[slateman]

Originally Posted by justicexd

That bombing was the result of a derranged lunatic who wanted to murder people.

I fixed it for you

[Rampager2000]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

many people HAVE brought up the point that other weapons are available. what is annoying is that people legitimately are suggesting that knives, bats, clubs, sharpened credit cards etc. are just as effective and lethal as modern ergonomic firearms.

I am yet to run across an individual naive enough to believe a knife is as effective as a gun when it comes to killing people. That is, of course, unless you're a trained assassin or some **** who can kill silently, but let's assume these guys can kill even with their hands cut off.

Notice, in my post, I made it clear it would probably deter some petty criminals from crime if acquiring guns were made more difficult by a variety of means. This doesn't take into account the fact that most criminals aren't criminals when they purchase their guns, though, and with that in mind, we will never be able to truly put an end to want-to-be criminals coming out firearms legally without an outright ban. I am NOT for this, but I am attempting to be factual here.

My key fear when it comes to banning firearms is the thought of what people will use instead: suicide bombings, briefcase bombings, certain powders delivered by mail or other means, among other things. These alternate means of "delivery" are just as dangerous, if not more, and a bit more difficult to prevent. The social strike of such events are probably even more striking than those involving shootings would, I imagine, be much more intense on the average human being. Probably something about the thought of not being able to stop people from killing others in the mass would strike a certain level of fear into the hearts of many people. This is one of the points where society begins to slip a bit and people begin to revert back to some more primitive ways. Alas, I can only estimate the results of such actions. I could be, and likely am, wrong. I can accept this.

[Murph1329]

Originally Posted by tsbalr120

etc....

For the pro-gun people this should prove that stricter firearms laws increase violence.

For anti-gun people this should prove correlation =/= causation.....in short they're barking up the wrong tree. Go find something else to regulate.

[Lazarusrat]

Ironic that 2 weeks ago everyone was all "Obamacare is horrible! We shouldn't be paying to take care of other people! We can't afford it!"

Now that Obama is talking tighter gun regulation these very same jack-holes are screaming "Don't blame guns! If only we would have taken care of the mentally ill none of this would have happened! That's the problem! We need to care for the menatlly ill instead"

You morons can't have your cake and eat it too.

But here's an alternative idea... Instead of having the NRA waste $$BILIIONS$$ and $$BILLION$$ of dollars on lobbing and law suits. Why don't you guys petition the NRA to set up "school guard volunteers" have the NRA train and certify NRA volunteers that will go to the schools and protect our children??

We always hear about responsible gun owners protecting teh community lets put our money where our mouth is.

[barrel roll]

That idea is just as much a bandaid as gun control or Obamacare.

[ladd_17]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

But here's an alternative idea... Instead of having the NRA waste $$BILIIONS$$ and $$BILLION$$ of dollars on lobbing and law suits. Why don't you guys petition the NRA to set up "school guard volunteers" have the NRA train and certify NRA volunteers that will go to the schools and protect our children??

We always hear about responsible gun owners protecting teh community lets put our money where our mouth is.

We've already got literally thousands of people who are trained to regulations set forth by and certified through our own government that we don't let do exactly what you're proposing. We've been trying to do exactly that for years.

Not sure I follow your comment about Obamacare either; asking that we discuss the actual source of the problem (mental illness and moral deficiency) rather than blaming an inanimate object is not the same as expecting the government to pay for the treatment of said problem.

[SevenGold-IV]

Forget guns for a minute, why not instead talk about the real problem here: that the shooter decided it would be better to murder innocent people rather than to seek help for whatever was going on in his life. How can people make this decision? What elements of our culture and society pushed him to even entertain the thought of something like this?

Why not talk about our societies glorification of the individual above the collective. The erosion (and failure) of institutions like churches and families who provide a sense of belonging, morality, and purpose. The lack of empathy fueled by a materialistic culture that portrays fulfillment through wealth instead of relationships. Lets not forget over exposure of these events in the media which lends the shooter name recognition and infamy.

We need to teach our children the reality that they WILL experience suffering, loss and disappointment; and help them build ties to groups that support them so that when they feel at their lowest they seek help rather than commit a mass shooting.

I think blaming firearms is a cop out. Millions of people in this country have easy access to firearms, and live their entire lives without committing an atrocity. And let's not forget that mass shootings still happen throughout the world, even in the presence of strict gun control laws.

[barrel roll]

I need to stay out of this thread, or I am going to shoot myself in the face.

[WldWzl]

And here comes Westboro, and all of their person information thanks to Anonymous.

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/1...baptist-church

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by ladd_17

We've already got literally thousands of people who are trained to regulations set forth by and certified through our own government that we don't let do exactly what you're proposing. We've been trying to do exactly that for years.

Not sure I follow your comment about Obamacare either; asking that we discuss the actual source of the problem (mental illness and moral deficiency) rather than blaming an inanimate object is not the same as expecting the government to pay for the treatment of said problem.

I don't agree that gun control is the answer to solving these kind of issues.
The root cause as in the CO, WY, and now CT shootings is people who are mentally ill going postal. The problem is treatment or confinement is so expensive that people can not afford it. If you are going to get these people, or make these people, get professional help somebody has to pay for it. If they can not pay for it than the Federal governmnet is going to have to pay for it via a "socialist medicince" program like "Obamacare".

My comment was I find it extremely ironic that BEFORE this horrible act people where up in arms about even teh remotest idea that they should be taxed to pay for any "socialist medicial program" be it Obamacare, medicaid, or treating the mentally ill. Today these very same people are screaming about gun regulation isn't the answer and that we need to treat the mentally ill. Well no **** Sherlock.

As for the NRA advocating a certified "school guard volunteer" program; If you have some information on this please post it. (Seriously If something like this exists I'll bring it up with my local NRA. I would we willing to take an extra firearms class and donate some of my time for something like that)

[ladd_17]

I'm talking about CHL holders. We are already able to go just about anywhere we want while being armed, except for a few places society has deemed that shouldn't be allowed. Interestingly enough, these are always the same places that get shot up.

What is so special about the sidewalk around certain buildings that you think people need even more training to cross that sidewalk while carrying a firearm?

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by Blake360

Ever heard of a phenomenon called suicide bombing? They don't require any planning or preparation. They are also far more effective methods of mass killing than guns are, if you don't believe me then take a trip to the middle east and see for yourself.
And if you're going to say US citizens wouldn't commit suicide bombings because it would mean they would die, don't the shooters already kill themselves after they shoot people anyway?

Suicide bombing does require planning and prep unless you have an explosive vest with ball bearings sitting around. You do bring up a good point: most of these people off themselves.

What conservatives aren't bringing up, is that these people don't care if they die. So why would an armed school deter shootings???

Originally Posted by ladd_17

Perhaps they aren't as efficient as firearms, but they are certainly force multipliers, especially if you are attacking children. Furthermore if you buy the 'guns cause crime' argument, you have to buy the 'baseball bats cause crime' argument; both items did the same amount of decision making.

I don't buy into the guns cause crime argument. But a lot of pro gun people say stupid stuff in an attempt to say everything is fine the way it is. My point here is, I guarantee you or I could lay down tens more citizens using a gun vs a club or similar weapon, assuming we went bat**** crazy.

Originally Posted by justicexd

That bombing was the result of gun control.

Lol, just lol, got any proof of this or do you just like to see yourself post?

Originally Posted by Rampager2000

I am yet to run across an individual naive enough to believe a knife is as effective as a gun when it comes to killing people. That is, of course, unless you're a trained assassin or some **** who can kill silently, but let's assume these guys can kill even with their hands cut off.

Notice, in my post, I made it clear it would probably deter some petty criminals from crime if acquiring guns were made more difficult by a variety of means. This doesn't take into account the fact that most criminals aren't criminals when they purchase their guns, though, and with that in mind, we will never be able to truly put an end to want-to-be criminals coming out firearms legally without an outright ban. I am NOT for this, but I am attempting to be factual here.

My key fear when it comes to banning firearms is the thought of what people will use instead: suicide bombings, briefcase bombings, certain powders delivered by mail or other means, among other things. These alternate means of "delivery" are just as dangerous, if not more, and a bit more difficult to prevent. The social strike of such events are probably even more striking than those involving shootings would, I imagine, be much more intense on the average human being. Probably something about the thought of not being able to stop people from killing others in the mass would strike a certain level of fear into the hearts of many people. This is one of the points where society begins to slip a bit and people begin to revert back to some more primitive ways. Alas, I can only estimate the results of such actions. I could be, and likely am, wrong. I can accept this.

A rare thought out post in this thread.

I do not think suicide bombings would increase because they are less attractive to these impulsive criminals. That is just an educated guess and I could be wrong. We have a different source of angst for our dissidents than the middle east. But then again the vast majority of terrorists from the ME are young unemployed males...hope the bad economy doesn't bring out any more crazies.

As I said after the last media circus of a shooting (pretty horrifying that this is a pattern) I said that the biggest problem here is a lack of access to mental health combined with easy access of firearms to wildly unstable people. Yet you have to take a test and have a license to own a vehicle.

Originally Posted by Murph1329

For the pro-gun people this should prove that stricter firearms laws increase violence.

For anti-gun people this should prove correlation =/= causation.....in short they're barking up the wrong tree. Go find something else to regulate.

speaking of correlation and causation, do you blame the high rates of crime and drug epidemics of the 80s exclusively on DCs gun ban?

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by ladd_17

I'm talking about CHL holders. We are already able to go just about anywhere we want while being armed, except for a few places society has deemed that shouldn't be allowed. Interestingly enough, these are always the same places that get shot up.

What is so special about the sidewalk around certain buildings that you think people need even more training to cross that sidewalk while carrying a firearm?

Because some states, like Wyoming, do not require any training what so ever before you can carry.

If we are putting armed security guards, even if they are volunteers, in and around our schools they should have some training wouldn't you agree? I don't know how elese to say this but there are a LOT of people who are not compident enough to even handle a firearm, yet alone be armed with one pulling security at a school. I personnally would feel better if the guy next to me, or at the school, was checked out and had some sort of training on when use deadly force, knew which end the bullet goes out of, and could actually hit a target (even if it was under controlled conditions) instead of a wanna-be hero who just bought a Beretta 92 because it looks an M-9 that the army uses.

[Iamamartianchurch]

What I find most entertaining is the fact that six pages of debate here resemble the debate going on if one were to tune into any media outlet. It's actually quite spectacular, almost as if you guys and the rest of America have been given a script. You do a better job of sourcing your beliefs than the TV or the radio, I'll give you that.

[justicexd]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Lol, just lol, got any proof of this or do you just like to see yourself post?

Instead of laughing like a fool, why don't you do a google search on Timothy McVeigh yourself?

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

Ironic that 2 weeks ago everyone was all "Obamacare is horrible! We shouldn't be paying to take care of other people! We can't afford it!"

Now that Obama is talking tighter gun regulation these very same jack-holes are screaming "Don't blame guns! If only we would have taken care of the mentally ill none of this would have happened! That's the problem! We need to care for the menatlly ill instead"

You morons can't have your cake and eat it too.

But here's an alternative idea... Instead of having the NRA waste $$BILIIONS$$ and $$BILLION$$ of dollars on lobbing and law suits. Why don't you guys petition the NRA to set up "school guard volunteers" have the NRA train and certify NRA volunteers that will go to the schools and protect our children??

We always hear about responsible gun owners protecting teh community lets put our money where our mouth is.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

That idea is just as much a bandaid as gun control or Obamacare.

And it's against the law.

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

Forget guns for a minute, why not instead talk about the real problem here: that the shooter decided it would be better to murder innocent people rather than to seek help for whatever was going on in his life. How can people make this decision? What elements of our culture and society pushed him to even entertain the thought of something like this?

Why not talk about our societies glorification of the individual above the collective. The erosion (and failure) of institutions like churches and families who provide a sense of belonging, morality, and purpose. The lack of empathy fueled by a materialistic culture that portrays fulfillment through wealth instead of relationships. Lets not forget over exposure of these events in the media which lends the shooter name recognition and infamy.

We need to teach our children the reality that they WILL experience suffering, loss and disappointment; and help them build ties to groups that support them so that when they feel at their lowest they seek help rather than commit a mass shooting.

I think blaming firearms is a cop out. Millions of people in this country have easy access to firearms, and live their entire lives without committing an atrocity. And let's not forget that mass shootings still happen throughout the world, even in the presence of strict gun control laws.

Mentally ill people are just that, mentally ill. They don't realize that they need help. This is normal for them. Or no one understands because they're not experiencing it.

This wasn't a mentally competent person who did the shooting. He simply wasn't wired right.

Originally Posted by WldWzl

And here comes Westboro, and all of their person information thanks to Anonymous.

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/1...baptist-church

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

Because some states, like Wyoming, do not require any training what so ever before you can carry.

If we are putting armed security guards, even if they are volunteers, in and around our schools they should have some training wouldn't you agree? I don't know how elese to say this but there are a LOT of people who are not compident enough to even handle a firearm, yet alone be armed with one pulling security at a school. I personnally would feel better if the guy next to me, or at the school, was checked out and had some sort of training on when use deadly force, knew which end the bullet goes out of, and could actually hit a target (even if it was under controlled conditions) instead of a wanna-be hero who just bought a Beretta 92 because it looks an M-9 that the army uses.

Please explain to me in the Constitution where it requires training in order to bear arms. There are no competence requirements for 1st Amendment rights. Nor requirements to execute a search warrant other than having the warrant.

Owning and bearing firearms is a right, not a privilege.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by slateman

Please explain to me in the Constitution where it requires training in order to bear arms. There are no competence requirements for 1st Amendment rights. Nor requirements to execute a search warrant other than having the warrant.

Owning and bearing firearms is a right, not a privilege.

It's right after the sentence about you being able to carry your frearm around any place you want...

So do you advocate yelling "Fire!" or "He's got a gun!" in crowded theaters as well, or do you only accept reasonable limits on the application of people's rights if it doesn't apply the the 2nd?

[Tafari Makonnen]

Originally Posted by Lazarusrat

It's right after the sentence about you being able to carry your frearm around any place you want...

So do you advocate yelling "Fire!" or "He's got a gun!" in crowded theaters as well, or do you only accept reasonable limits on the application of people's rights if it doesn't apply the the 2nd?

You can exercise your right up until you violate the rights of others. Yelling fire and endagering people on theater is a violation of thier rights. Carrying a firearm in proximity of others is not.

A property owner has every right to stop you from carrying a firearm on their property, same as keeping you from doing anything they don't want on their property. I don't know if the Federal Government has the same rights as a citizen in terms of what people can do on their property... I would say no.

[licence2kill]

Why we may finally see movement on the gun-control front:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...the-gun-lobby/

[Tafari Makonnen]

What a slimy piece of writing that is.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

What a slimy piece of writing that is.

It's almost entirely a summary of other people's writing.