[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

All this is moot until you can make sure that nobody will break laws. The left can't seem to make that mental connection.

As usual, its not the left failing to make the mental connections.

Relaxed gun laws mean easy access to legal guns which means they can be easily stolen from any unoccupied home which has them. Selling them in Walmart also means they can be easily stolen from trailers or perhaps even more likely when someone can't make rent they just sell it the first taker and report it stolen. Of course a criminal could just buy a gun legally and then file off the serials himself.

Three ways that easy access to legal guns = easy supply of illegal guns.

"They would just" this and "they would just that" is exactly what the pro-gun people say too. Why do you summarily dismiss theirs and believe yours? Doing so is disingenuous.

We both know that the two most common ways that criminals do appear to get guns is by exploiting existing laws that are not being enforced (straw sales and corrupt dealers).

If there was no point trying to legally restrict anything why don't the pro-gun crowd try to get laws that control drugs or other items overturned?

Stereotypes run both ways

credit: snow-i

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So do you think the assault rifle ban should remain lifted?

I want to buy f'ing assault rifles..... If I wanted to kill some one with a gun, I can do it just as easy with a hand gun point blank, a shot gun a few feet away or a hunting rifle a 100 yards away. It takes one bullet. Banning guns that look scary is absolutely retarded. Additionally I like to have my handgun with me in the bush. Even though a powerful handgun makes for lousy hunting (why Canada banned handguns in the bush from the great depression, idiots tried to hunt animals with handguns) they are still a effective tool in the event a bear pounces on your tent, limiting your movement and ability to use a long rifle.

There is no reason to ban assault rifles in both countries, and there is no reason to ban handguns in public here as long as its not concealed. I have a problem with concealed weapons period. Its not a effective deterrent if no one can see you have it.

When it comes to the mechanics of a gun, it is the same no matter what type of gun it is. It aims a projectile in a direction and that projectile then impacts a object, be it a human, a paper target or a deer. Full automatic weapons are more useless in killing. Sure they can inflict a lot more injury but single fire aimed shots in semi-automatic mode is responsible for way more deaths. You can effectively kill 20 people with 30 shots with a semi automatic mode while in full automatic you might get 6 bullets hitting 2 or 3 people in the few seconds it takes to discharge the magazines.

Ever watch any engagement videos on youtube of Canadian and American forces in Afgainstain? The only time they shoot full auto bursts is during cover fire when they don't intend on actually hitting any one. Most of the time the weapons are on semi automatic mode and they are shooting one by one because its way more accurate and effective.

Additional to that I have a video (though my friend wont let me post it) of him discharging 30 rounds from our .22 rifle in seconds with rapid fire trigger pulls. Its a semi automatic but man can you discharge it almost as fast as full auto.

So really give it a rest its not a Assault rifle issue. I would bet real money that Adam had that rifle in semi auto mode with well aimed shots vs splashing the room with bullets in full auto.

There is just to much ignorance around guns, for and against.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But you didn't mention who was going to pay for it. I'm sure most of the pro-gun predominantly conservative crowd would love the idea of expanding Obamacare to cost 20-30% more than it does already, not to mention the compulsory psych screening of everyone in the country.
Its all very well identifying the problem as mental health but until there is an affordable solution to that problem, maybe gun restrictions are a more viable option? Until you solve the financial aspect of the issue, the pro-gun crowd have yet another get-out clause to absolve them of taking any responsibility or doing anything to change the current situation.

Or create a gun license system and use the fee of the license to pay for the screening process. The part of Canadian gun control I think would benefit the United States is the initial license stage. Ignore the stupid rules we have for assault weapons and hand guns. We should dump that here. But I think the US could use a registration process that requires a pass on a gun safety and use course, that also includes a screening process of previous criminal records, and mental health through. The fee for the license can be used to pay for this process. Sure they will quibble and bitch about having to pay a fee and oh know maybe waiting a month to get licensed. But that would go a long way to reducing accidental shootings from improper storage and usage. Limiting access mentally unsound people.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So do you think the assault rifle ban should remain lifted?

Absolutely. It did nothing in terms of crime prevention, it was expensive to manage and monitor, and it actually had a negative effect on combat operations. As it was not legal to manufacture magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds for civilian ownership, a number of companies got out of that business altogether, which left a very few available to make magazines for military weapons. Both M16 and M9 pistol magazines were impacted, with shortages and poor quality items being fielded. Data is sparse for specific casualties caused by magazine failures, but there are plenty of reports from the field of people having their weapons stop at "inconvenient" times. Whichever side of the discussion of the war in Iraq you might be on, I don't know of anyone who could say that crappy magazines for service weapons was a "good thing for America."

Instead of banning something based on cosmetics, how about making a real effort to find out what causes individuals to "make a statement" like Lanza did. He apparently planned to kill himself the whole time, so his violence was meant to simply make as big an impact as possible. In the past, this would play out in what was termed "suicide by cop" situations, where an individual would stage a robbery or hostage situation to get police to kill him. In any case, there are several psychological issues that jump out from such situations, including feelings of insignificance, loss of control, and of helplessness. As Athens has pointed out, Newtown was not about guns, it was about mental health, and it points out a very serious lack of access to and effectiveness of mental health care for those not "obviously" psychotic. Modern treatments help so many people that it seems both harmful and wasteful to fail to pay for preventative treatment and instead wind up adding yet another mentally ill person to the prison and county jail population, or worse, fail to stop someone going beyond his ability to cope and becoming violent in a big way.

I think it's important to note a few things about the Connecticut shootings. The timing: Christmas is seen by mental health professionals as the most stressful time of year for all individuals, and we have just (thankfully) survived a particularly harsh and stressful presidential election campaign. The economy is only barely beginning to show improvement that more than a few economists can agree on, and we're still hurtling toward another politically crafted economic crisis. Up until Saturday, there were actually a lot of people who were honestly afraid that the Mayan calendar thing might really mean the end of the world. I think we might be able to add five or six more issues that the public was aware of and concerned about, but hopefully you see the point: this has been an extremely stressful year, and it's gotten more, not less, stressful as we've approached Christmas. Psychiatrists use a model for why some people have particular problems and others don't, it's called the "Diathesis-Stress" model. In brief, it holds that some people are more vulnerable to stressors in their environment, whether they are physical such as poor nutrition or inadequate shelter, or emotional, such as dysfunctional family life and abusive family members (and many others). In more stressful situations, vulnerable individuals suffer far more heavily than less vulnerable individuals, and their coping and management strategies become less and less effective, until they are no longer able to withstand the stress. At that point, they succumb to that vulnerability, and demonstrate symptoms of mental or emotional illnesses, such as psychosis, depression, personality disorders, or illnesses.

Lanza's brother Ryan told ABC that Adam "is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a 'personality disorder.'" Asperger syndrome is traditionally considered to be at the most functional end of the Autism Spectrum, and those with AS are generally seen as very poor at social interaction (the most functional of these individuals come off as "real jerks" or worse). Personality disorders include a number of really problematic issues that also impair social integration, though which particular one Adam supposedly had is not something that's reliably found in the press. What IS important is that not a single "major" news organization has published an informative piece on autism in the past 10 years that was worth reading. They have, however, in the last several weeks published a lot of rubbish and sensationalism about autism (without providing any context to relate to AS). One site called "Mediaite" goes out of its way to falsely state several things, and hype others in such a way as to get impact without fact. In this posting, their writer Tommy Christopher falsely states that psychologists do not work with autism patients (way wrong!) and then uses a psychologist's statements about the fundamental diagnostic points of autism, lack of empathy and social awareness that goes beyond socialization and upbringing to the level of brain structure, to hype the psychologist as a "quack." (Read the diagnostic criteria for autism HERE.) What IS true is that people diagnosed on the autism spectrum, including those with Asperger syndrome, lack the typical social reactions most of us call "empathy," that they are easily stressed and made anxious by a number of things including social awkwardness, and that those who function highly enough to be adequately evaluated for such are prone to a variety of emotional and personality disorders. In short, a poorly managed, problematic case of Asperger's syndrome can become a major problem. And beyond what Athens points out about adult mental health, it is CHILDREN who need the primary mental health care in this particular area, and it is here where all health care systems fail; there is no "model country" that treats kids with autism rationally, humanely and effectively without massive spending by the parents. I've spent quite a bit of time treating children with autism...most of the parents I worked with should qualify for sainthood. What we need is attention to mental health for everyone, with real investment in finding effective ways to avoid the significant problems that can lead to failures of adjustment and inadequate coping, and to find effective ways to treat people with congenital problems like autism, so that instead of fixing the mess they might make (in public or "just" within their families) we can prevent those messes from happening - and in the process save society immeasurable costs in lost productivity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Instead of banning something based on cosmetics

If we banned things based on cosmetics, the Jersey Shore would be ****ed.

[BadKosh]

Didn't the liberals make it so many wack jobs got out of mental institutions?
Aren't these the same lib's that are against "Personal Responsibility",
wanting to blame everything on 'society'.

Perhaps we need to re-think most of these failed policies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Does it count as "personal responsibility" when everything is ultimately the fault of the liberal bogeyman?

[Waragainstsleep]

Look, its all very well talking about it being pointless to address the symptom instead of the cause but it really isn't. This isn't like treating a fever instead of a virus, it would be more like trying to build a city where no-one can possibly fall over and break a limb. Its completely impractical.

People who go off the deep-end and go on murderous rampages are people who don't fit into society. This means if you want to prevent this you need to actually change society. You think its going to be easy or cheap to put a decisive and permanent end to high school bullying? Love to hear that plan. And we know it doesn't start or stop there. There are plenty of other pressures from inadequate or abusive parents to high pressure workplaces. How are you going to fix all these things? How can yo possibly fix them when people will turn around and complain about interfering with their choices of parenting style or of trying to restrict their business practices. I hate to add fuel to the partisan nature of this discussion, but those who will dissent at what is necessary to do what you suggest are mostly going to be the pro-gun political right.

As for the timing of the latest atrocity, the average 20 year old is not particularly well-up on the subject of the economy, especially if he lives with his mother. An autistic 20 year old might not know what the economy even is. Speculation about what set him off is futile and likely would be even if he had survived to talk about it. Its usually down to a disruption in schedule that causes distress to the autistic.

A word on the cosmetic debate that has sprung up. Its all very well taking a supremely practical approach to this aspect (especially given that most of you taking it are refusing to be practical when it comes to implementing your other solutions) , but actually you shouldn't be as dismissive about it. Remember we are not dealing with well adjusted human beings here. There have been many reports of the perpetrators of these attacks taking pics of themselves posing with their arsenals before they go on these rampages. You will not struggle to find plenty of other such posing pics from other gun enthusiasts on Google images or Facebook either. This glamorisation and glorification of guns is a big part of the problem IMO, but it is certainly an influential factor in the build up to these mass killings more often than not. Maybe all legally owned firearms should be legally required to be bright pink or floral patterned.

[raleur]

Excellent points, War. I look forward to the replies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Look, its all very well talking about it being pointless to address the symptom instead of the cause but it really isn't. This isn't like treating a fever instead of a virus, it would be more like trying to build a city where no-one can possibly fall over and break a limb. Its completely impractical.

People who go off the deep-end and go on murderous rampages are people who don't fit into society. This means if you want to prevent this you need to actually change society. You think its going to be easy or cheap to put a decisive and permanent end to high school bullying? Love to hear that plan.

Yeah, bringing the rate of rarely-occurring bad things to zero is impossible. Which side are you arguing again?

I hate to add fuel to the partisan nature of this discussion

Then don't. Just stop it.

Those who dissent about doing what is necessary to chase the quixotic dream of zero are defending their rights. I haven't seen these rights acknowledged yet once by the reactionary "think of the children" side. You don't have to concede your point in order to acknowledge the other side has one. But you do have to acknowledge the other side's point if you ever expect to convince anyone. If you're not interested in convincing anyone, then I don't know why you even bother. Are they ever going to convince you by talking about their gun rights but ignoring the safety of bystanders? Of course not. They'll have to address your concerns if they're ever going to connect with you intellectually. Well naturally, the same goes for you. If you don't acknowledge their point of view, you might as well just save your breath.

Lots of things in our society have been successfully regulated and thereby made safer. But we didn't do it by trampling the rights of people who use those things, we did it by working with those rights-holders to maximize the union of rights and safety. You can't start doing that until you embrace their rights, even if you don't personally support them (and I already know you don't; I'm not saying this will be easy for you, coming from such a long intellectual distance). Work together, or it won't work at all.

[knifecarrier2]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Didn't the liberals make it so many wack jobs got out of mental institutions?
Aren't these the same lib's that are against "Personal Responsibility",
wanting to blame everything on 'society'.
Perhaps we need to re-think most of these failed policies.

Oh, so you're saying we should put them in some sort of structure, hire people to care for them, etc? Who pays for that?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Oh, so you're saying we should put them in some sort of structure, hire people to care for them, etc? Who pays for that?

Tasmania. We can just park all of them down there, it's a suitably inhospitable place.

[Tiresias]

When this news broke, I actually felt my worldview grow several shades darker like a cloud covering the sun.

It's horrible; horrible.

And my heart breaks for the poor families. Can you imagine what kind of Christmas they had; with presents already under the tree for their dead children?

The lives of over 20 people were taken, but the psychological repercussions of this event spread out to involves hundreds of lives which are now burdened forever with a crushing and irreparable sorrow.

Forget pharmaceuticals, therapy, friends, a stable family.

What the shooter needed was Zyklon B.

What a disgusting piece of f**king shit.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

What the shooter needed was Zyklon B.

What a disgusting piece of f**king shit.

My suggestion would be to make their gravestones public urinals.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, bringing the rate of rarely-occurring bad things to zero is impossible. Which side are you arguing again?

You think bullying in school is a rare event? Perhaps you just mean bullying that leads to a spree killing. Thats true but since you don't know which kid will snap and which won't, you have to stop all of it. All the cliques, the jock-nerd dynamic, all of it in every school. Best of luck.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then don't. Just stop it.

OK, I don't hate to do it that much. Its hardly my fault that this issue as with most falls into the usual pattern of polarity.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Those who dissent about doing what is necessary to chase the quixotic dream of zero are defending their rights. I haven't seen these rights acknowledged yet once by the reactionary "think of the children" side. You don't have to concede your point in order to acknowledge the other side has one. But you do have to acknowledge the other side's point if you ever expect to convince anyone. If you're not interested in convincing anyone, then I don't know why you even bother. Are they ever going to convince you by talking about their gun rights but ignoring the safety of bystanders? Of course not. They'll have to address your concerns if they're ever going to connect with you intellectually. Well naturally, the same goes for you. If you don't acknowledge their point of view, you might as well just save your breath.

Honestly I think these discussions are more likely to sway the opinions of those who read them without getting involved that those who are participating in them, but I'll gladly take anyone I can get through to rather than leave them with nothing but right wing soundbites to form their opinions.

As for seeing the other side, I've said before I'd like to e able to shoot a few big guns. I've no particular desire to own them but I get why people like them. I don't get the whole revolutionary argument though. I get why its there, even if I doubt much of its sincerity, but you rebelled against a monarch last time. The whole point of democracy is to vote out those you don't like. No other democracy in the civilised world feels the need to maintain a threat against their own government 'just in case' and the few examples given of western dictatorships are weak at best. The compromises put forward by those of us who favour more control are intended to address these concerns from the other side but they don't work because these debates are not reason against reason, they are reason against a whole bunch of other things and not one of them is reasonable.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Lots of things in our society have been successfully regulated and thereby made safer. But we didn't do it by trampling the rights of people who use those things, we did it by working with those rights-holders to maximize the union of rights and safety. You can't start doing that until you embrace their rights, even if you don't personally support them (and I already know you don't; I'm not saying this will be easy for you, coming from such a long intellectual distance). Work together, or it won't work at all.

There are rights involved on both sides here. If we start at the bottom, the pro-gun side wants children to go to school in prisons under armed guards. Is their right to a peaceful, safe, pleasant upbringing really worth sacrificing for the 'freedom' to have a society where everyone can shoot each other easily?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@Dakar,
The POINT here is that semi-automatic assault weapon can do a LOT MORE DAMAGE in a LOT LESS TIME than something like this ....
7625/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
OAW

JFK was allegedly shot with a bolt action rifle

speaking of cosmetics..
The Ruger 10/22, before and aftermaket



10/22 as a Tommy gun



There are numerous aftermarket kits that can turn any rifle into an "assault rifle" You can even turn the 10/22 into a pistol.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Look, its all very well talking about it being pointless to address the symptom instead of the cause but it really isn't. This isn't like treating a fever instead of a virus, it would be more like trying to build a city where no-one can possibly fall over and break a limb. Its completely impractical.
People who go off the deep-end and go on murderous rampages are people who don't fit into society. This means if you want to prevent this you need to actually change society. You think its going to be easy or cheap to put a decisive and permanent end to high school bullying? Love to hear that plan. And we know it doesn't start or stop there. There are plenty of other pressures from inadequate or abusive parents to high pressure workplaces. How are you going to fix all these things? How can yo possibly fix them when people will turn around and complain about interfering with their choices of parenting style or of trying to restrict their business practices. I hate to add fuel to the partisan nature of this discussion, but those who will dissent at what is necessary to do what you suggest are mostly going to be the pro-gun political right.
As for the timing of the latest atrocity, the average 20 year old is not particularly well-up on the subject of the economy, especially if he lives with his mother. An autistic 20 year old might not know what the economy even is. Speculation about what set him off is futile and likely would be even if he had survived to talk about it. Its usually down to a disruption in schedule that causes distress to the autistic.
A word on the cosmetic debate that has sprung up. Its all very well taking a supremely practical approach to this aspect (especially given that most of you taking it are refusing to be practical when it comes to implementing your other solutions) , but actually you shouldn't be as dismissive about it. Remember we are not dealing with well adjusted human beings here. There have been many reports of the perpetrators of these attacks taking pics of themselves posing with their arsenals before they go on these rampages. You will not struggle to find plenty of other such posing pics from other gun enthusiasts on Google images or Facebook either. This glamorisation and glorification of guns is a big part of the problem IMO, but it is certainly an influential factor in the build up to these mass killings more often than not. Maybe all legally owned firearms should be legally required to be bright pink or floral patterned.

"Autism" is much more varied than most people are aware of. Since it was something of a revelation that Adam Lanza had a diagnosis at all, he was almost certainly at the highest end of the functional scale, and he was certainly aware that things have been tough around him - for the last 4 years or so. One cannot paint "autism" with one brush any more than one can paint "liberal" or "philosophical" with a single brush. There are so many different variations and levels of impairment that one must know the individual to be aware of that person's issues and strengths.

There are programs that stop bullying in schools, and they work. But they start in kindergarten and must be enforced at all levels and all grades. And they are of only limited benefit when bullying is learned at home. Parenting is a major problem today, or rather lack of parenting. That's an entirely different discussion though. Suffice to say that if all the rules had been followed, Adam would not have had access to his mother's firearms, and it's more likely that he'd have made his "statement" some other way. This was not a "school issue" in the way that Columbine had been, despite the fact that Lanza had apparently attended that school. This was an attempt to get a lot of attention through an extremely involved (and horrible) act of suicide. Would it have been better if he'd set fire to the school? If he'd driven a bulldozer through it?

I own firearms. Instead of the way our society treats firearm ownership, I believe that making firearms completely unmysterious and more like everyday items would significantly decrease the number of incidents involving people misusing them. While I do agree that some people should not have access to firearms (convicted violent criminals, for example, and people whose ability to judge right from wrong is compromised), I believe in expanding freedom of all kinds, including my own freedom to safely and legally possess and use firearms. I am hardly "right wing" either; my politics are firmly in the "let's try to make the country work better for everybody" camp, which seems to be a very lonely place lately. I sort of believe in the whole Constitution, even the inconvenient parts (like the part of the 1st Amendment that says the Westboro idiots can spew their hate speech when they want to). But I am also relatively well educated, and I have a fairly good grasp of both psychology and how people really work in groups.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There are programs that stop bullying in schools, and they work. But they start in kindergarten and must be enforced at all levels and all grades. And they are of only limited benefit when bullying is learned at home. Parenting is a major problem today, or rather lack of parenting. That's an entirely different discussion though. Suffice to say that if all the rules had been followed, Adam would not have had access to his mother's firearms, and it's more likely that he'd have made his "statement" some other way. This was not a "school issue" in the way that Columbine had been, despite the fact that Lanza had apparently attended that school. This was an attempt to get a lot of attention through an extremely involved (and horrible) act of suicide. Would it have been better if he'd set fire to the school? If he'd driven a bulldozer through it?

It wouldn't.

How do you explain that people do neither of those things with any regularity in places where it's a lot harder to gain access to firearms?

You are NOT going to seriously argue that the reason that there have been EIGHT such attacks in German schools since 1985 (IIRC, two of them involving firearms, and only one of the remaining resulting in a fatality) is due to the fact that we have fewer wackos per capita.

It has been pretty conclusively argued (by way of, among other things, the Israeli and Swiss gun statistics) that simply not having access to guns REDUCES the number of suicides while NOT resulting in an increase in suicides performed by other means.

Suggesting that making it difficult for people to go on a killing spree using firearms will result in them setting fires or blowing places up or driving bulldozers through them is, pardon the bluntness, just bullshit.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

My suggestion would be to make their gravestones public urinals.

You win, sir. That's outstanding.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How do you explain that people do neither of those things with any regularity in places where it's a lot harder to gain access to firearms?

Relax, my friend. Glenn's a good guy. The issue is complex, and unique to the USA, I'm afraid. It's an illness that's becoming systemic; extreme dissatisfaction due to coming up short in expectations, a raging sense of entitlement, a culture that glorifies violence in all forms of media, and a press who turns monsters into celebrities. Combine all that with a shortage of quality mental healthcare and piss-poor parenting, and this is what we've created. Inanimate objects didn't kill those people, our failure as a society did.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Autism" is much more varied than most people are aware of. Since it was something of a revelation that Adam Lanza had a diagnosis at all, he was almost certainly at the highest end of the functional scale, and he was certainly aware that things have been tough around him - for the last 4 years or so. One cannot paint "autism" with one brush any more than one can paint "liberal" or "philosophical" with a single brush. There are so many different variations and levels of impairment that one must know the individual to be aware of that person's issues and strengths.

I won't pretend to know more about it than you, but I still maintain that any 20 year old living with his mother is unlikely to feel much economic pressure unless thats the reason he is living with her in the first place. I don't believe that is the case here. Its entirely possible he understands the numbers very well but kids with autism usually lack social and emotional awareness and 'feeling the pinch' very much falls into that category.
I'm not sure I follow your revelation logic either. Are you saying that because he had been official diagnosed without being legislated some kind of extra care that he must therefore have been high functioning? I wasn't aware he had been officially diagnosed. It seems to me that teaching someone with autism to shoot is pretty irresponsible.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There are programs that stop bullying in schools, and they work. But they start in kindergarten and must be enforced at all levels and all grades. And they are of only limited benefit when bullying is learned at home. Parenting is a major problem today, or rather lack of parenting. That's an entirely different discussion though.

I won't knock any anti-bullying initiative but once you get into the realms of legislating parenting advice, watch the reactions of the pro-gun crowd and even the 'greater personal freedom' crowd such as yourself.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Suffice to say that if all the rules had been followed, Adam would not have had access to his mother's firearms, and it's more likely that he'd have made his "statement" some other way. This was not a "school issue" in the way that Columbine had been, despite the fact that Lanza had apparently attended that school. This was an attempt to get a lot of attention through an extremely involved (and horrible) act of suicide. Would it have been better if he'd set fire to the school? If he'd driven a bulldozer through it?

I have to think that either of those would have resulted in fewer deaths.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I own firearms. Instead of the way our society treats firearm ownership, I believe that making firearms completely unmysterious and more like everyday items would significantly decrease the number of incidents involving people misusing them.

While this would be nice, I think some degree of reverance or respect is entirely necessary. Its difficult to teach someone a rule like never point a gun at someone if its just another everyday object. The idea implies a certain amount of complacency which would ultimately result in kids picking them up and doing damage to themselves and others, more than already happens.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

How do you explain that people do neither of those things with any regularity in places where it's a lot harder to gain access to firearms?

Relax, my friend. Glenn's a good guy. The issue is complex, and unique to the USA, I'm afraid. It's an illness that's becoming systemic; extreme dissatisfaction due to coming up short in expectations, a raging sense of entitlement, a culture that glorifies violence in all forms of media, and a press who turns monsters into celebrities. Combine all that with a shortage of quality mental healthcare and piss-poor parenting, and this is what we've created. Inanimate objects didn't kill those people, our failure as a society did.

In other words:

"USA is what it is; kids die.

Deal with it."

Do I parse that correctly?

Except that, while your particular combination may be oh-so-unique, the fact that people who get shot at tend to die is not some exclusively American trait.
Because, you know, we DO have crazies who've gone on killing sprees in schools here. It's just that mass knifings were WAY harder to do.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

In other words:
"USA is what it is; kids die.
Deal with it."
Do I parse that correctly?
Except that, while your particular combination may be oh-so-unique, the fact that people who get shot at tend to die is not some exclusively American trait.
Because, you know, we DO have crazies who've gone on killing sprees in schools here. It's just that mass knifings were WAY harder to do.

Didn't say that, you're just being glib. I'm saying we need a more comprehensive mental healthcare system. Guns aren't going anywhere, and the Constitution isn't going to be amended, so we might as well tackle the actual problem.

[Spheric Harlot]

Mental illness most definitely isn't going anywhere, and parenting most *certainly* isn't going to get better.

If people are up in arms about the vague possibility of governments requiring that they lock up and control devices built with the intent to kill, what do you think will go down when the government even *discusses* any attempt to involve itself in parenting?

I still stand by my assertion that holding people partially responsible for whatever crime is committed using a weapon they failed to secure is a great start.
Make insurance a requirement for gun ownership.
Add a central gun registry.
Add a no-questions-asked buy-back program for existing weapons to reduce the number of guns *a bit*. It won't drain the market of illegal guns, but it will remove *some*, as people who are selling guns for fast money now might opt to sell to the government instead. It will also drive up the price of black-market weapons, possibly to the point where petty criminals might *eventually* no longer be able to afford them.

All of this needs to happen at the federal level, and none of it will lead to short-term improvements. Your children may wonder what the hell was wrong with their grandparents for not doing this earlier, though.

[ort888]

Aren't we just arguing about where to draw the line?

We can't own rocket launchers or gatling guns or grenades, so the second amendment is already limited.

Why not draw the line somewhere else? Maybe there are already a bazillion assault rifles out in the wild, but it can't hurt to make them harder to acquire. Maybe we can prevent things like this from happening 20 years from now, when it's impossible to get an assault rifle. You have to start somewhere. You have to draw the line somewhere.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, bringing the rate of rarely-occurring bad things to zero is impossible. Which side are you arguing again?

You think bullying in school is a rare event?

By the time it's within range of zero it would be. Falls are rare too. I notice you don't dispute my point that stopping the last few is impossible.

OK, I don't hate to do it that much. Its hardly my fault that this issue as with most falls into the usual pattern of polarity.

How incredibly selfish of you. That's like littering freely because you're not the first. It's obvious that you're more interested in scoring points than in solving problems. I'm sad for you.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Those who dissent about doing what is necessary to chase the quixotic dream of zero are defending their rights. I haven't seen these rights acknowledged yet once by the reactionary "think of the children" side. You don't have to concede your point in order to acknowledge the other side has one. But you do have to acknowledge the other side's point if you ever expect to convince anyone. If you're not interested in convincing anyone, then I don't know why you even bother. Are they ever going to convince you by talking about their gun rights but ignoring the safety of bystanders? Of course not. They'll have to address your concerns if they're ever going to connect with you intellectually. Well naturally, the same goes for you. If you don't acknowledge their point of view, you might as well just save your breath.

Honestly I think these discussions are more likely to sway the opinions of those who read them without getting involved that those who are participating in them, but I'll gladly take anyone I can get through to rather than leave them with nothing but right wing soundbites to form their opinions.

What I said applies to the silent majority too. Do you think they'll be swayed by "I can repeat my own point more times than you can?" The silent majority sees which side is addressing both sets of values, and which side is just trying to score points. If the undecided were as blind to your opponents' goals as you are, they wouldn't be undecided in the first place. So it does serve you to "win" at actually being fair instead of merely "winning" at cheap shots, sound bites and name-calling.

As for seeing the other side, I've said before I'd like to e able to shoot a few big guns. I've no particular desire to own them but I get why people like them. I don't get the whole revolutionary argument though. I get why its there, even if I doubt much of its sincerity, but you rebelled against a monarch last time. The whole point of democracy is to vote out those you don't like. No other democracy in the civilised world feels the need to maintain a threat against their own government 'just in case' and the few examples given of western dictatorships are weak at best.

You don't have to be convinced, but you do have to respect others' opinions (if you want to sway opinions in the middle). If you're only interested in railroading the other side, well then that vindicates their suspicion that they have something to worry about despite the protective veil of democracy.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Lots of things in our society have been successfully regulated and thereby made safer. But we didn't do it by trampling the rights of people who use those things, we did it by working with those rights-holders to maximize the union of rights and safety. You can't start doing that until you embrace their rights, even if you don't personally support them (and I already know you don't; I'm not saying this will be easy for you, coming from such a long intellectual distance). Work together, or it won't work at all.

There are rights involved on both sides here. If we start at the bottom, the pro-gun side wants children to go to school in prisons under armed guards. Is their right to a peaceful, safe, pleasant upbringing really worth sacrificing for the 'freedom' to have a society where everyone can shoot each other easily?

If you want to complain about people being unreasonable, it doesn't serve you to emulate them. Spree shootings are exceedingly rare. Armed guards aren't what the pro-gun side wants, it's merely a reflection of the over-reactions the anti-gun side wants. Neither over-reaction is appropriate. This is just a case of (understandable) emotion clouding our collective sense of reason. Over-reactions, while understandable, are not good solutions no matter which side they come from.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

In other words:

"USA is what it is; kids die.

Deal with it."

Do I parse that correctly?

Except that, while your particular combination may be oh-so-unique, the fact that people who get shot at tend to die is not some exclusively American trait.
Because, you know, we DO have crazies who've gone on killing sprees in schools here. It's just that mass knifings were WAY harder to do.

You know, I used to be as vehement as you, but over Israel. I was flabbergasted that anyone would think it's "ok" to live with regular terrorist attacks just for the privilege of living in the "holy land" (what a ridiculous concept), rather than finding a less hostile place for there to be a Jewish haven. And I'm Jewish. Then one day I realized, people who live there get to have their own priorities, even if I think they're incredibly stupid, and no one is keeping them from moving away. Let them have their silly holy land, and they probably know the risks better than I do in the first place.

People have beliefs, and sometimes they even believe those beliefs strong enough to outweigh the risk of dying. Shocking, right? Well the rest of us don't have to share those beliefs, we just have to believe in the ideal of beliefs, in general. If we can't even reach that far, well we're simply not on the side of good.

Of course, short of giving up their silly belief in the "holy land," Israel does do a great deal to fight terrorism, and we 'mericans also already do a great deal to fight this little form of terrorism, that's why it's still statistically insignificant even now. We shouldn't give up and "just deal with it," we should redouble our efforts, stop cutting any corners, and increase funding. But to just give up on our beliefs and "deal with it" that we can't have our own beliefs, that's not an appropriate response either.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Aren't we just arguing about where to draw the line?
We can't own rocket launchers or gatling guns or grenades, so the second amendment is already limited.
Why not draw the line somewhere else? Maybe there are already a bazillion assault rifles out in the wild, but it can't hurt to make them harder to acquire. Maybe we can prevent things like this from happening 20 years from now, when it's impossible to get an assault rifle. You have to start somewhere. You have to draw the line somewhere.

The line is already drawn where the USSC drew it, now there's precedence. To change that we'd need to amend the Constitution, as I've said before, and that isn't going to happen. Again, you're railing on about "assault rifles", I suppose because the name sounds more gruesome, when that's only a cosmetic difference over a hunting rifle. It will never be impossible to get an "assault rifle", because it shouldn't be. It's up to us to work out the issues with kids in the USA, instead of hemming and hawing over gun control laws which won't be upheld, even if they are passed in some jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Mental illness most definitely isn't going anywhere, and parenting most *certainly* isn't going to get better.
If people are up in arms about the vague possibility of governments requiring that they lock up and control devices built with the intent to kill, what do you think will go down when the government even *discusses* any attempt to involve itself in parenting?
I still stand by my assertion that holding people partially responsible for whatever crime is committed using a weapon they failed to secure is a great start.
Make insurance a requirement for gun ownership.
Add a central gun registry.
Add a no-questions-asked buy-back program for existing weapons to reduce the number of guns *a bit*. It won't drain the market of illegal guns, but it will remove *some*, as people who are selling guns for fast money now might opt to sell to the government instead. It will also drive up the price of black-market weapons, possibly to the point where petty criminals might *eventually* no longer be able to afford them.
All of this needs to happen at the federal level, and none of it will lead to short-term improvements. Your children may wonder what the hell was wrong with their grandparents for not doing this earlier, though.

Who is going to enforce these laws? Who is going to make everyone register all their firearms? Who is going to make owners buy insurance? My state won't do any of those things, none of the "pro-gun" states will, just like none of the "pro-pot" states are enforcing the stringent Federal laws against marijuana. Think they'll send in the National Guard? Are you aware of what happened when "revenuers" came in and tried to shut down moonshine stills? This would be 100x worse.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You know, I used to be as vehement as you, but over Israel. I was flabbergasted that anyone would think it's "ok" to live with regular terrorist attacks just for the privilege of living in the "holy land" (what a ridiculous concept), rather than finding a less hostile place for there to be a Jewish haven. And I'm Jewish. Then one day I realized, people who live there get to have their own priorities, even if I think they're incredibly stupid, and no one is keeping them from moving away. Let them have their silly holy land, and they probably know the risks better than I do in the first place.

People have beliefs, and sometimes they even believe those beliefs strong enough to outweigh the risk of dying. Shocking, right? Well the rest of us don't have to share those beliefs, we just have to believe in the ideal of beliefs, in general. If we can't even reach that far, well we're simply not on the side of good.

I agree that people get to hold beliefs.

I do NOT agree that people who hold certain beliefs that come at the expense of others' lives get to assert those beliefs like it's their god-given right to do so.
And apparently, an increasing number of people LIVING WHERE YOU DO agree.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

By the time it's within range of zero it would be. Falls are rare too. I notice you don't dispute my point that stopping the last few is impossible.

Why would I? I just think one mass murder every decade or two would be orders of magnitude better than 5 a year. Its an achievable goal, thats the most important point.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How incredibly selfish of you. That's like littering freely because you're not the first. It's obvious that you're more interested in scoring points than in solving problems. I'm sad for you.

This is typical right-wing BS. Its fine for the right to do absolutely nothing constructive but repeat their soundbites over and over, but the second the left tries it, its unfair somehow? Its like you're complaining that I've lowered myself to your level.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What I said applies to the silent majority too. Do you think they'll be swayed by "I can repeat my own point more times than you can?" The silent majority sees which side is addressing both sets of values, and which side is just trying to score points. If the undecided were as blind to your opponents' goals as you are, they wouldn't be undecided in the first place. So it does serve you to "win" at actually being fair instead of merely "winning" at cheap shots, sound bites and name-calling.

If the silent majority were swayed by reason and sense instead of soundbites point scoring, I wouldn't bother to resort to it. Again, you're actually complaining that I'm lowering myself to your level.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You don't have to be convinced, but you do have to respect others' opinions (if you want to sway opinions in the middle). If you're only interested in railroading the other side, well then that vindicates their suspicion that they have something to worry about despite the protective veil of democracy.

I'm not convinced there are really many opinions left in the middle any more. Especially on this issue.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you want to complain about people being unreasonable, it doesn't serve you to emulate them. Spree shootings are exceedingly rare. Armed guards aren't what the pro-gun side wants, it's merely a reflection of the over-reactions the anti-gun side wants. Neither over-reaction is appropriate. This is just a case of (understandable) emotion clouding our collective sense of reason. Over-reactions, while understandable, are not good solutions no matter which side they come from.

Armed guards are about as close to a "solution" as the PG side has offered in the aftermath of this event, yet reasonable people (like you?) still haven't been swayed by any of the perfectly sensible ideas offered by the other side. This argument is so one sided its almost preposterous. The PG movement has become like a religion. Irrational and fear-based, employing circular arguments and overseen by a massive corporate entity that drip feeds cash tp keep it going one end while milking the other.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Who is going to enforce these laws? Who is going to make everyone register all their firearms? Who is going to make owners buy insurance? My state won't do any of those things, none of the "pro-gun" states will, just like none of the "pro-pot" states are enforcing the stringent Federal laws against marijuana. Think they'll send in the National Guard? Are you aware of what happened when "revenuers" came in and tried to shut down moonshine stills? This would be 100x worse.

Are you seriously telling me that your country has no functional court system? That it is impossible to get federal law implemented at the state level?

Okay, school me: How does it work?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Armed guards are about as close to a "solution" as the PG side has offered in the aftermath of this event

They're a band-aid "fix", not a solution.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I agree that people get to hold beliefs.

I do NOT agree that people who hold certain beliefs that come at the expense of others' lives get to assert those beliefs like it's their god-given right to do so.

That's a total straw man. Who said god-given right? You're the one who's sounding uncompromising here. When was the last time you gave any lip-service to the rights of gun owners and how they were being weighed fairly against your agenda, rather than characterizing those rights as "nothing" to lose or (worse) illogical?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Are you seriously telling me that your country has no functional court system? That it is impossible to get federal law implemented at the state level?
Okay, school me: How does it work?

Someone has to go in and enforce a new federal law. Who's going to do that? Who's going to go to someone's property and make them give up their weapons? In most cases, that's potential suicide. You think a court order will just make someone give up their firearms? It hasn't worked for pot, and it sure won't work for guns. My state legislators have already told me they won't recognize any new federal firearm regulations, our officers won't enforce any of them, and our judges will throw the cases out. What then? Over half the states in the USA are the same way. It's toothless legislation that wouldn't do anything.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I just think one mass murder every decade or two would be orders of magnitude better than 5 a year. Its an achievable goal, thats the most important point.

You're presuming your conclusion. How do you know that 5 per year isn't just a statistical fluctuation? Using evidence or using gut feeling? I have a gut feeling you don't have any evidence

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How incredibly selfish of you. That's like littering freely because you're not the first. It's obvious that you're more interested in scoring points than in solving problems. I'm sad for you.

This is typical right-wing BS. Its fine for the right to do absolutely nothing constructive but repeat their soundbites over and over, but the second the left tries it, its unfair somehow? Its like you're complaining that I've lowered myself to your level.

 

Oh my god, where to start. You're so far off the rails here...
• First, I'm not The Right, or the NRA. That's a textbook strawman. You have this mental identity of your enemy and you're pigeon-holing me into it so you can attack me with things they've done, real or imagined. I can't defend against things I didn't do, things I can't even verify if anyone really did. There is a reason this is well-known as a logical fallacy. You cast doubt on your own intellect with every additional time you sink to this level. Please stop, i know you're better than this. No, it's not fine when they do it, and I'm not afraid to tell them so either. But I would be an absolute idiot to start doing it myself just because I don't like it when others do it. Which brings me to:
• Second, why on earth would you aspire to be as terrible as the enemy you so despise? You don't find it convincing when they do it, so what makes you think it sounds convincing when you do it? Don't you want to be better than them, and isn't that precisely why you dislike them in the first place, for being inadequate? Take the high road.
• Third, you're still doing it, the polarizing. It is the very essence of what gives us our despised deadlock. We wouldn't be able to fixate on partisan cheerleading and ignore the facts and issues if we didn't have this polarization, and any specific contribution to it is actively making everything worse. If you do it, you're the problem, no matter where you stand on the issues, because doing it causes us to not even see the issues anymore. It's far worse to stop even discussing the issues than it is to be on the wrong side of an issue.

If the silent majority were swayed by reason and sense instead of soundbites point scoring, I wouldn't bother to resort to it. Again, you're actually complaining that I'm lowering myself to your level.

If you think I have ever used soundbites over reason, please point it out. I will make amends. Otherwise, kindly stfu with your unfounded accusations.

I'm not convinced there are really many opinions left in the middle any more. Especially on this issue.

You're wrong

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Armed guards are about as close to a "solution" as the PG side has offered in the aftermath of this event, yet reasonable people (like you?) still haven't been swayed by any of the perfectly sensible ideas offered by the other side.

It's easy for you to say that when you never question your premise that all your ideas are "perfectly sensible." They're security theater, just like the TSA. They would create a massive inconvenience and provide imperceptible benefit, meanwhile increasing the polarization of the issue and treating law-abiding citizens like they're worthless and their opinions are trivial. How about giving out free gun-safes to anyone who asks for one? How about funding an "apollo mission" for developing reliable smart-gun technology? How about any idea that uses the carrot instead of the stick? I haven't seen any of these "positive" ideas, because it's not about prevention, it's not about problem-solving, it's about vengeance, and finding someone we can take out our frustrations on when the perpetrator and his enabler are both dead, not by our hand. The vengeance parade will eventually run its course either way, and at the end either we will have been smart enough to look for real solutions, or we won't and the status quo will endure. I for one would rather have real solutions than not have them, and the carrot works about 10x better than the stick.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I agree that people get to hold beliefs.

I do NOT agree that people who hold certain beliefs that come at the expense of others' lives get to assert those beliefs like it's their god-given right to do so.

That's a total straw man. Who said god-given right? You're the one who's sounding uncompromising here. When was the last time you gave any lip-service to the rights of gun owners and how they were being weighed fairly against your agenda, rather than characterizing those rights as "nothing" to lose or (worse) illogical?

Do you know the difference between a straw man and hyperbole?

"God-given" or not, these rights just resulted in the deaths of 20 children, and all I'm seeing from the NRA is "we need more guns" and a lot of passing the buck, and a complete and total ignoring of any sort of responsibility. Who's "weighing fairly"?


BTW, am I the only one who's pissed off every time he sees this ridiculous thread title? Like there would be any reasonable explanation for this? Or like there would be any explanation if it hadn't been kids, other than that it didn't need to happen, but dammit, let's pay lip-service to the rights of gun owners to let it happen?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It hasn't worked for pot, and it sure won't work for guns.

There's a massive industry around keeping a ridiculously large portion of the population jailed for pot. Why not replace those with gun criminals?

Oh yeah. They shoot back. I forgot.

What about the buy-back program? Make it more lucrative (for now) to sell to the government than to the petty criminal who walks in the door.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Are you seriously telling me that your country has no functional court system? That it is impossible to get federal law implemented at the state level?

Okay, school me: How does it work?

I think you mean it's impossible to get federal law that exploits its supremacy at the expense of the wishes of the states enforced at the state level. It works by forcing both sides to come to a fair and equitable agreement before trying to take their various agendas to the streets.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Do you know the difference between a straw man and hyperbole?
"God-given" or not, these rights just resulted in the deaths of 20 children, and all I'm seeing from the NRA is "we need more guns" and a lot of passing the buck, and a complete and total ignoring of any sort of responsibility. Who's "weighing fairly"?
BTW, am I the only one who's pissed off every time he sees this ridiculous thread title? Like there would be any reasonable explanation for this? Or like there would be any explanation if it hadn't been kids, other than that it didn't need to happen, but dammit, let's pay lip-service to the rights of gun owners to let it happen?

So personal responsibility means nothing?

The "Rights' didn't result in the deaths, but lousy filtering out of the wack-jobs by the parents, schools and their highly 'trained' experts' and the law enforcement professionals have failed us.

Who's job is it to protect us (Police - FAIL)
or
observe weird behavior and notify mental health professionals(Teachers - FAIL)
or
the parents who waited too long to do anything.

When did they start letting the 'non-violent' wack jobs out of mental institutions?
Who thought that was a good idea? Liberal bleeding hearts in the 1980's and later.
Its time to look closer at their social solutions and make sure they do good,
since letting the nuts out and allowing them to keep their mental problems secret.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There's a massive industry around keeping a ridiculously large portion of the population jailed for pot. Why not replace those with gun criminals?
Oh yeah. They shoot back. I forgot.
What about the buy-back program? Make it more lucrative (for now) to sell to the government than to the petty criminal who walks in the door.

Someone gets killed so idiots turn in their guns!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Do you know the difference between a straw man and hyperbole?

Sometimes they overlap; this is one of those times

"God-given" or not, these rights just resulted in the deaths of 20 children, and all I'm seeing from the NRA is "we need more guns" and a lot of passing the buck, and a complete and total ignoring of any sort of responsibility. Who's "weighing fairly"?

I'm not the NRA. Is this part of your lesson illustrating what a straw man is?

BTW, am I the only one who's pissed off every time he sees this ridiculous thread title? Like there would be any reasonable explanation for this? Or like there would be any explanation if it hadn't been kids, other than that it didn't need to happen, but dammit, let's pay lip-service to the rights of gun owners to let it happen?

Then why did you say "deahts of 20 children" in this post? Is the thread title subliminally controlling you?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So personal responsibility means nothing?

The "Rights' didn't result in the deaths, but lousy filtering out of the wack-jobs by the parents, schools and their highly 'trained' experts' and the law enforcement professionals have failed us.

You just answered your own question with "no".

Personal responsibility means nothing.

Look at why this thread exists if you have any doubt whatsoever (of course, your explanation just made it clear that you're aware of this).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There's a massive industry around keeping a ridiculously large portion of the population jailed for pot. Why not replace those with gun criminals?
Oh yeah. They shoot back. I forgot.
What about the buy-back program? Make it more lucrative (for now) to sell to the government than to the petty criminal who walks in the door.

Someone gets killed so idiots turn in their guns!

That it took twenty children getting killed before those idiots got called out for being idiots, and people actually start discussing whether there's a way to stop them killing people reflects pretty poorly on your culture, doesn't it?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

[Then why did you say "deahts of 20 children" in this post? Is the thread title subliminally controlling you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I thought you said the thread title was "ridiculous" in the same post where you did the same "ridiculous" thing. I thought that was a little ridiculous. Just sayin.

[ort888]

I haven't read this whole thread and I'm sure this has been brought up, but...

I think the easiest and best way to prevent things like this is for all of the major media organizations to get together and agree on a set of guidelines on how to handle stories like this.

Agree not to share the photo of the shooter. Agree not to say his name. Etc...

Honestly, I think that would have more of an impact then any pie-in-the-sky "better mental health care" solution or gun control.

These nutballs are trying to top one another. Trying to achieve immortality through infamy.

[Chongo]

Sen Feinstein will intro this in 2013

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

I have a Beretta 92FS and three 15 round clips. Shall I expect a visit from ATF?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Aren't we just arguing about where to draw the line?
We can't own rocket launchers or gatling guns or grenades, so the second amendment is already limited.
Why not draw the line somewhere else? Maybe there are already a bazillion assault rifles out in the wild, but it can't hurt to make them harder to acquire. Maybe we can prevent things like this from happening 20 years from now, when it's impossible to get an assault rifle. You have to start somewhere. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Because the problem isn't the assault rifles. Hell if anything its better for the nut jobs to use assault rifles. Look at that dude in the theater that only managed to hit 2 people with 500 bullets. Fully automatic weapons are lousy to accuracy. You don't see solders in the army using full automatic except for cover fire. If Adam Lanza had a full automatic and was shooting in full automatic the death count would be a lot less. He would have ran out of ammo before the second class room.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I agree that people get to hold beliefs.
I do NOT agree that people who hold certain beliefs that come at the expense of others' lives get to assert those beliefs like it's their god-given right to do so.
And apparently, an increasing number of people LIVING WHERE YOU DO agree.

What is at who's expense?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They're a band-aid "fix", not a solution.

Worse it creates a new problem. Accidental shootings of innocent students because the guard made a mistake while in a panic. Nation wide I bet you would get 20 of those a year easily. Its a very bad solution not even a band-aid fix.