And people wonder why the US is so divided

[Saunders]

 

The only way to truly "fix" the shooting problem is to make them illegal across the board. But, as has been shown when the government bans things, they will still be accesable via exceptions for the rich and powerful. It will affect minorities and middle/lower income folks vastly more. So, as has been the case for the last 50 years, the wealth and power in the country will be further condensed to the top 1% of the population. Basically, a return to the rich, white land owners model.

 

But for reals, as a gun owner, (who doesn't like the NRA) I think there's certainly things we can changed, but compromise doesn't get votes, and politicians want a splash. Stuff like "hi-cap" mags, and "assault weapons" is pure posturing. Mental health, better BG checks, and poverty are real fixes.

I can't say this with 100 percent certainty, but if only the rich and powerful (possibly an allegory to government if we disarm the population?) had guns, I don't think you see mass shootings. Those doing the shootings are of lower status/wealth demographics.

 

Oh, I agree we'd see them go down dramatically. I also think you'd see crime go way up. As for rich and powerful, put politicians, political donors, celebrities, CEO's, etc on that list. Laws like that only affect regular citizens.

[husker_fan_from_sweden]

Every excuse under the sun, barring the one that's the actual problem.

 

It's not guns, it's mental health.

 

It's not guns, it's rape.

 

It's not guns, it's the people using the guns.

 

It's not guns, it's Obama.

 

 

Nope.

 

It's the guns. Really really.

 

I'll just leave this here for anyone who wants to think that MORE gun control will make ANYONE safer.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

What's an acceptable amount of time to wait after a tragedy for the President to address it?

 

If he waits too long or doesn't comment at all he gets criticized for not caring. If he doesn't wait long enough he gets criticized for trying to make political points.

 

Certainly not hours after the tragedy when some family members still didn't know if there loved one was killed. Here is what the President should have said:

 

"Today we are here to mourn the loss of more young lives lost to a madman, and our prayers and condolences go out to those families and loved ones affected. There is too much gun violence in this nation, and I call on members of both parties to come together and partner with me to analyze why this continues to happen, but that is not a discussion for today. Today we must support the families and the community college during this difficult time. Thank you very much."

 

That's fine. I'll agree with that. But let's also stop the other post-shooting bullsh#t where politicians say "The victims and families are in our prayers." but do absolutely nothing but line their pockets with donations from the gun lobby. More gun control may or may not work (seems to be working pretty well in Australia though, right?). But saying prayers for victims regularly absolutely is not working.

 

Not sure why I'm even bothering taking part in this. Nothing was done after Sandy Hook, so clearly too many people have decided that it's not worth even trying to prevent children from dying needlessly again. It's hard, and it won't be 100% effective, so let's not even make an effort.

 

As Jeb Bush says, "Stuff happens." You can always say prayers after stuff happens, amirite?

 

 

First off, I don't agree with Jeb's comments whatsoever. But to your point, this is no proof that increased gun control helps, and as the study I referenced earlier, it actually has resulted in more gun crime. Both sides of this argument simply focus on guns and the weapon used, when a mass killing such as this is a much larger issue than the weapon of choice. I would like to hear Obama and other gun-control advocates acknowledge that simply putting in legislation to restrict guns does NOT solve the problem.

[HuskerNation1]

 

1. Wrong. I implied nothing - I provided facts concerning the background of the authors for the reasons I stated. The second reason was to demonstrate their conclusion were subject to a degree of disbelief, which was further proof that it does not meet the definition of a "study", not concerning the validity of their opinions. If you drew an inference other than that, that's your right. But it is YOUR inference; it was not my implication.

 

2. Wrong again. I did not refute their conclusions (note that they cited others for facts; they did nothing more than draw conclusions from the facts provided by others - in short, those were not their facts, nor their "findings"; they were simply conclusions), either explicitly or impliedly.

 

 

Well their conclusions were pretty darn clear, so if you are not refuting them, then that helps support the argument they and other studies have found that gun control is counterproductive and the wrong area of focus if we want to address the root cause behind why criminals are committing these acts.

 

Here are some other data points since some in this thread are into sharing nice charts and graphs. Please note the final one that shows that crime in Australia has increased since their gun ban.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/07/16/gun-safety/12678271/

 

http://www.thedailygouge.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/47358233553276616_kZ1rXdNs_b.jpg

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IxqaFui1lRw/UOBwgLXJiVI/AAAAAAABEEY/C8NQf-sK174/s1600/121230-guns-010.jpg

 

http://i0.wp.com/www.armedwithreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/539264_10151555914761833_416157604_n1.jpg?fit=1024%2C1024

 

https://atruthsoldier.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/australia-since-gun-ban.jpg

[knapplc]

Why do you NEED guns?

 

Simple question. Why?

[Saunders]

Why do you NEED guns?

 

Simple question. Why?

To protect myself, and my family.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Why do you NEED guns?

 

Simple question. Why?

 

We need them for when the terrorists [Obama] take over.

[knapplc]

 

Why do you NEED guns?

 

Simple question. Why?

To protect myself, and my family.

 

 

The expected answer, and it has merit. But, in light of all the data showing a decline in violent crime, does that change your attitude about the necessity of a gun?

[Saunders]

 

 

Why do you NEED guns?

 

Simple question. Why?

To protect myself, and my family.

 

 

The expected answer, and it has merit. But, in light of all the data showing a decline in violent crime, does that change your attitude about the necessity of a gun?

 

Nope. I'm a take precautions kind of guy. I have always believed that it's our duty as citizens, and just people in general, to be prepared for life. Don't put yourself in position to have to be reliant on others. I have a hurricane kit (I do live in FL), and always bring an emergency bag on road trips. I live on the edge of a large city, and at best, the cops are 10 minutes away with a 911 call. My wife is well versed in how to handle our firearms, and once my boys will be too. I personally know 2 people who have been saved because of having a firearm in their posession. One was a buddy who was on a road trip and a guy pulled a knife on him at a rest stop, the other was a cousin (in law?) who had her home broken into when she was home alone with their baby. Neither even fired a shot.

 

I do fully believe that there are things we can do to minimize gun violence, but, I also think that it's a human right that people should be allowed to protect themselves.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

Why do you NEED guns?

 

Simple question. Why?

To protect myself, and my family.

 

 

The expected answer, and it has merit. But, in light of all the data showing a decline in violent crime, does that change your attitude about the necessity of a gun?

 

knapp, it isn't always necessarily about "real" crime. As I've referenced before, look at the invasion that is currently taking place in Europe. Governments are kicking people out of their homes to make room for "refugees". When governments know that citizens are unarmed, they feel as though they have much more carte blanche to engage in this kind of activity. If you don't believe that the U.S. government would be more likely to subject the population to more totalitarian-like measures such as the one mentioned if the population was unarmed, I don't know what to say to convince you.

[knapplc]

knapp, it isn't always necessarily about "real" crime. As I've referenced before, look at the invasion that is currently taking place in Europe. Governments are kicking people out of their homes to make room for "refugees". When governments know that citizens are unarmed, they feel as though they have much more carte blanche to engage in this kind of activity. If you don't believe that the U.S. government would be more likely to subject the population to more totalitarian-like measures such as the one mentioned if the population was unarmed, I don't know what to say to convince you.

What modern government is concerned that its citizens have rifles when they have smart bombs? Taking up arms against the government is no longer an option. What good will your handguns and rifles do against air power?

 

The ONLY way to prevent this is through the ballot box. Vote every time, be knowledgeable, and encourage better candidates.

[BigRedBuster]

This is a typical American political issue that both sides are F'ed up on.

 

Yes, there can be reasonable gun legislation that doesn't affect law abiding citizens. I really question the logistics of doing that. I think you could put the most strict gun laws in place and idiots are still going to have them. I guess it would make some people feel safer.

 

A really big issue in this though is a culture issue. And....once again....both sides are F'ed up on this issue.

 

Call me racist or whatever you want, but most gun violence is not in your middle class and rich neighborhoods. And, don't give me the crap that it's these poor poor people who have nothing else in life to do other than go around and shoot people. In these areas of the country, it is a cultural issue. When you have teenagers feeling like they need to be packing heat to either be cool, be a member of a gang or protect themselves from anyone else walking down the street, we have a major problem. Detroit tops the list of the most dangerous cities with 54.6 murders per 100,000 residents. Anyone who is associated with Detroit should be pathetically embarrassed by the culture that obviously is in that city. It needs cleaned up ASAP and that will take some very very strong police action. I know, nobody wants to say that because right now that's not politically correct. But, in other cities like Chicago and NYC where a mayor has gone in and actually gotten tough, the murder rate has gone down. Are Americans/liberals willing to allow stop and search laws in these areas? Oh...no...that would be racist (even though the murder rate might drop dramatically).

 

Now, before any right wingers start yelling...hell yeah....The right wing is just as F'ed up as anyone else. I have close friends who are totally convinced that Obama and the government is trying to take their guns away. So....guess what, they are stock piling their guns. Heck, they buy guns right and left and when I ask the why, they either chuckle and say...I don't know....or they give me some convoluted answer about buying them before they are illegal.

 

What a bunch of BS. As in anything politically in this country, look to see who benefits financially from the propaganda that is being put out. The NRA is flooding America with all this BS about the tyrannical government wanting to take our guns away and we need to fight back...and, oh BTW....go buy a gun. OK....who do you think the biggest donors to the NRA are? Don't you think that the gun and ammunition manufacturers are a major part of the NRA? Now....who benefits financially by creating an hysteria about the government taking our guns away and so everyone needs to go buy them?

 

This is one of the most amazing advertising/propaganda events in the world history and the gun and ammo manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

I am a gun owner and I use my guns for sport. Some of the best memories I will ever have of my son growing up is taking him hunting and it would be absolutely horrible if that would ever have to come to an end. I don't see that happening. Honestly, I have absolutely no clue how I would defend myself with any of the guns I have. Maybe if I knew ahead of time there was going to be an invasion and I had time to go to the closet and get my shotgun and load it and be ready....But, that's a pretty far fetched chance.

 

Once again, this is an issue that will never go away. The left will always cry for more gun laws and the right will always cry claiming the left wants to take our guns away. Meanwhile, the politicians and gun and ammo manufacturers are laughing at everyone else giving them this power.

[Saunders]

Well said BRB.

[zoogs]

I think about the battle we had over the tobacco lobby. Cigs are totally fine for anyone who wants to use them, but they're also a health hazard -- individual and otherwise. The restrictions, anti-smoking campaigns, etc in place over them are more onerous compared to other countries but I'm also thankful for them because it's a public health positive in this country. I feel the same way about guns. There will always be minority misuers and in this case, it's to devastating effect. There are also people who aren't mentally ill but who also misuse guns, the same way people misuse cigarettes or alcohol. For example, domestic threat and battery or access by children.

 

If a greater light could be shone on this, perhaps more people could see guns for what they are. The people who still want them can get them. Maybe gradually the overall gun population comes down, and the ones who have them are a lot more responsible about them -- part education, part having to demonstrate that responsibility first, etc. And maybe we see this problem start to ameliorate. Like the three Cleveland children killed in the past month in separate shootings.

 

Anyway, it seems similar to me. The difference being the NRA has been far more successful as a lobby in resisting. And like BRB said, some of the reactionary control efforts from the other side maybe just haven't been too sensible.

[BigRedBuster]

I think about the battle we had over the tobacco lobby. Cigs are totally fine for anyone who wants to use them, but they're also a health hazard -- individual and otherwise. The restrictions, anti-smoking campaigns, etc in place over them are more onerous compared to other countries but I'm also thankful for them because it's a public health positive in this country. I feel the same way about guns. There will always be minority misuers and in this case, it's to devastating effect. There are also people who aren't mentally ill but who also misuse guns, the same way people misuse cigarettes or alcohol. For example, domestic threat and battery or access by children.

 

If a greater light could be shone on this, perhaps more people could see guns for what they are. The people who still want them can get them. Maybe gradually the overall gun population comes down, and the ones who have them are a lot more responsible about them -- part education, part having to demonstrate that responsibility first, etc. And maybe we see this problem start to ameliorate. Like the three Cleveland children killed in the past month in separate shootings.

 

Anyway, it seems similar to me. The difference being the NRA has been far more successful as a lobby in resisting. And like BRB said, some of the reactionary control efforts from the other side maybe just haven't been too sensible.

What about that changes the culture in areas like Detroit? Is some 13 year old kid that is joining a gang going to give a rip about some advertisement telling him guns are dangerous? Heck, he already probably smokes a pack a day.

 

Meanwhile, look at all of the gun safety, hunter safety and conceal carry classes that teach law abiding citizens what the dangers are and how to avoid them.