Gun Control

[teachercd]

Remember, gun control keeps guns out of the hands of honest people, too.

 

So what? Everyone is an "honest" person...until they do something stupid.

[NebraskaHarry]

The actions of the few will punish the many.

[NebraskaHarry]

What I don't get about this topic is if you advocate for gun control, what exactly is your solution? Go house to house and round up every gun?

[308_Husker]

Remember, gun control keeps guns out of the hands of honest people, too.

 

So what? Everyone is an "honest" person...until they do something stupid.

 

So what are you saying? You would rather have the guns out of everybodys' hands for good rather than letting us keep and exercise our second amendment right?

[EbylHusker]

Asking about gun control on a largely Nebraska board = serious lulz.

[strigori]

The gun was the tool of choice. Nothing more.

 

This point is never a good one. If a knife had been the tool of choice, one or two people would have died, max.

 

Yup.

Or he would have gone to a bomb.

 

There are almost as many guns in private ownership in this country as there are people. Trying to remove guns from society at this point is impossible, and any attempt to do so would likely spark a civil war.

 

This is a mental health issue far more than a gun issue. Look at the above number. Clearly having access to a gun does not lead to murder. In fact the shooter was unable to purchase a gun two days before, so he stole someone else's guns.

[EbylHusker]

And I never get why "gun control" always gets people to go right towards, "They're taking all our guns away!1eleven!" Serious derp there.

[NebraskaHarry]

And I never get why "gun control" always gets people to go right towards, "They're taking all our guns away!1eleven!" Serious derp there.

It goes both ways. You're right about that misconception, but exactly what does gun control even mean? It's an arguement without a solution.

[The Dude]

You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

 

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed

people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

 

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the k!ller's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the k!ller's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

 

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.

[strigori]

And I never get why "gun control" always gets people to go right towards, "They're taking all our guns away!1eleven!" Serious derp there.

With this case that is the only thing that is getting talked about. The guns the shooter used were not his guns. And they were bought legally in a state that has some of the tougher gun control laws as it is. How else would any form of 'gun control' that is not outright banning guns going to prevent this case? Its not.

[EbylHusker]

With this case that is the only thing that is getting talked about.

That has not been my experience. But don't worry, "they" are not going to take "your" guns away. So rejoice, and bust a cap. Or something.

[strigori]

With this case that is the only thing that is getting talked about.

That has not been my experience. But don't worry, "they" are not going to take "your" guns away. So rejoice, and bust a cap. Or something.

In the last 48 hours or so all the talking is about how many guns are in the US and comparing that to the rest of the world. And linking that with 'gun control' and talking about this case. In which no amount of gun control short of the complete banning of them, could have prevented.

 

And for the record, I do not actually own a gun. I am sick and tired of reactionary calls for banning this that or the other thing. Hell I have seen mentions about maybe video games being a cause in this because the shooter played them. Legislation should never, under any circumstances, be drafted or passed in emotional states. Laws need to be devoid of emotion.

[Fuzzy]

Banning all guns is not the answer. But having a more rigorous and extensive background check on people who own or plan on owning a firearm is a possible solution.

[EbylHusker]

I guess not all the talking, because like I said, that's not my experience. But I filtered out as many stupid people as possible a long time ago. It's so much nicer when you cut the worst of the rampant stupidity out of your life. Try it.

[Nebula]

I'm all for gun elimination. Just as long as the police, the army, and the rest of the world do the same.

 

Until that happens, I'm going to be convinced that the government has a good reason for wanting to take firearms out of our hands. I'll let you hypothesize why they may desire a citizenry bereft of these means of defense. And I am not a card carrying NRA member by any means.

 

I see a recurring trend. The US government immediately seizing upon a tragedy that has afflicted our citizens, and using it to propel measures which extend the reach and control of federal liberties over the masses. (Safeguarded by intentionally opaque protections like circumstances in which warrants are no longer required to breach the privacy of anyone deemed dangerous. Deemed by whom, you may ask? Might as well not.) Eleven years straight. And since the "color threat gauge" system has been disbanded, I'll just assume it means that for over a decade now we haven't been in the "safe" range.

 

Anybody else starting to get jittery? Like...maybe we don't actually have a two party system after all? Maybe it's just one? Just positing a theory.

 

Off topic, but one last question: Why are the "frank" discussions between Obama and Boehner not televised? I propose that they absolutely should be, under demand of the citizens of the United States of America.