

If they came up with some sense-able regulation (which the government almost never does) other than "les jis take der guns" then fine. Im willing to believe the massacre wouldn't have happened if all guns were banned nationwide... In this specific case I don't think psychotics like this would have the motivation to acquire guns illegally.

I don't buy the argument that liberals just want to save lives statistically. If that were the case we'd be talking about simple regulations to standardize roads and prevent traffic deaths. Half a day of traffic deaths eclipses 1 decade of school massacres. If it were about saving lives we would push the government to standardize road design by :
Getting rid of lane dropping at every exit or junction so that people aren't changing lanes last minute to avoid being forced to exit.
All exits and entrance will be on the RIGHT, How many accidents are caused because people don't know if the next exit will be 4 lanes to the left.
One street by me used to have 4 lanes; a few months ago they dropped 2 so they could turn them into parallel parking lanes; specifically so drunk people will have more places to park closer to the bars at night, that is the only people who use those spots since we have parking garages all over the place.
Thats just the start of it...
Our whole road system nationwide looks like it's designed to massacre people. Unfortunately standardizing road design would please everyone, and this is really about using an event to anger conservatives.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Negligence, carelessness?

It's kind of unlikely that he "didn't think it was necessary."

Negligence/carelessness/dismissiveness, all of it means he didn't think it would lead to bloodshed or he wouldn't have done it.

Punishments address someone who doesn't care about the dangers and merely wants to get away with something. They don't work on anyone who never considers the punishment to start with.

People here tend to take guns pretty seriously. They can kill people, you know.

Then what good is lumping a punishment on top of it? If that's true (and I'm not doubting it), then added punishment is beating a dead horse. And if it's not, then the resulting deaths are going to be more of an eye-opener for him than the additional punishment. I just don't see any way that this sentencing prevents any deaths.

If you want to prevent deaths, then you give out harsh punishments to people who cut corners when no one dies. Then at least you change behaviors before a shooting.

[Spheric Harlot]

The law does. Though "harsh" obviously means different things if you're a "give them a chance" society rather than "an eye for an eye" type of society.

Whatever the effect, stupidity or attitude of the people, the laws seem to be working.

Your lack of such laws is not.

[P]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What about the civil war? Look I know it's hard to look past the orthogonal moralities of that conflict, but suppose it was the slave states that had been in power, would you want Washington's ability to disarm their political opponents to dictate the outcome of the conflict, if Washington had happened to be controlled by a southerner at the time?

It was mainly the states that rebelled, rather than the population of the states (yes, I know that the population rebelled in e.g. West Virginia, but the main thrust of the war wasn't that). Noone is arguing that the states should be banned from arming its police officers etc.

[P]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Locks only keep honest people honest.

Locks add time. Any lock can be picked or forced, but it takes time. Criminal insanity does not exactly imply excessive patience (although it doesn't preclude it either), so weapons that are locked up (and even better, weapons that are partially disassembled and locked up in different safes) at least reduce the incidence of crimes like this.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

...
It would go a long way to stopping these spree killings.
...

Statistics show that in regions that don't have gun restrictions they have less violence and, conversely, regions with strict gun controls experience more gun violence. Restricting guns isn't going to help but I'll concede there's no reason for assault rifles or high-capacity magazines (though you could do the same amount of damage with a few pistols, shotguns, knives, etc. though you'd have to have more skills and be more committed to do so).

As I said in a similar thread, when Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) approached the drunk driver problem 25 years ago, they didn't attack car owners or alcohol venders, they attacked the behavior (e.g. drinking and driving). We must not knee-jerk and ban guns, we need to look at the underlying behavior and our society. Our society has changed a lot and I think that's a large part of the problem's of today.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

She wouldn't be if she'd locked up the ****ing guns.

Yeah...hindsight is 20:20.

[BadKosh]

Seems the worst school killing in the USA was done with explosives. Comments from the gun-ban stooges?

It STILL goes back to the nut-job.
Nobody paying attention to them doesn't help.
The parents failed, the schools failed and the doctors/mental health professionals failed.
Normal, law abiding citizens aren't to blame for the wack-jobs actions, and shouldn't have more regulations on guns forced on them when they need a more robust system to identify and treat wack-jobs before they kill.

The guns were tools. It could have been bombs, poisons, setting the place on fire, etc.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by cgc 

As I said in a similar thread, when Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) approached the drunk driver problem 25 years ago, they didn't attack car owners or alcohol venders, they attacked the behavior (e.g. drinking and driving). We must not knee-jerk and ban guns, we need to look at the underlying behavior and our society. Our society has changed a lot and I think that's a large part of the problem's of today.

Errrrr....except, they specifically attacked what one could do with alcohol? That you could not have alcohol open in a car, that you could not operate a car after you'd drank a certain amount of alcohol, and so on? Isn't that....exactly what you're claiming did not happen?

And isn't that exactly what people are saying in this thread - that access to firearms should be limited?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Seems the worst school killing in the USA was done with explosives. Comments from the gun-ban stooges?
It STILL goes back to the nut-job.
Nobody paying attention to them doesn't help.
The parents failed, the schools failed and the doctors/mental health professionals failed.
Normal, law abiding citizens aren't to blame for the wack-jobs actions, and shouldn't have more regulations on guns forced on them when they need a more robust system to identify and treat wack-jobs before they kill.
The guns were tools. It could have been bombs, poisons, setting the place on fire, etc.

Yep, OKC. Ban cow poop!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Errrrr....except, they specifically attacked what one could do with alcohol? That you could not have alcohol open in a car, that you could not operate a car after you'd drank a certain amount of alcohol, and so on? Isn't that....exactly what you're claiming did not happen?
And isn't that exactly what people are saying in this thread - that access to firearms should be limited?

The kid did break possession laws, didn't seem to stop him.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by P 

Locks add time. Any lock can be picked or forced, but it takes time. Criminal insanity does not exactly imply excessive patience (although it doesn't preclude it either), so weapons that are locked up (and even better, weapons that are partially disassembled and locked up in different safes) at least reduce the incidence of crimes like this.

Cheap safes don't stop people, good ones do. Nothing in the mainstream can stop a person who wants in, you have to go custom for real security. I broke into a "pretty decent" $1500 gun safe with a 10lb sledge in ~3 minutes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Wow you must have really wanted those guns bad!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Whatever the effect, stupidity or attitude of the people, the laws seem to be working.

Either that or whatever the cause, stupidity or attitude of the people, has produced laws to represent it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Errrrr....except, they specifically attacked what one could do with alcohol? That you could not have alcohol open in a car, that you could not operate a car after you'd drank a certain amount of alcohol, and so on? Isn't that....exactly what you're claiming did not happen?
And isn't that exactly what people are saying in this thread - that access to firearms should be limited?

The kid did break possession laws, didn't seem to stop him.

But they weren't effective possession laws, were they.

Look, you've mentioned several times that the existing laws need to be enforced first. Then Joe Blow has come in with the brilliant comments about "this state has gun restrictions, this one does not, it's safer"......well, no shit, when there is absolutely zero practical real-world restriction in the access to firearms - all you've got to do is drive 2 hours in any direction to get all the firearms you'd like, and then drive back without any sort of border restriction.

So the practical effect is that anyone who wants a restricted firearm - for good or bad - can very easily get one. That is a totally different situation than in Canada or England or anywhere else where firearms are restricted - yes, you can get one if you try, but it's not easy, you have to know the right/wrong people, and many people are caught or flagged by authorities at the acquisition stage.

Shaddim"]Cheap safes don't stop people, good ones do. Nothing in the mainstream can stop a person who wants in, you have to go custom for real security.[/quote]
For all intents and purposes, any decent safe will stop the Average Joe. No other country in the world requires custom safe jobs - it's about safekeeping and restricting access, i.e. reasonable measures.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

few months ago my coworker was at a government building when 3 gunmen came in to rob some people. As soon as they made their intention known within 2 seconds my coworker had shot all 3 dead.

Yikes. Got a link for this?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

By "works," you mean you surrender the right not to have police do unannounced inspections of your homes. I don't think we're ready for that here.

As an FYI, that's a pretty easy thing to work around. What about requiring proof of purchase of a safe (or installation) with x years of the regulation, provided in conjunction with your gun license renewal or whatever? Sure, it won't catch everyone and it wouldn't be impossible to forge, but it would tremendously kick-start the process, guaranteed.

Safes are now required in many (all?) Canadian provinces and yes, not everyone has them - but it's fast becoming the normal thing to have. (My Dad didn't have one for years after it was required, but then some of his friends got them, and then more, and then one of them got robbed while they were on vacation and a bunch of stuff was taken but not the handguns or rifles in the closet safe (this guy legally has some handguns, a relative rarity in Canada)...and then the ones with safes all sort of agreed that it actually made them feel a lot better to have their guns locked up. Long story short, now they all love them.)

I've got one in the basement for mine, and would never think of doing without it.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Errrrr....except, they specifically attacked what one could do with alcohol? That you could not have alcohol open in a car, that you could not operate a car after you'd drank a certain amount of alcohol, and so on? Isn't that....exactly what you're claiming did not happen?
And isn't that exactly what people are saying in this thread - that access to firearms should be limited?

Again, alcohol is not the problem and neither are guns. It's the boneheads that abuse them. Another law isn't going to prevent this...it was illegal to have a gun on school property, it was illegal to kill people, it was illegal to break into the school. What makes you think another law will stop this? Last week 20+ children were stabbed in a school in China. If you take away guns, they use knives; so work to prevent the behavior. Find out WHY they do this and prevent that.

Have you looked at gun free zones? I've read studies where gun free zones are places that experience more gun violence because criminals know the only people with guns in gun free zones are cops and criminals. There was a case in Israel where a terrorist tried to shoot up a school and someone there shot him dead with no injuries to students. If guns were outlawed how many children would have died?

We need to not respond with knee jerk gun laws...we need to look at behavior and society at-large, not guns in and of themselves.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Errrrr....except, they specifically attacked what one could do with alcohol? That you could not have alcohol open in a car, that you could not operate a car after you'd drank a certain amount of alcohol, and so on? Isn't that....exactly what you're claiming did not happen?
And isn't that exactly what people are saying in this thread - that access to firearms should be limited?

Again, alcohol is not the problem and neither are guns. It's the boneheads that abuse them. Another law isn't going to prevent this...it was illegal to have a gun on school property, it was illegal to kill people, it was illegal to break into the school. What makes you think another law will stop this?

Like.....a law restricting access to said guns, instead of them being readily available to the mentally unstable? You don't see that type of law having any affect, huh?

Or what about the general systemic affect of a lessening of the "gun culture"? We've had multiple instances of people talking about the US "gun culture" and how it cannot be changed - you don't see increased restrictions on firearms and their public presence doing anything to lessen the "gun culture" of the next generation of Americans?

Last week 20+ children were stabbed in a school in China. If you take away guns, they use knives; so work to prevent the behavior. Find out WHY they do this and prevent that.

I can't believe you just used that example.

Errrr.....cgc......tell me, how many people were killed in the China "mass stabbing"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Says you.

Yeah so I'm curious too as to how the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment applies to you.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Cheap safes don't stop people, good ones do. Nothing in the mainstream can stop a person who wants in, you have to go custom for real security. I broke into a "pretty decent" $1500 gun safe with a 10lb sledge in ~3 minutes.

Ah, Shaddim with the personal anecdotes. So, is the gun safe industry built on a lie? Is gun safe security being compromised a common occurrence?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yep, OKC. Ban cow poop!

I keep asking and no one is answering: Why aren't these mass murderers using bombs instead of guns if they're so much more effective?

---

Originally Posted by cgc 

Last week 20+ children were stabbed in a school in China. If you take away guns, they use knives

Last I read, none of those kids died. So if your goal in banning guns is preventing those school deaths, mission accomplished.

Originally Posted by cgc 

We need to not respond with knee jerk gun laws...we need to look at behavior and society at-large, not guns in and of themselves.

I agree with this by and large. However, until you know or have solutions to those behavioral issues, it smacks of irresponsibility to not try and limit collateral damage in the interim.

---

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

This happens all the time here in Texas. It doesn't make the news most the time down here... We don't really consider it news so our media probably isn't putting it on the national feed would be my guess.

Yeah, I'm going to have to ask for links. Texans are stopping multiple possible mass shootings? We're talking at movies, malls, or schools here?

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Think about it, would this massacre story have made much news and generated any talking points had a security guard or teacher shot the kid as soon as he pulled his gun? News isn't news if it's not violent.

Yes, it would have made the news. Crisis averted is the next best thing.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

We could also require classes before you're allowed to legally own a gun or acquire a hunting license. This wouldn't stop criminals but it would help prevent accidents and maybe minimalize theft.

That strikes me as eminently reasonable. Hell, I'm fine with mandatory gun classes in school (If we as Americans have the right to bear arms, the least our schools should do is teach us to do it properly).

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I don't buy the argument that liberals just want to save lives statistically. If that were the case we'd be talking about simple regulations to standardize roads and prevent traffic deaths.

Unfortunately standardizing road design would please everyone, and this is really about using an event to anger conservatives.

This is bitter crazy talk.

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They also regularly lie if they can get away with it. This circumstance doesn't strike me as one that is confirmable.

I'm not against a healthy dose of skepticism, but I'm finding the timing incredibly convenient.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then I'm lost. What is the problem?

Ubiquity.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's preventable in the same way that car accidents are preventable: with enormous effort and significant trade-offs for questionable, probabilistic results.

Does this mean you think the status quo is acceptable?


---

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Look, you've mentioned several times that the existing laws need to be enforced first. Then Joe Blow has come in with the brilliant comments about "this state has gun restrictions, this one does not, it's safer"......well, no shit, when there is absolutely zero practical real-world restriction in the access to firearms - all you've got to do is drive 2 hours in any direction to get all the firearms you'd like, and then drive back without any sort of border restriction.
So the practical effect is that anyone who wants a restricted firearm - for good or bad - can very easily get one.

Thank you, I've been wanting to get to this. State restrictions are crippled when going to a different state with different laws is a just a few hours drive. Fireworks laws come to mind. If all you have to do is drive three hours, put something in your trunk and drive another three hours back, the law's effect is going to be severely curtailed. (Of course, heaven forbid I point out something might be more effective when done at the federal level)


---


I'm totally behind those pointing out that individuals with mental health issues have been behind a lot of these shootings. What I'm not hearing is any suggestions on how to address that point of failure either.

Listen, if you have a suicidal person in the house, do you hide all the knives until they are taken care of, or do you leave them all out and hope for the best? I don't think this works as a 1:1 comparison with guns being legal in this country, but the point is pretending that there aren't unenjoyable consequences feels disingenuous. If gun advocates feel this is the cost of freedom™, I feel they need to be a little more up front about it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I don't buy the argument that liberals just want to save lives statistically. If that were the case we'd be talking about simple regulations to standardize roads and prevent traffic deaths. Half a day of traffic deaths eclipses 1 decade of school massacres. If it were about saving lives we would push the government to standardize road design by :
Getting rid of lane dropping at every exit or junction so that people aren't changing lanes last minute to avoid being forced to exit.
All exits and entrance will be on the RIGHT, How many accidents are caused because people don't know if the next exit will be 4 lanes to the left.
One street by me used to have 4 lanes; a few months ago they dropped 2 so they could turn them into parallel parking lanes; specifically so drunk people will have more places to park closer to the bars at night, that is the only people who use those spots since we have parking garages all over the place.
Thats just the start of it...
Our whole road system nationwide looks like it's designed to massacre people. Unfortunately standardizing road design would please everyone, and this is really about using an event to anger conservatives.

Whoops...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Listen, if you have a suicidal person in the house, do you hide all the knives until they are taken care of, or do you leave them all out and hope for the best?

No, you just give everyone else in the house a knife too which makes the situation safer

#Lobbedovertheplate #Icrushedthat

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They also regularly lie if they can get away with it. This circumstance doesn't strike me as one that is confirmable.

I'm not against a healthy dose of skepticism, but I'm finding the timing incredibly convenient.

Well I wasn't making it a big deal, so the timing is on you.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then I'm lost. What is the problem?

Ubiquity.

That wasn't in the article you posted, so if that's what you took away from all this then that explains why you were asking for more info; you must have been waiting for one that supported your preconception.

The article said explicitly that the majority of guns in crimes come from a banned buyer convincing a non-banned buyer to buy for them. That has nothing to do with ubiquity, and everything to do with an unenforceable weak point in existing law (aka a loophole). It says they do it brazenly, but if it was enforced there is nothing stopping them from hiding it (like teens do with alcohol all the time). It also said that the majority come from just 8% of dealers. That is the opposite of ubiquity, it's not the volume of dealers that's the bulk of the problem it's a few bad apples spoiling the efforts of the majority.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's preventable in the same way that car accidents are preventable: with enormous effort and significant trade-offs for questionable, probabilistic results.

Does this mean you think the status quo is acceptable?

There is always room for improvement, but it has to be an real improvement. I oppose treating the patient with leaches just because it's the only thing we know how to do and we just can't stand doing nothing.

Is the status quo of traffic death acceptable to you? Accidents should be easier to curb than intentional killings, not harder, because there is no one actively working against you. Being that there are still more traffic deaths than gun killings, and they are easier to prevent, they should be a higher priority. We would save more lives with less effort. If 100 people die every year (from mass murder-suicides), that is tragic, but honestly it is just noise compared with the number of deaths due to other causes, even those that are significantly easier to prevent.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm totally behind those pointing out that individuals with mental health issues have been behind a lot of these shootings.

Can we not assume that EVERY mass shooting is going to be the work of someone with mental health issues. Mass murder is not a normal response to anything.

Any sane gun owner is never going to shoot off like this. The issue then becomes how to identify the sane from the disturbed. Surely this means regulating the ownership in such a way that precludes ownership by anyone with mental health issues. At a minimum. Personally I'm not in Cavour of anyone having guns but I'm European but can anyone argue against this limited regulation.

I am aware that in this case the guns used were the killers mothers, but honestly she sounds like she should have failed even a cursory check herself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Listen, if you have a suicidal person in the house, do you hide all the knives until they are taken care of, or do you leave them all out and hope for the best? I don't think this works as a 1:1 comparison with guns being legal in this country, but the point is pretending that there aren't unenjoyable consequences feels disingenuous. If gun advocates feel this is the cost of freedom™, I feel they need to be a little more up front about it.

I don't think suicides should be part of this discussion. Not for your Bloomberg graph (according to the article they comprise 62% of the gun deaths, while I doubt they are including suicide by car), not for the Israeli solders, and not for analogies. Just curious, do you support the legality of assisted suicide?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

but the point is pretending that there aren't unenjoyable consequences feels disingenuous. If gun advocates feel this is the cost of freedom™, I feel they need to be a little more up front about it.

I'm an advocate, and 100% support this statement. Man the **** up.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

but the point is pretending that there aren't unenjoyable consequences feels disingenuous. If gun advocates feel this is the cost of freedom™, I feel they need to be a little more up front about it.

I'm an advocate, and 100% support this statement. Man the **** up.

Come on now, should driving enthusiasts have to say that too? Is Ca$h disingenuous just for his love of driving and talking about driving, while never having said the level of deaths that come with driving is an acceptable cost? He's disingenuous for lots of reasons, but that isn't one of them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm an advocate, and 100% support this statement. Man the **** up.

Who should man the **** up?

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Can we not assume that EVERY mass shooting is going to be the work of someone with mental health issues. Mass murder is not a normal response to anything.

Again, context. There's a difference between people with severe mental issues, those suffering from depressions or off their meds, and those that build to a breaking point from life circumstances. (Just a few examples off the top of my head, nonprofessionally)

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Any sane gun owner is never going to shoot off like this. The issue then becomes how to identify the sane from the disturbed. Surely this means regulating the ownership in such a way that precludes ownership by anyone with mental health issues. At a minimum.

I think some states do this, not sure if all. Also don't know how the gun crowd feels about such things.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think the victims' families should be allowed and encouraged to sue the NRA for promoting gun ownership. Anyone who has ever had a family member shot by an NRA member or someone from a members' household. That might push the NRA to push a message of safe and secure storage and maybe even keeping guns away from minors.
If a minor can't be trusted with any amount of alcohol, why is it ok for them to be trusted with guns? There is an age limit on cars and sex, guns are at least as dangerous as either of those things so an age limit seems like a good idea.
Its all very well arguing that laws like that would be unenforceable but you have to start somewhere.
Also, the fact that some portion of the population may disobey a law doesn't make it unenforceable.

Yes, lets sue the people who disagree with us! That's a great solution to our problem! Hell, why stop there? Lets arrest dissenters and put them in work camps!

If I had a family member killed by a drunk driver, could I sue you for promoting the use of cars?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Come on now, should driving enthusiasts have to say that too? Is Ca$h disingenuous just for his love of driving and talking about driving, while never having said the level of deaths that come with driving is an acceptable cost? He's disingenuous for lots of reasons, but that isn't one of them.

This isn't people discussing their love, it's a response to the question "do more of X cause more deaths from X?"

This has an objective answer, upon which love or lack thereof shouldn't have any bearing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

This isn't people discussing their love, it's a response to the question "do more of X cause more deaths from X?"

This has an objective answer, upon which love or lack thereof shouldn't have any bearing.

I'm not sure that changes anything. Is anyone expected to give an answer on that when X=cars?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not sure that changes anything. Is anyone expected to give an answer on that when X=cars?

Why wouldn't they be?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm not sure that changes anything. Is anyone expected to give an answer on that when X=cars?

Why wouldn't they be?

I don't know, but it seems like we've had 1000 or so car threads, and I don't remember any of the participants ever being accused of being disingenuous for failing to bring up the deadly side-effects of our freedom of movement. And if someone asked me "don't you feel bad about all the deaths caused by driving" I would feel perfectly justified and ingenuous under established social mores saying "I prefer not to think about it" and leave it at that (and continue discussing only the good sides of driving). I don't think the same could be said for guns or gun rights, and that strikes me as a double-standard.

[Snow-i]

Does anyone here honestly think that gun control would have prevented this tragedy?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That wasn't in the article you posted, so if that's what you took away from all this then that explains why you were asking for more info; you must have been waiting for one that supported your preconception.

Nope, my preconception was that they were coming from overseas.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The article said explicitly that the majority of guns in crimes come from a banned buyer convincing a non-banned buyer to buy for them. That has nothing to do with ubiquity, and everything to do with an unenforceable weak point in existing law (aka a loophole). It says they do it brazenly, but if it was enforced there is nothing stopping them from hiding it (like teens do with alcohol all the time). It also said that the majority come from just 8% of dealers. That is the opposite of ubiquity, it's not the volume of dealers that's the bulk of the problem it's a few bad apples spoiling the efforts of the majority.

First the article didn't list say they were the majority, it said they were the most common. I have no idea what that means numerically. Second, ubiquity was referring to the number of guns, not dealers. We sell a lot of guns. Now, pardon my math, but if there are less guns and less dealers, that's less chance of a gun falling into the wrong hand, right?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There is always room for improvement, but it has to be an real improvement. I oppose treating the patient with leaches just because it's the only thing we know how to do and we just can't stand doing nothing.
Is the status quo of traffic death acceptable to you? Accidents should be easier to curb than intentional killings, not harder, because there is no one actively working against you. Being that there are still more traffic deaths than gun killings, and they are easier to prevent, they should be a higher priority. We would save more lives with less effort. If 100 people die every year (from mass murder-suicides), that is tragic, but honestly it is just noise compared with the number of deaths due to other causes, even those that are significantly easier to prevent.

This strikes me as misdirection and moving the goal posts. We can't worry about multiple things at once? Is there a raw number or ratio that needs to be achieved before we're allowed to worry about gun deaths?

(Car safety is always being improved, and you can look no further than that chart I posted showing a 63% drop in 30 years. So I guess people have been focusing on it and the status quo is not being accepted)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Does anyone here honestly think that gun control would have prevented this tragedy?

In this particular case: yes, very likely.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Does anyone here honestly think that gun control would have prevented this tragedy?

Without a definition of what gun control means in this context, I don't think one can answer either way.

[Spheric Harlot]

You do realize that he's not interested in differentiated discussion, right? He needs to lump everybody together so he can dismiss them as nutjobs.

But just in case:

I'm sticking with my guns: mandating gun safes and allowing guns outside of them only in disabled/unloaded state, for cleaning or transport. Permission to carry outside of sports/hunting settings only in very select cases.