[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

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

If she had of had it in a lockbox or trigger lock like you should when storing a weapon, if you are a responsible gun owner, then this might not have happened. More like negligence on her part that cost her, her life and others. If you don't obey the laws that are presently in place, new ones aren't really the answer. At some point we have to take responsibility for our own actions and stop the blame game, IMO.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

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

If she had of had it in a lockbox or trigger lock like you should when storing a weapon, if you are a responsible gun owner, then this might not have happened. More like negligence on her part that cost her, her life and others. If you don't obey the laws that are presently in place, new ones aren't really the answer. At some point we have to take responsibility for our own actions and stop the blame game, IMO.

There was no law mandating that the guns be locked away.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

If she had of had it in a lockbox or trigger lock like you should when storing a weapon, if you are a responsible gun owner, then this might not have happened. More like negligence on her part that cost her, her life and others. If you don't obey the laws that are presently in place, new ones aren't really the answer. At some point we have to take responsibility for our own actions and stop the blame game, IMO.

DISCLAIMER: The investigation isn't complete so everything I'm about to say may not turn out to be the case. If so, then please disregard

This is the part that I really don't understand. Assuming this guy didn't bust into his mother's weapons locker, I just don't get how you can have a son that's "off" to say the least to the point where you are telling babysitters to NEVER take their eyes off of him ... but you have 4-6 firearms in the house unsecured? Like seriously .... WTF?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe they actually were locked, but she just forgot she had taught him the combination one time. A lot like computer security, the biggest flaw IRL security is the user.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe they actually were locked, but she just forgot she had taught him the combination one time. A lot like computer security, the biggest flaw IRL security is the user.

Even still ... WTF is the point in "locking" something away if you are going to tell him the combination?

OAW

[pooka]

I really don't get the argument here for lack of secured firearms. The kid (20 year old) *killed* his mother. I think one could assume that he may have been willing to do all sorts of things to coerce her to open the safe, give up the combination, reveal the key location, etc. I mean, he seemed someone motivated and determined.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I really don't get the argument here for lack of secured firearms. The kid (20 year old) *killed* his mother. I think one could assume that he may have been willing to do all sorts of things to coerce her to open the safe, give up the combination, reveal the key location, etc. I mean, he seemed someone motivated and determined.

Actually she was shot 4 times in the head while she slept. That's a pretty good argument for securing your sh*t. Just saying ...

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe they actually were locked, but she just forgot she had taught him the combination one time. A lot like computer security, the biggest flaw IRL security is the user.

Even still ... WTF is the point in "locking" something away if you are going to tell him the combination?

OAW

Try taking your blinders off for a minute. You know in hindsight that the biggest threat was the son. But before he "went off," it may have felt paranoid to think that he ever would "go off." He may have been perfectly normal at 12 years old, when she wanted to start teaching him gun safety. Maybe when he was 15 she taught him the combo (or he shoulder-surfed it), and it wasn't until many years later that she started seeing him as a potential threat.

Of course, maybe she never had a safe, but maybe the next crazy person's parents do, and maybe they're not even crazy yet. The point is, any measure that makes things less convenient and requires ongoing cooperation is going to fail, a lot.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually she was shot 4 times in the head while she slept. That's a pretty good argument for securing your sh*t. Just saying ...

OAW

No, a pretty good argument would be the likelihood that what did happen was going to happen. Hindsight doesn't tell us that.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There was no law mandating that the guns be locked away.

Correct, however this is a SAFETY thing that you should know if you completed a firearm class to get legal certification. Therefore... it falls under negligence, not illegal

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's exactly what I said. You are focused on 100 deaths a year while 10,000 more slip by unnoticed. [/pats self on back]

I'm focussing on 100 that can be easily prevented. [/pat revoked]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Exactly. Your side of the control imbalance is winning over there, and that's why you feel more in control. It probably doesn't interest you, but the gun-o-philes would laugh too if you suggested they care about control, because well, they have it, same as you. Their addiction is satiated. No one admits they're hooked when they're getting their fix.

I'm pretty sure control is about more than just agreeing with the law. If anything, by trusting to the legislation and the resulting lack of guns in the wild here, I'm giving up control.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Thats funny, I don't live in fear of mass spree killers either, considering that I have a better chance of winning the Powerball for half a billion dollars than be a victim of a spree shooter.

Nor should you, but just because something is statistically unlikely, you shouldn't try to change that likelihood when its clear that other places have reduced that low chance by several orders of magnitude and the consequences are tens of dead children? Thats potentially a big chunk of a whole generation in a small town.

Mexico strikes me as another place that could use better gun controls, problem there is they don't have the resources or infrastructure to do much about it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Maybe they actually were locked, but she just forgot she had taught him the combination one time. A lot like computer security, the biggest flaw IRL security is the user.

Maybe that sort of legislation wouldn't have prevented this particular event, maybe it would. Again you seem to be arguing that if you can't come up with laws that guarantee to stop all such killings that you shouldn't bother with laws that might prevent any. Which is of course, ludicrous.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The paranoia that these events creates is astounding. It is an extremely tragic event. But the place to look is securing our schools, being vigilant for signs of someone on the edge, not making a sweeping cultural change that will adversely affect millions of people.

The paranoia isn't about these events. The paranoia is about needing guns to protect yourselves from what should be fairly petty criminals like trespassers and thieves. You need guns to protect yourselves from criminals with guns. Criminals need guns because the homes they rob have people with guns in them who are legally allowed to kill them. The guns they take were more than likely purchased legally once upon a time and either stolen because they weren't secured, or sold off-book by some "responsible gun owner" who couldn't make rent one time.
Its a vicious circle but those of you who have spun it and won and those of you who have never spun it all and like playing with guns seem to be sufficiently oblivious to the plight of the victims and their families that you are willing to accept this as an eternal status quo.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How was he able to gain access to the school? What would have stopped him from using bombs?

Have you heard of this happening? In countries with tighter gun control? If not then its a non-argument.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What would have stopped him from obtaining the guns illegally?

Where exactly do you think these illegal guns are coming from? Mexico? I bet most of them are made in the USA even if they go through there.

[Waragainstsleep]

Correction:

Apparently british cops do not carry guns in patrol cars. They have to be fully firearms trained and certified just to carry a taser. Only properly equipped firearms cars are allowed to carry firearms.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Harvard Journal of Law and public policy, New York Times...
Am I missing something...

Yes, a little bit of googling says that at least in case of Germany, this is not the percentage of households owning guns, but guns per 100 persons. Although even that seems high to me.

I can tell you for a fact that a 30 % gun ownership rate in Germany is out of the question, the graph (as it stands) is false.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The paranoia isn't about these events. The paranoia is about needing guns to protect yourselves from what should be fairly petty criminals like trespassers and thieves. You need guns to protect yourselves from criminals with guns. Criminals need guns because the homes they rob have people with guns in them who are legally allowed to kill them. The guns they take were more than likely purchased legally once upon a time and either stolen because they weren't secured, or sold off-book by some "responsible gun owner" who couldn't make rent one time.
Its a vicious circle but those of you who have spun it and won and those of you who have never spun it all and like playing with guns seem to be sufficiently oblivious to the plight of the victims and their families that you are willing to accept this as an eternal status quo.

You act as if the guns themselves perpetrated this crime. You fail to address the cause and simply wish to address the means. What would have stopped this person from using another means to massacre if that were his intention?

Have you heard of this happening? In countries with tighter gun control? If not then its a non-argument.

In the US, just off the top of my head - two of these were failed attempts but the point remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

Where exactly do you think these illegal guns are coming from? Mexico? I bet most of them are made in the USA even if they go through there.

Probably, but as of now it is not illegal to manufacture guns in the US. Should it become so there would inevitably a significant black market for unregulated, foreign and legacy weapons, making identification and forensics in case of violent crime that much harder.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You act as if the guns themselves perpetrated this crime. You fail to address the cause and simply wish to address the means. What would have stopped this person from using another means to massacre if that were his intention?

Sometimes the practicalities mean that addressing the means is the only viable option. In this case addressing the root cause would most likely involve trying to convince half a nation to not love guns so much, or to implement a system of regular psych screening for every child and gun owner in america. Attempting to reduce the amount of firearms sold and therefore reduce the supply of illegal firearms is a much cheaper option. In fact, if you start by taxing them heavily it might even be profitable. Given the current deficit, the cost of such a multi-generational branding campaign or national psych screening initiative or of adding the years of therapy required for those diagnosed with issues to Obamacare (which I assume you love already), I'm sure you can see the benefits of this tactic now.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In the US, just off the top of my head - two of these were failed attempts but the point remains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

Three of these are terrorist attacks which really aren't the same thing as either spree killings or the sorts of crimes that most people are talking about when they talk about needing guns for self-defence.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Probably, but as of now it is not illegal to manufacture guns in the US. Should it become so there would inevitably a significant black market for unregulated, foreign and legacy weapons, making identification and forensics in case of violent crime that much harder.

Again, this is along the lines of "If we can't make it go away 100%, we shouldn't even bother trying" thinking. There will always be a black market for anything anywhere. You can't hope to stop these spree killings from ever happening again, but the evidence says that you can most definitely reduce them from their current level.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You can't hope to stop these spree killings from ever happening again, but the evidence says that you can most definitely reduce them from their current level.

Look you cant stop 100% of crime. Assault weapons and handguns aren't new. Therefore it stands to reason that something else has changed if these kinds of attacks are new. Figure out what that is and do something about that because if it is something that has changed causing these attacks then it will get allot worse.

trying to convince half a nation to not love guns so much, or to implement a system of regular psych screening for every child and gun owner in america.

Neither of these are the problem. Besides being impossible and or unconstitutional.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Look you cant stop 100% of crime. Assault weapons and handguns aren't new. Therefore it stands to reason that something else has changed if these kinds of attacks are new. Figure out what that is and do something about that because if it is something that has changed causing these attacks then it will get allot worse.
Neither of these are the problem. Besides being impossible and or unconstitutional.

How is it unconstitutional to try and convince the nation to think differently? I'm not suggesting anyone uses force or coercion, just branding and persuasion.

Read the article I linked on the NYT site. It explains how the proliferation of bigger and badder weapons is more recent than most pro-gun people like to think. Something that was accomplished by campaigning which you seem to think was unconstitutional.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on what the root causes are, but until that can be determined and a plan formulated that is practically affordable (and constitutional) going for the simple, affordable, proven and obvious fix is the most sensible option. Just because "it has always been that way" (it apparently hasn't), doesn't mean you shouldn't change it if it stops working for you.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How is it unconstitutional to try and convince the nation to think differently? I'm not suggesting anyone uses force or coercion, just branding and persuasion.
Read the article I linked on the NYT site. It explains how the proliferation of bigger and badder weapons is more recent than most pro-gun people like to think. Something that was accomplished by campaigning which you seem to think was unconstitutional.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with me on what the root causes are, but until that can be determined and a plan formulated that is practically affordable (and constitutional) going for the simple, affordable, proven and obvious fix is the most sensible option. Just because "it has always been that way" (it apparently hasn't), doesn't mean you shouldn't change it if it stops working for you.

It's not unconstitutional it's impossible. Or if possible the methods required would be against the Geneva convention. Requiring psych screening for owners and their families would be unconstitutional because no psychologist would accept the liability of performing a screening.

You know why more bigger and "badder" guns are proliferating? Because people like you want to take them away so the people who want them are stocking up. Right now it hard to find the "bad" model of the ar-15 used in the shooting. Not because stores have withdrawn it but because it sold out.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Read this.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Harvard Journal of Law and public policy, New York Times...
Am I missing something...

Yes, a little bit of googling says that at least in case of Germany, this is not the percentage of households owning guns, but guns per 100 persons. Although even that seems high to me.

I can tell you for a fact that a 30 % gun ownership rate in Germany is out of the question, the graph (as it stands) is false.

Indeed. That's why I asked for the specific source.

30% gun-owning households is completely ludicrous.

I was trying to find the original data that table claims to be based upon, but got bored.

This was the last I could find:
http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf

Page 5.
Almost 7% handgun-owning households, and 3% shotgun/rifles, total of just under 9% of households owning guns in 1989.
This was before reunification.

Current estimates are at 10 million legal guns in Germany (1 for every 8 citizens), though obviously, most of those will be cases of owners having more than one gun.
"Estimates" because, though all guns are registered, they are currently listed in numerous disparate local databases, which are in the process of being assembled into one big central gun registry. Once that's done (maybe sometime next year), we'll have exact numbers.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I really don't get the argument here for lack of secured firearms. The kid (20 year old) *killed* his mother. I think one could assume that he may have been willing to do all sorts of things to coerce her to open the safe, give up the combination, reveal the key location, etc. I mean, he seemed someone motivated and determined.

There is a rather substantial difference between planning to grab something and kill somebody in their sleep, and physically restraining them while holding a knife to their throat and forcing them to do something.

That's one of the reasons why people keep telling you that having guns AVAILABLE is the big enabler for events like this. Locking them up forces people to go through a very different ordeal just to GET at them.

And as the example brought up above of the knife attack on school children shows illustrates, a mass murder not perpetrated with a gun is likely to result in a big scare and a couple of injuries, that's it.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And as the example brought up above of the knife attack on school children shows illustrates, a mass murder not perpetrated with a gun is likely to result in a big scare and a couple of injuries, that's it.

So you're okay with it as long as its murder and not mass murder?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Exactly. Your side of the control imbalance is winning over there, and that's why you feel more in control. It probably doesn't interest you, but the gun-o-philes would laugh too if you suggested they care about control, because well, they have it, same as you. Their addiction is satiated. No one admits they're hooked when they're getting their fix.

I'm pretty sure control is about more than just agreeing with the law.

True, it's more about being a champion for the law, like you're doing in this thread. For example I "agree" with a law about gun safes, but they wouldn't make me feel like they're "my law" or that I'm partly "in control" due to them. However, I'm a champion for self-driving cars, and if it were made law that self-driving cars should be developed, and later mandated, by the central government, I would feel like that is "my law" and therefore I am partly "in control" because of its implementation.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The paranoia that these events creates is astounding. It is an extremely tragic event. But the place to look is securing our schools, being vigilant for signs of someone on the edge, not making a sweeping cultural change that will adversely affect millions of people.

The paranoia isn't about these events. The paranoia is about needing guns to protect yourselves from what should be fairly petty criminals like trespassers and thieves.

False dichotomy. It's both.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Have you heard of this happening? In countries with tighter gun control? If not then its a non-argument.

Those other countries never had our number of incidents to start with.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I asked them... If Captain Picard rocked up and used the Enterprise to beam all the legal assault weapons and handguns into the heart of the sun, and say 90-95% of the illegal assault weapons and handguns at the same time, would they be in favour of that happening?

Why didn't you just ask them if it was possible to take the criminals' guns away, full stop? Good guys keep theirs, we stop about 12,000 gun deaths per year, but the spree killers remain (what is that, like 100 deaths per year?).

I'm focussing on 100 that can be easily prevented. [/pat revoked]

Captain Picard's magic beam is all it takes to "easily" solve this centuries-old problem?! You've buried the lead! Why is the government suppressing magic beam technology???

Oh, I see the flaw now: why is it easier for Picard to beam guns A and guns B, than to merely beam guns B and then go bang Dr Crusher? [/pat restored]

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Captain Picard's magic beam is all it takes to "easily" solve this centuries-old problem?! You've buried the lead! Why is the government suppressing magic beam technology???
Oh, I see the flaw now: why is it easier for Picard to beam guns A and guns B, than to merely beam guns B and then go bang Dr Crusher? [/pat restored]

Assuming A and B represent legal and illegal guns, leaving the legal guns just means that criminals will have to go and steal a load of them. Then you have more illegal guns and no net benefit.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And as the example brought up above of the knife attack on school children shows illustrates, a mass murder not perpetrated with a gun is likely to result in a big scare and a couple of injuries, that's it.

So you're okay with it as long as its murder and not mass murder?

Red herring?

But now that you mention it, we do seem to have had a spate of drive-by knifings recently.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Captain Picard's magic beam is all it takes to "easily" solve this centuries-old problem?! You've buried the lead! Why is the government suppressing magic beam technology???
Oh, I see the flaw now: why is it easier for Picard to beam guns A and guns B, than to merely beam guns B and then go bang Dr Crusher? [/pat restored]

Assuming A and B represent legal and illegal guns, leaving the legal guns just means that criminals will have to go and steal a load of them. Then you have more illegal guns.

But stealing is against the law. In this fantasy laws are enforced by beams.

Are you under the impression that because most criminals don't use the black market, that they can't use the black market? Have you ever taken an economics course?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Red herring?
But now that you mention it, we do seem to have had a spate of drive-by knifings recently.

Is the goal to reduce the actual number of people killed or reduce the number of people that are killed at a time?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Red herring?
But now that you mention it, we do seem to have had a spate of drive-by knifings recently.

Is the goal to reduce the actual number of people killed or reduce the number of people that are killed at a time?

Irrelevant distinction.

The subject of this thread, however, is Connecticut.

By applying whatever logic led to your coming up with the question to me whether I'm okay with "normal" murders, the inescapable logical conclusion must be that you're perfectly okay with twenty grade-/pre-school children being murdered.

[pooka]

The time to act is now. Assault rifle violence is out of control...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

I could be wrong, but it appears that you may be at a greater risk of being murdered by a pair of fists.

(BTW, these stats include *all* rifles. I'm going to assume some aren't covered in scary plastic).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Irrelevant distinction.

The subject of this thread, however, is Connecticut.

By applying whatever logic led to your coming up with the question to me whether I'm okay with "normal" murders, the inescapable logical conclusion must be that you're perfectly okay with twenty grade-/pre-school children being murdered.

I think the fact that this thread exists makes the question very relevant. There are over 100 times more people killed with guns than children killed by spree killers, yet the latter gets a thread and the former doesn't. It's a disproportionate response.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by pooka 

The time to act is now. Assault rifle violence is out of control...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
I could be wrong, but it appears that you may be at a greater risk of being murdered by a pair of fists.
(BTW, these stats include *all* rifles. I'm going to assume some aren't covered in scary plastic).

Nobody is saying that gun control reform is some sort of magic bullet, if you'll pardon the pun, but the idea is that we should be doing everything we can to better the situation. Besides, I'm not sure what your point is, this table shows a tremendous amount of murders using firearms.

[The Final Dakar]

Is anybody else curious what the NRA plans on suggesting today? I'm also wondering if they will have the good sense not to blame tv, movies, or video games.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Irrelevant distinction.

The subject of this thread, however, is Connecticut.

By applying whatever logic led to your coming up with the question to me whether I'm okay with "normal" murders, the inescapable logical conclusion must be that you're perfectly okay with twenty grade-/pre-school children being murdered.

I think the fact that this thread exists makes the question very relevant. There are over 100 times more people killed with guns than children killed by spree killers, yet the latter gets a thread and the former doesn't. It's a disproportionate response.

So you're saying that this is not an appropriate time to be discussing this subject, or are you merely musing over how high-profile events garner public attention, leading to discussion which, as you so correctly note, is long overdue?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

high-profile events garner public attention, leading to discussion which, as you so correctly note, is long overdue?

That's a perfectly fair dynamic, but the resulting discussion is still subject to the relative severity and frequency of the larger low-profile events, not actively exclude them like you just did.

We have made significant advances over the years, not by restricting gun access but by traditional enforcement. This works by addressing the motive, not the means. Most murders are committed by people who want to get away with it, and by strict enforcement of existing laws, that motive is mitigated. And it works, except for these spree shooters who buck the trend, because they aren't going to get away with it either way. We have to do the same thing that has worked in the past, address the motive. Unfortunately, it's hard to examine the motive of people who (a) often don't survive and (b) are insane. So it's not surprising that this problem is more difficult than the motives that have been addressed in the past. That doesn't make it the wrong answer, just because it's more difficult.

[Spheric Harlot]

I didn't exclude anything.

I pointed out that fairly simple rules would have prevented this case, and got the rather strange response that I obviously don't care about the daily gun deaths.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I didn't exclude anything.

Except when you appealed that this thread is about spree shooters so you don't want to talk about weighting them against the majority of gun violence.

I pointed out that fairly simple rules would have prevented this case, and got the rather strange response that I obviously don't care about the daily gun deaths.

Don't be simplistic. We could stop even more deaths with even simpler rules: no killing allowed. The problem is that in reality, people don't always obey the law (not even police or politicians). As long as we're in reality, your simple rules aren't so simple either, as there have to be police monitoring all the home gun safes, and there have to be someone to police the police, after too much power is concentrated in the central authority. Of course, you're conveniently ignoring that last part on the simplistic logic that it's worked so far (ever since the last time it didn't work).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But stealing is against the law. In this fantasy laws are enforced by beams.
Are you under the impression that because most criminals don't use the black market, that they can't use the black market? Have you ever taken an economics course?

This fantasy beam was supposed to be a one shot deal. Otherwise it serves no purpose wondering about it.

As for your advances in addressing the motive, I'm not sure how arming everybody else is any less reactionary than preventing people from arming themselves in the first place. I certainly don't see how it addresses the motive behind gun crime.

The fact that spree killers have complex and often irrational motives is just further argument for depriving them of their access to weapons and the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone, or at least make it more difficult for them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But stealing is against the law. In this fantasy laws are enforced by beams.
Are you under the impression that because most criminals don't use the black market, that they can't use the black market? Have you ever taken an economics course?

This fantasy beam was supposed to be a one shot deal. Otherwise it serves no purpose wondering about it.

I don't see much purpose in wondering about it in the first place. If it's possible to wipe the slate clean, then it's possible to keep doing it

As for your advances in addressing the motive, I'm not sure how arming everybody else is any less reactionary than preventing people from arming themselves in the first place.

I never said it wasn't. In fact I said it was. Both sides are reactionary, I've said that numerous times. And like I say on a lot of topics, when you're having trouble empathizing with the other side of the debate, it helps to look inward.

I certainly don't see how it addresses the motive behind gun crime.

In the vast majority of gun crime, the motive is to gain a personal advantage. See game theory. A personal advantage is nullified by imprisonment. This is the basis of the entire concept of a penal code (heehee, "penal"). If you can't understand that, I'm afraid MacNN is not going to be able to help.

The fact that spree killers have complex and often irrational motives is just further argument for depriving them of their access to weapons

Better than nothing, sure

and the only way to deprive them is to deprive everyone

That's like saying the only way to keep Muslim terrorists' hands off of bombs is to imprison all the Muslims before they get a chance. Totally stupid and reactionary.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nobody is saying that gun control reform is some sort of magic bullet, if you'll pardon the pun, but the idea is that we should be doing everything we can to better the situation. Besides, I'm not sure what your point is, this table shows a tremendous amount of murders using firearms.

Your implying that the number of firearms somehow affects the number of firearm related murders. You're also still somehow convinced that any law or regulation you pass is going to affect the behavior of criminals. Especially, like in CT, first time offenders.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Your implying that the number of firearms somehow affects the number of firearm related murders. You're also still somehow convinced that any law or regulation you pass is going to affect the behavior of criminals. Especially, like in CT, first time offenders.

It may not affect criminals, but it might help deter the mentally ill.

It's not just the sheer number of firearms, it's their accessibility, availability, and at times questionable ownership that is no doubt a *part* of America's problem.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It may not affect criminals, but it might help deter the mentally ill.

It's not just the sheer number of firearms, it's their accessibility, availability, and at times questionable ownership that is no doubt a *part* of America's problem.

Wait you think gun regulation will affect someone who's mentally ill? You do understand what mentally ill means right? How mental illness is a valid defense to AVOID punishment for crimes?

What kind of gun regulation do you think would have stopped this kid in CT from doing what he did?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Wait you think gun regulation will affect someone who's mentally ill? You do understand what mentally ill means right? How mental illness is a valid defense to AVOID punishment for crimes?
What kind of gun regulation do you think would have stopped this kid in CT from doing what he did?

I don't understand your question.

If this kid did not have easy access to these guns, it would have provided a deterrent for him going on this rampage, which he may have committed himself to on a whim or while under the influence of some sort of substance.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is anybody else curious what the NRA plans on suggesting today? I'm also wondering if they will have the good sense not to blame tv, movies, or video games.

No, they do not have good sense, it seems:

NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"

Riiiight, guns don't kill people, virtual guns kill people.

I think this is the clearest indication that the NRA doesn't care about the rights of Americans. They will gladly advocate against the right of free expression, but not to protect "the right to bear arms," but the right to sell as many guns as possible. They are not a "gun rights" lobby, they are the gun sellers' lobby.

Laws that would require the safe lockup of guns and a limit on large capacity magazines would do nothing to infringe on the right to bear arms. But gun hoarding nuts aren't gonna be interested in buying assault weapons neutered by 10 round mags and requiring a large, expensive safe to keep it in. That would hurt gun sales, so gun manufacturers are against it, so they told the NRA that they will be against it.

And since they don't like being the bogey man, they will point to films, tv, and video games to supply another bogey man. Only an idiot would listen to such tripe and mendacity.

So, the gun nuts have attacked both freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Any other rights gonna get targeted to protect their precious gun sales?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No, they do not have good sense, it seems:
NRA Likens Videogames to "the Filthiest Form of Pornography"
Riiiight, guns don't kill people, virtual guns kill people.
I think this is the clearest indication that the NRA doesn't care about the rights of Americans. They will gladly advocate against the right of free expression, but not to protect "the right to bear arms," but the right to sell as many guns as possible. They are not a "gun rights" lobby, they are the gun sellers' lobby.
Laws that would require the safe lockup of guns and a limit on large capacity magazines would do nothing to infringe on the right to bear arms. But gun hoarding nuts aren't gonna be interested in buying assault weapons neutered by 10 round mags and requiring a large, expensive safe to keep it in. That would hurt gun sales, so gun manufacturers are against it, so they told the NRA that they will be against it.
And since they don't like being the bogey man, they will point to films, tv, and video games to supply another bogey man. Only an idiot would listen to such tripe and mendacity.
So, the gun nuts have attacked both freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Any other rights gonna get targeted to protect their precious gun sales?

What is most offensive to me about this is how intellectually lazy this claim is. These same games, movies, and music obviously exist all over the world.

[Shaddim]

While the rest of the world has these games, music, and movies, they don't glorify the violence as much, combine that with the number of guns (and our attitudes towards mental illness) and it's a noxious mix.

But, giving up firearms, instead of addressing the triggering factors, is truly lazy. The weapons don't magically make people become mass murderers.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I think maybe there's at least some contribution from the notion of American Exceptionalism, and the bigger disappointment it brings when a loser realizes they're not a winner and have no chance to change that. It's easier to be happy coming in last if you weren't set up to believe you'd come in first. That's at least a difference I could buy in the mentality of Americans vs others, the idea that someone has an ok place in a larger world, even if that place isn't "first place."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

While the rest of the world has these games, music, and movies, they don't glorify the violence as much, combine that with the number of guns (and our attitudes towards mental illness) and it's a noxious mix.
But, giving up firearms, instead of addressing the triggering factors, is truly lazy. The weapons don't magically make people become mass murderers.

This feels like one of those issues where there is a lot of talking past each other and disconnects between both sides. I can't speak for everybody, but the sense I get is that the consensus on the pro increasing gun-control side is that stricter gun control laws do not magically fix anything and allow us to consider the job done and consider this issue case closed, but they are one of a number of things that can help that would make sense to implement along with looking at mental illness treatment/prevention, toning down violent influences, parenting, and on and on. Given the severity of this problem, I don't see the harm in the "all of the above" approach.

On the other hand, the NRA suggesting that we have armed security in all schools is no magic cure either, it's just treating a symptom rather than the root cause. We should continue to talk about ways to get at the root cause.

[Shaddim]

You don't see the "harm"? Giving up a core Constitutional right isn't "harm"? When did you say you're moving out of the US?