Yet another mass shooting...

[Vera]

I think saying people who are for keeping gun rights must not love their kids is an efficient way to not have any conversation about what gun laws could ever possibly be agreed upon.

Sorry. I kept it as nice as I could. Conversation doesn't work anyway. I have tried.

[Mergath]

I knew several people who were shot. I spent several days driving past numerous funerals every time I left my house. This issue makes my blood boil! I just don't understand why we in this country don't care enough about our children to pass some sensible gun control laws. Every time there is another mass shooting we hear the predictable comment that we just need more guns. ???

 

You know when you watch a horror movie, and you tell yourself, "That would never happen to me, because I wouldn't have gone into the creepy basement/woods/cave/etc."? It's like that. People think it won't happen to them because they carry around a little handgun and they could have stopped the shooter. It makes them feel like they have control. It's a way for them to deal with their fear. (And anyone who tells you they wouldn't be scared in a mass shooting situation because they CC and went to a firing range a couple times is either an idiot or is lying out their a**.)

 

It's totally irrational, of course. We have the NRA to thank for the mythologizing of guns as some kind of magical life-saving patriot wands.

[Mommy22alyns]

Is it at all possible to stop the inflammatory rhetoric here?

[Mergath]

Is it at all possible to stop the inflammatory rhetoric here?

 

Not if you think some of us wanting to get rid of all the (civilians') guns is "inflammatory rhetoric."

[T'smom]

I knew several people who were shot. I spent several days driving past numerous funerals every time I left my house. This issue makes my blood boil! I just don't understand why we in this country don't care enough about our children to pass some sensible gun control laws. Every time there is another mass shooting we hear the predictable comment that we just need more guns. ???

Oh, I realize that. It's just that that particular statistic made it feel closer to home for me. Obviously, it's always in the news, but it still seems distant to me personally.

 

And to someone else who said I should feel safer by subtracting the Chicago deaths..... I don't feel unsafe. Like, at all. I don't carry a gun, I don't lock my doors or my car, I go out at night- but I do live in a place that is very safe.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Is it at all possible to stop the inflammatory rhetoric here?

 

Maybe not.  I think some people feel so upset about the fact this keeps happening and nothing changes that they don't know what else to think than too many people don't care about finding a solution.

 

It is hard for me to understand why owning a gun is so important. 

 

That said, I do not think it's as simple as making guns illegal.  For one thing there are too many guns and people will still be able to get ahold of them.  Some crazy people think the answer is to make everyone own a gun (I don't sugar coat how I feel about that idea). 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I just think some of us are done with the "we've tried nothing but it hasn't worked!" response that we hear after every mass shooting.

Edited December 3, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Katy]

Not if you think some of us wanting to get rid of all the (civilians') guns is "inflammatory rhetoric."

 

The population that wants to get rid of all civilian guns is so low you'll never get a change to the constitution.  And if you try to force it through, my guess is it will result in a civil war.  Most of the military and police are pro-gun, so no one's going to fight that one.

[SparklyUnicorn]

The population that wants to get rid of all civilian guns is so low you'll never get a change to the constitution.  And if you try to force it through, my guess is it will result in a civil war.  Most of the military and police are pro-gun, so no one's going to fight that one.

 

you don't know that

[goldberry]

.  There are big issues with civil rights and a patient's right to privacy when it comes to mental health.

 

This issue was discussed in another thread. I am sorry if a person loses their right to own a gun because of mental health problems.  But that seems like the most basic and common sense place in the world to start. It absolutely astounds me that even that can't be agreed upon.  What about the rights of the rest of us not to be shot by mentally ill people with guns?  When does that start carrying any weight?

[Mergath]

The population that wants to get rid of all civilian guns is so low you'll never get a change to the constitution.  And if you try to force it through, my guess is it will result in a civil war.  Most of the military and police are pro-gun, so no one's going to fight that one.

 

Oh, I realize it will never happen. It's my "in a perfect world" scenario.

[Katy]

you don't know that

 

Sure I do.  Look at the statistics.  Look at the percentage of law enforcement & military that are members of the NRA.  Find any statistic that indicates otherwise.

[SparklyUnicorn]

This issue was discussed in another thread. I am sorry if a person loses their right to own a gun because of mental health problems.  But that seems like the most basic and common sense place in the world to start. It absolutely astounds me that even that can't be agreed upon.  What about the rights of the rest of us not to be shot by mentally ill people with guns?  When does that start carrying any weight?

 

I don't disagree, but I wonder how many shootings we'd actually prevent this way.  Not everyone comes to the attention of mental health workers.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Sure I do.  Look at the statistics.  Look at the percentage of law enforcement & military that are members of the NRA.  Find any statistic that indicates otherwise.

 

I don't believe any stat that comes out of the NRA.

So show me the stats. 

[Katy]

This issue was discussed in another thread. I am sorry if a person loses their right to own a gun because of mental health problems.  But that seems like the most basic and common sense place in the world to start. It absolutely astounds me that even that can't be agreed upon.  What about the rights of the rest of us not to be shot by mentally ill people with guns?  When does that start carrying any weight?

 

Oh, I agree.  But then I was the one arguing to bring back a public asylum system and force people to get treatment.  Many anti-gun people found that to be VERY inflammatory.

 

[Murphy101]

I don't think more gun laws are the answer. I think getting rid of all the damned guns is the answer. Police should have guns. The military should have guns. Nobody else should have guns.

Alrighty then. So this will stay this way bc those of similiar opinion to you refuse to compromise and instead want complete capitulation of those who view gun ownership as a citizens right to self defense.

 

And the gun advocates will hold up fear of people with your opinion taking away all their guns to keep the other side from being willing to compromise on any reasonable laws too.

 

That's exactly where we are at.

 

Personally, I don't think that's working very well.

[Katy]

I don't believe any stat that comes out of the NRA.

So show me the stats. 

 

I wasn't getting that from the NRA, I was getting it from the NY Times after the last incident.  You find any statistic that proves me wrong that isn't from Bernie Sanders.

[Vera]

Oh, I realize that. It's just that that particular statistic made it feel closer to home for me. Obviously, it's always in the news, but it still seems distant to me personally.

 

And to someone else who said I should feel safer by subtracting the Chicago deaths..... I don't feel unsafe. Like, at all. I don't carry a gun, I don't lock my doors or my car, I go out at night- but I do live in a place that is very safe.

I also live in a place that is very safe - until it wasn't.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I wasn't getting that from the NRA, I was getting it from the NY Times after the last incident.  You find any statistic that proves me wrong that isn't from Bernie Sanders.

 

Bernie Sanders loves guns.  No clue why you are so against him.

[Mergath]

Alrighty then. So this will stay this way bc those of similiar opinion to you refuse to compromise and instead want complete capitulation of those who view gun ownership as a citizens right to self defense.

 

And the gun advocates will hold up fear of people with your opinion taking away all their guns to keep the other side from being willing to compromise on any reasonable laws too.

 

That's exactly where we are at.

 

Personally, I don't think that's working very well.

 

When the NRA rallies the troops and acts like we're burning the Constitution itself over something like getting rid of extended magazines, there was never any hope for a compromise. They make their money by refusing every single compromise. 

[Murphy101]

That's extraordinarily inflammatory. You do realize that in large portions of the country average police response is more than three hours and it is frequently taught that it is your moral responsibility to have a gun to protect your family?

Why are you yelling at me?

 

I was responding to someone else claiming the reason these tragedies are happening is because gun advocates love their guns more than kids.

 

I was saying I didn't think that was a very good tactic if they actually want to change things bc I think gun advocates love their kids just as much as anyone else.

 

Please read what I wrote. Thank you.

[T'smom]

I also live in a place that is very safe - until it wasn't.

I get what you are saying. I almost typed "I live in a place that is (seems?) very safe. At any rate, I simply meant that I am not a fearful person.

[Vera]

I am so tired of saying this but I don't want to make guns illegal. I have been to many places in the U.S. That are so remote that I would own a gun if I lived there. But, civilians do not need to own semi automatic weapons and everyone who wants to buy a gun should go through an extensive background check and have some training. I bought Sudafed before scuba diving a couple years ago and I went through the third degree to get that. It would have been easier to buy a gun. That is insane.

[goldberry]

Alrighty then. So this will stay this way bc those of similiar opinion to you refuse to compromise and instead want complete capitulation of those who view gun ownership as a citizens right to self defense.

 

 

 

Can you give me an example of what gun-rights advocates have compromised?

 

Because to me it seems that gun-control advocates have offered lots of compromises short of take away all the guns.  Limits on types of weapons, limits on magazines, stricter background check control.  These compromises never once got support from the other side. They have been fought tooth and nail at every step.  The NRA has said they will not support ANY regulation or limitation. So which side does not want to compromise?

 

Editing, I see Murphy was also saying the other side wouldn't compromise as well.  But I do see compromises being offered and rejected.  

Edited December 3, 2015 by goldberry

[Katy]

Why are you yelling at me?

 

I was responding to someone else claiming the reason these tragedies are happening is because gun advocates love their guns more than kids.

 

I was saying I didn't think that was a very good tactic if they actually want to change things bc I think gun advocates love their kids just as much as anyone else.

 

Please read what I wrote. Thank you.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't read it that way.  I apologize.

[goldberry]

I don't disagree, but I wonder how many shootings we'd actually prevent this way.  Not everyone comes to the attention of mental health workers.

 

 

This is absolutely true.  But on the other thread, we were talking about where to *start*.  We have to start somewhere.  And no one can even agree on any starting point, or any compromise.

[Vera]

I get what you are saying. I almost typed "I live in a place that is (seems?) very safe. At any rate, I simply meant that I am not a fearful person.

I didn't want to argue with you. I just don't want people to keep thinking that these things happen somewhere else. My town is lovely and full of wonderful people who never lock their doors.

[Murphy101]

Can you give me an example of what gun-rights advocates have compromised?

 

Because to me it seems that gun-control advocates have offered lots of compromises short of take away all the guns. Limits on types of weapons, limits on magazines, stricter background check control. These compromises never once got support from the other side. They have been fought tooth and nail at every step. The NRA has said they will not support ANY regulation or limitation. So which side does not want to compromise?

I have no idea. I'm not in the NRA.

 

All I can say is what I would vote to change or what I would support my representatives in voting to change.

 

Depending on the background check, I'd likely be okay with that.

 

I'd be okay with some limits on ammo. No one needs to buy a 1000 rounds for their AK-47 to go duck hunting. On the other hand, I'm not against citizens having AK-47s either. I'd be okay with different levels of gun permits. Kind of like driver's licenses there's motorcycle license, regular car, bigger vehicles need class C or D or whatever and so forth..

 

I'd also be okay with requiring the background check with every purchase, not just for concealed carry. And I'm pro safety training as well.

[DragonFaerie]

Alrighty then. So this will stay this way bc those of similiar opinion to you refuse to compromise and instead want complete capitulation of those who view gun ownership as a citizens right to self defense.

 

And the gun advocates will hold up fear of people with your opinion taking away all their guns to keep the other side from being willing to compromise on any reasonable laws too.

 

That's exactly where we are at.

 

Personally, I don't think that's working very well.

 

The problem is that the criminals already don't obey the laws. You know, like the you-shouldn't-kill-people law? So what good would more laws do? The only way to stop the madness is to get rid of the guns. ALL the guns. Then you wouldn't have to have a gun to protect your family from a guy with a gun because he wouldn't have a gun either!

Edited December 3, 2015 by DragonFaerie

[Murphy101]

This is absolutely true. But on the other thread, we were talking about where to *start*. We have to start somewhere. And no one can even agree on any starting point, or any compromise.

I need a virtual sign I can wave while screaming and jumping up and down.

 

I have repeatedly listed things I think would be very helpful as a starting point.

 

I usually get crickets in response.

 

I guess because my start is big huge and sweeping enough.

 

But my suggestions are also proven to be effective and we have known reasonable expectation of how to fund it and work it.

 

No, I'm not willing to just do anything for the saying of "doing something!"

 

But I am very supportive of meaningful steps.

 

And yes, I still want to know wth is going on that there is such a surge in mass violence these days. Neither mental illness nor gun ownership nor mass violence are new, but the level of the mass violence most certainly is and I think finding out why would be worth knowing.

[goldberry]

I'm just not seeing compromise. In Colorado after Sandy Hook, they passed a few pretty reasonable gun control laws, certainly nothing revolutionary.  Several politicians were booted out after that, because "how dare they!??"  They lost their careers because they tried to be reasonable.  Reasonable just doesn't sell any more.

[Kristie in Florida]

Guns aren't the only thing that kills people. Taking away all the guns won't help.

[goldberry]

I need a virtual sign I can wave while screaming and jumping up and down.

 

 

 

Murph, I wasn't talking about you specifically.  You have given some ideas that seem reasonable. I'm talking about the possibility of seeing yours or anyone's ideas implemented in today's political climate.  Compromise is a dirty word  right now.

[Slache]

The problem is that the criminals already don't obey the laws. You know, like the you-shouldn't-kill-people law? So what good would more laws do? The only way to stop the madness is to get rid of the guns. ALL the guns. Then you wouldn't have to protect your family from a guy with a gun because he wouldn't have a gun either!

Then we'd have no guns just like we have no drugs in this country.

[Stacia]

I have no idea. I'm not in the NRA.

 

Just FYI, re: the standard NRA stance:

 

(From the Washington Post...)

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby

 

(Posted on the BBC website...)

David Keene: No compromise on right to bear arms 

[Mommy22alyns]

Not if you think some of us wanting to get rid of all the (civilians') guns is "inflammatory rhetoric."

 

No, but this kind of language is:  We have the NRA to thank for the mythologizing of guns as some kind of magical life-saving patriot wands.

 

Believe it or not, it is possible to have a somewhat mature conversation, even about controversial subjects, without resorting to insulting and demeaning anyone who doesn't agree with you.  I realize you have a hard time with that, though.

[goldberry]

Guns aren't the only thing that kills people. Taking away all the guns won't help.

 

Right. Because gun control never helped other countries either. (sarcasm)  Sorry, but I'm tired of hearing the same worn-out arguments contradicted by actual facts.

 

My words are sharp, I am sad and angry tonight.  Better to sign off!  :crying:

[Valley Girl]

The problem is that the criminals already don't obey the laws. You know, like the you-shouldn't-kill-people law? So what good would more laws do? The only way to stop the madness is to get rid of the guns. ALL the guns. Then you wouldn't have to protect your family from a guy with a gun because he wouldn't have a gun either!

 

I understand your feeling. Unfortunately, we don't live in the ideal world required for that approach to work.

[Guest]

Why do people keep talking about taking *my* guns? I'm not the one shooting people. Why should I lose a constitutional right to self defense because someone else breaks the law?

 

The knee jerk reaction to remove firearms every time there is a shooting is so tired. That's not a real solution to crime - curtailing the freedoms of law abiding citizens does truly little to inhibit criminal behavior. That's like prohibition because a .5% people got drunk and drove home.

 

No.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[Kristie in Florida]

Right. Because gun control never helped other countries either. (sarcasm) Sorry, but I'm tired of hearing the same worn-out arguments contradicted by actual facts.

 

My words are sharp, I am sad and angry tonight. Better to sign off! :crying:

Sorry. :( I'm sad and angry too. I don't know any statistics either. I just know that if someone really wanted to hurt me or my babies not getting access to a gun wouldn't stop them. Edited December 3, 2015 by Kristie in Florida

[redsquirrel]

Guns aren't the only thing that kills people. Taking away all the guns won't help.

 

Yes, it isn't that we have so many guns compared to the rest of the world. It's just that we are better shots.

 

 

And I bet it would have helped those babies in Sandy Hook elementary school and the people in that movie theater in Colorado, and the people at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado, and the people at Fort Hood, and the people in California today.  I really think it might have helped them.

[Murphy101]

The problem is that the criminals already don't obey the laws. You know, like the you-shouldn't-kill-people law? So what good would more laws do? The only way to stop the madness is to get rid of the guns. ALL the guns. Then you wouldn't have to protect your family from a guy with a gun because he wouldn't have a gun either!

Criminals don't exist in other places? People don't ever commit murder in other places?

 

They even shoot each other in those places.

 

They still need to be protected from those with murderous intent. They just rely on someone else, a government official, to do it for them.

 

I have no qualms with them doing that. I think anyone who doesn't want to own a gun should absolutely not own a gun.

 

But others here are not comfortable with that expectation that the government will take care of them. Or they don't think it is reasonable for citizens to expect that a government the size of ours spread over land the size of ours could even be expected to do so effectively.

[TranquilMind]

I'm not even surprised any more.  If nothing changed after Sandy Hook, when how many babies were slaughtered, then nothing will change.

 

If we wanted it to change we would change it, but we don't so we won't. 

 

We love our guns more than we love our children, that's all there is to it.

That's just ridiculous.

Maybe we love our drugs more than we love our children.  Because most of these shooters - the ones who aren't committing jihadist acts, anyway - are users of psychiatric drugs.

 

The guns don't actually hurt anyone by themselves.  They have to be used by someone with ill intent or who is mentally disturbed. 

[redsquirrel]

That's just ridiculous.

Maybe we love our drugs more than we love our children.  Because most of these shooters - the ones who aren't committing jihadist acts, anyway - are users of psychiatric drugs.

 

The guns don't actually hurt anyone by themselves.  They have to be used by someone with ill intent or who is mentally disturbed. 

 

yes, but the gun helps. You have to admit, just standing there yelling BANG at people isn't going to do much.

[Vera]

Why do people keep talking about taking *my* guns? I'm not the one shooting people. Why should I lose a constitutional right to self defense because someone else breaks the law?

 

The knee jerk reaction to remove firearms every time there is a shooting is so tired. That's not a real solution to crime - curtailing the freedoms of law abiding citizens does truly little to inhibit criminal behavior. That's like prohibition because a .5% people got drunk and drove home.

 

No.

OK, I will say it again. I do not want to take away your guns. I repeat, I do no want to take away your guns. None of the gun control laws that have been proposed and shot down by the NRA said anything about taking away your guns.

[Mergath]

No, but this kind of language is:  We have the NRA to thank for the mythologizing of guns as some kind of magical life-saving patriot wands.

 

Believe it or not, it is possible to have a somewhat mature conversation, even about controversial subjects, without resorting to insulting and demeaning anyone who doesn't agree with you.  I realize you have a hard time with that, though.

 

That's not inflammatory. That's exactly what the NRA has done. They've turned guns into idols of patriotism, and those who want to regulate them into enemies of freedom. Where in that sentence did I insult you? I'm assuming you don't work for the NRA.

[Vera]

Sorry. :( I'm sad and angry too. I don't know any statistics either. I just know that if someone really wanted to hurt me or my babies not getting access to a gun wouldn't stop them.

On the same day as the Sandy Hook school shooting, a man in China attacked 24 people in a school with a knife. There were no fatalities.

[Kristie in Florida]

On the same day as the Sandy Hook school shooting, a man in China attacked 24 people in a school with a knife. There were no fatalities.

I think I remember reading about that.

 

It was also my daughters birthday that day.

 

I obviously don't have all the answers.

[Katy]

And yet as France demonstrates, even banning all guns can backfire if you don't have border control.  Especially when police aren't as well armed as criminals.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/15/paris-attacks-highlight-frances-gun-control-problems

[Mommy22alyns]

That's not inflammatory. That's exactly what the NRA has done. They've turned guns into idols of patriotism, and those who want to regulate them into enemies of freedom. Where in that sentence did I insult you? I'm assuming you don't work for the NRA.

 

 

So I suppose that you concede that stating facts about Planned Parenthood (which has already been brought up in this thread a few times, so I'm not responsible for derailing) is also not inflammatory?  Stating the facts about what exactly an abortion is, isn't inflammatory?  I mean, if "magical life saving patriot wands" is plain and simple fact...?

 

It is also possible to consider something to be inflammatory even if it isn't personally insulting.  Again, a difficult concept for some, but entirely logical.