s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[Katy]

My concern with gang crime over others is that it is largely ignored and is getting worse.  The local news station we tune into most frequently is in Tulsa.  I cannot remember a time I watched it where there wasn't news about a shooting.  Most frequently it is attributed to gangs and Mexican drug cartels.  It is also frequently family murders or murder-suicide situations.  The gang situation in Chicago is so bad that Spike Lee has a new movie out about it called Chi-Raq.  He says it's more dangerous to live in the South side of Chicago than in Iraq.  Shooting your family is clearly preventable, and if I take the billboards around here seriously, there is evidence that native American populations have higher rates of domestic violence.  Domestic violence, and murdering family members, exist in places where guns are banned completely though, and so I'd argue addressing that is beyond the scope of this gun control thread.

 

Why is it unconstitutional?  It doesn't go into effect unless the technology becomes available, therefor no rights are being infringed upon at this time.

 

Regarding regulations...that is a big depends and what establishes undue/costly can vary greatly, and not all costly EPA regulations have been struck down.

 

You did notice my "/" between the two items?  The NRA opposes both.

 

I have to laugh though. Simple things like protecting children from guns and technology that prevents guns from not being used by the rightful owner once again becomes a wearisome burden for gun owners.

 

Smart guns are already being sold.  It isn't some vague future thing.  It's already happening. Banning all guns from being sold without being a smart gun isn't constitutional.

 

I doubt the NRA opposes trigger locks from being commercially available, since they recommend using them in certain circumstances in their own gun safety classes.  What they oppose is them being mandatory on every weapon sold. Given that trigger locks add expense and reduce the usefulness of a weapon for self defense, I'm not sure I don't agree with them on that. I don't know, I haven't looked into a cost/benefit analysis. I do know many police departments provide them for free.

 

You've said this more than once and I don't get it, especially since it's been pointed out to you that some of us for gun control do not fear them. At all. I could flip it and say that those opposed to gun control are apparently so in fear for their lives, and their loved ones, that they need professional help. I, personally, can't imagine being so afraid that I need a gun in my home and/or on my person. I grew up with guns, I know how to handle and shoot them, I am comfortable with them and around them, yet I have zero desire to own one and have it in my home or on me at any time. So, please stop reducing it to "those people want this because they are afraid of guns". It's just not true. 

 

People are afraid of guns, and they push for increases in gun control laws that aren't effective, but, as has been stated here numerous times, at least they did something.  They don't care that it's demonstrably true ahead of a law change that it won't help.  They just want to do something so they feel better.

 

Doing something ineffective that tramples other citizen's rights for the sole purpose of making people feel better because they did something about the evil guns is my point. I don't have to go far to make it, because it's right here, in this thread, numerous times.

 

First, only a couple of posters endorse banning guns.

Second, though, the assertion that se people live in places where guns are a necessity is 1) created by the gun culture and 2) imposed down onto situations by the influence of gun culture.

It is not fact any more than you can be safe without a gun is fact.

 

Right.  So the fact that my life was saved by a gun is imaginary, or was caused by the criminal having access to guns too?

 

Yes, you can argue that many or even most of these situations would happen with different weapons if we were like France and banned all guns.  Criminals by definition disobey laws.

[Guest]

Thank you for sharing this. Have we talked much about this on these threads? It's beginning to run altogether for me.

 

So is this part of the frustration for responsible gun owners? That not enough is being done about the criminals with guns, while people focus on private gun ownership? Two years ago, a 27 yo colleague of my dd's was shot in the head in front of her two young dd's by her estranged husband. He was a convicted felon with a restraining order on him. He was arrested with a loaded gun in his possession and there were three additional guns and a ton of ammunition in his apartment. I cannot find any info on who supplied the guns, but would love to see them do some prison time or maybe pay $x into a fund for the dd's.

YES. For myself, it is this.

 

And I'm sorry about your daughter's colleague.

[Word Nerd]

Someone in a nearby buy/sell/trade group on Facebook is selling a Bushmaster Carbon 15 rifle. It's a private seller, so no background checks are needed, and it's a legal sale in my state. It's insane to me how easy it is to buy guns here, including for those who have illicit intentions for the guns.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Word Nerd

[OnMyOwn]

Only if you change the definition. By a Mother Jones editor's count, there have only been 4 this year. This is his op-ed in the NY Times on why the count is highly politicized and designed to terrify you. I'd hardly call Mother Jones conservative.

Thanks for posting this. With all the rhetoric about there being a mass murder shooting for every day of the year, I was starting to fear going to any public places. I read the paper every day, but still bought into the nonsense of 355 mass murders this year.

 

This is why people don't believe in "facts" anymore. Because they are distorted and twisted to support whatever agenda is being pushed.

 

My husband owns guns and teaches shooting skills at scout camp. We have no problems with gun control. We don't want guns in the hands of criminals. However, while I wish it would, I don't believe it will make a difference in these mass shootings. The only thing that I think would eliminate that is a gun ban and I do not see that happening.

 

I still can't get over the 355 number and that I was actually buying into it.

[Tanaqui]

How would you define somebody murdering their family of five if not a "mass" murder? And if they do it with a gun, it is certainly a "shooting".

 

Nobody ever claimed that those mass shootings took place in public, nor that they were all random acts of senseless violence against strangers. That number isn't "nonsense" - it's making sure we don't ignore the majority of these crimes.

[8circles]

I'm not sure why people want to keep taking certain categories out of the numbers of shootings. It seems like people only want to know how many people *who are like me* are killed. To hell with all the other people that die because of guns. The DV one is particularly confusing. People in DV situations are people who are just like me whose family member has been programmed to reach for their gun to solve a problem. Why are these numbers not relevant?

[OnMyOwn]

I think it's obvious. I want to keep my family safe and the thought that people are randomly storming public places on a daily basis makes me fearful to go anywhere. I believe that is the point of lumping those numbers in with the mass shootings. To make me personally feel fearful so that I will support gun control.

 

In the end, it only makes me feel fearful because I already support gun control.

 

I do care about gang shootings and domestic violence, but don't feel there is much there that I can do, other than to support gun control. Which I already do, and which many states already have.

 

But, yeah, I don't want to live in fear because I'm misunderstanding statistics. I was really starting to feel wary about going to the mall or even the library.

[poppy]

The whole reason we have ambiguity over what is or is not a shooting is because our CONGRESS bans research on gun violence.   Or , more accurately, bans funding it. That's the absurd thing.  Obfuscate, hide, stir debate, control the conversation. All thanks to the NRA. 

 

The reason is that guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Guns aren't a disease so we can't track it for public safety.  But Congress has not extended that same reasoning to tracking car accidents, pool safety, fires, asbestos, earthquakes.... those all kill people. But funding for gun research is banned.  

 

Data gathering  being banned is completely against public interest.

[8circles]

I think it's obvious. I want to keep my family safe and the thought that people are randomly storming public places on a daily basis makes me fearful to go anywhere. I believe that is the point of lumping those numbers in with the mass shootings. To make me personally feel fearful so that I will support gun control.

 

In the end, it only makes me feel fearful because I already support gun control.

 

I do care about gang shootings and domestic violence, but don't feel there is much there that I can do, other than to support gun control. Which I already do, and which many states already have.

 

But, yeah, I don't want to live in fear because I'm misunderstanding statistics. I was really starting to feel wary about going to the mall or even the library.

 

Yup, it was obvious.  You don't care about the people who aren't like you who are killed in mass shootings.

 

You keep saying that these aren't really mass shootings and call the numbers nonsense.  The *fact* is there have been 355 mass shootings - defined as "incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire"

 

what would you call those if not mass shootings?

 

If you are only interested in a certain kind of mass shootings, then I guess you should look for those specific numbers, especially if you've been so afraid you can't even go to the mall.  But it doesn't make the 355 number false.  

 

& there is a lot we can do to help stop these tragedies from happening.  We need to change our gun culture.  Including being informed about our actual *needs* for carrying guns, being honest about the kinds of danger we are actually in on a daily basis. Also not normalizing guns being carried in public, just because they have that right.  More guns, more accessible guns are not the answer.  Don't buy into *that*.

[J-rap]

But couldn't this be said about many many things. For instance, the first amendment.

 

But if it's a law that puts people at greater risk of being harmed or even killed, then it seems like it needs to be re-evaluated from time to time. 

[Katy]

I'm not sure why people want to keep taking certain categories out of the numbers of shootings. It seems like people only want to know how many people *who are like me* are killed. To hell with all the other people that die because of guns. The DV one is particularly confusing. People in DV situations are people who are just like me whose family member has been programmed to reach for their gun to solve a problem. Why are these numbers not relevant?

 

That's right, I'm most concerned about *my* family's safety.  And I would argue that is absolutely morally correct and psychologically healthy. And when the media outright lies about the dangers of going to a Christmas party, to school, or to a movie and makes it seem as if we are all in equal danger, when in fact poor choices put most of those people in their situations, I'm going to call a spade a spade.  The media is lying to you to try to convince us to change the constitution and take away guns from everyone.

 

DV is terrible.  I've had extended family members that were victims.  I've volunteered to help at DV shelters & networks.  DV will continue, and familial murders will continue even if all guns are banned.  Guns are not the problem there, violence is.

 

I'm still mystified as to why people don't freak out about gang violence. I suspect it's because of racism and the thought that they are more concerned with people who are just like them.  To hell with those other people, isn't that the way you put it?

 

 

 

I think it's obvious. I want to keep my family safe and the thought that people are randomly storming public places on a daily basis makes me fearful to go anywhere. I believe that is the point of lumping those numbers in with the mass shootings. To make me personally feel fearful so that I will support gun control.

 

In the end, it only makes me feel fearful because I already support gun control.

 

I do care about gang shootings and domestic violence, but don't feel there is much there that I can do, other than to support gun control. Which I already do, and which many states already have.

 

But, yeah, I don't want to live in fear because I'm misunderstanding statistics. I was really starting to feel wary about going to the mall or even the library.

 

Yes, it's all about manipulation.  The truth is that as long as you live in a safe neighborhood, you are safer than you have ever been.

[EmseB]

Yup, it was obvious.  You don't care about the people who aren't like you who are killed in mass shootings.

 

You keep saying that these aren't really mass shootings and call the numbers nonsense.  The *fact* is there have been 355 mass shootings - defined as "incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire"

 

what would you call those if not mass shootings?

 

If you are only interested in a certain kind of mass shootings, then I guess you should look for those specific numbers, especially if you've been so afraid you can't even go to the mall.  But it doesn't make the 355 number false.  

 

& there is a lot we can do to help stop these tragedies from happening.  We need to change our gun culture.  Including being informed about our actual *needs* for carrying guns, being honest about the kinds of danger we are actually in on a daily basis. Also not normalizing guns being carried in public, just because they have that right.  More guns, more accessible guns are not the answer.  Don't buy into *that*.

 

First off, for the bolded, that's a horrible thing to say to anyone.  I mean, really, really horrible.  Because they don't agree with your conclusions they don't care about people being killed?

 

And secondly, the numbers have to mean something.  Words have to mean something.  People put things into context by what they are called.  You can contend that when someone says "mass shooting" they think of an incident like what you describe (4 or more, could be domestic, could be gang violence, could be whatever), but when a mass shooting happens where dozens of people are killed or injured in a public place and then the media says that 355 mass shootings happen every year, I'm sure they are going for some kind of equivalence, whether it applies or not.  They are looking for an emotional reaction, not on based on facts or specific circumstances.  They are looking to make people afraid.  And when the general public looks into it and says, "Oh, they don't mean mass shootings like what I just saw on TV, they mean any incident" then you have the exact effect of desensitizing people to the thing you want to be alarmist about.  So when someone else comes along and says, no, there were only 4 mass shootings, people sigh with relief.  They are relieved by the number 4 because it isn't 355, and then you've lost your audience because if it isn't as bad as you've made it out to be by a multiple of 90, maybe it's not something I have to worry about.  If you want to talk about preventing incidents like Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, Paris, Virginia Tech, etc....then the 355 number is absolutely false and unhelpful.

 

The context matters and the words matter and the circumstances for gun related deaths has to matter in any argument about gun control.  It has to matter because ultimately the laws anyone should want to pass are the laws that would solve or stop a specific problem.  Imprecise language for the sake of making people emotional and fearful isn't a good argument and it doesn't lead to good solutions.  It just alienates one side from the other, especially if your end conclusion is that because people don't agree with the emotional rhetoric, they don't care about other human beings.

 

Statistics are used to mislead people all the time.  This would be no exception.

[8circles]

That's right, I'm most concerned about *my* family's safety. That isn't what I said.  I said people like you.  That doesn't mean YOUR FAMILY. And I would argue that is absolutely morally correct and psychologically healthy. And when the media outright lies about the dangers of going to a Christmas party, to school, or to a movie and makes it seem as if we are all in equal danger, when in fact poor choices put most of those people in their situations, I'm going to call a spade a spade.  The media is lying to you to try to convince us to change the constitution and take away guns from everyone. How is the media lying to me?  I'm not the one that's scared to go to the mall.  I'm not scared of cars parked on my street, strange men ringing my doorbell - in fact, I can't think of anyplace that I go that I don't feel safe.  Except sometimes when I go to church (on the edge of a not-so-nice part of town where many of my fellow church-goers actually live).  That doesn't mean I'm unconcerned about the number of shooting deaths in this country - even if it's unlikely to be me or my family.  How is the media trying to change the constitution?  Who is trying to take all the guns away? 

 

DV is terrible.  I've had extended family members that were victims.  I've volunteered to help at DV shelters & networks.  DV will continue, and familial murders will continue even if all guns are banned.  Guns are not the problem there, violence is.  Yes, and you're refusing to acknowledge the impact our gun culture has on these DV situations.  Why are guns ever an answer to a problem?  Because that's what these people are thinking, they have a problem and a gun will help, so they kill their family.  Problem solved!  It isn't about taking away all the guns - it's about not being a dumb-ass and grabbing for your gun just because you can.

 

I'm still mystified as to why people don't freak out about gang violence. I suspect it's because of racism and the thought that they are more concerned with people who are just like them.  To hell with those other people, isn't that the way you put it?  I have no idea what you mean here.  Do you think *I'm* unconcerned with gang violence?  I think the root problem is the same, so if that's what you're saying it doesn't hold.  ETA:  I just realized... You're the one who keeps saying to take out the gang related number.  It's YOU who's doing that.  WHat on earth is your point with this statement?  The numbers are included because people are concerned about them.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it's all about manipulation.  The truth is that as long as you live in a safe neighborhood, you are safer than you have ever been.  Yes, I agree.  I'm not afraid.  I AM concerned about the number of shooting deaths, even if it's not going to be me.

 

Edited December 5, 2015 by 8circles

[TechWife]

It's pretty clear that the end-game is to deem guns a public health issue and give CDC jurisdiction to regulate them for the good of public safety.

The CDC is not a regulatory agency. Edited December 5, 2015 by TechWife

[Audrey]

I think it's a lost cause. Little kids get shot to shit at their little school desks and no legislation resulted. What a sad write off. So... go ahead.  Arm up and shoot the crap out of each other.  It's the favourite national pastime after all. 

 

IMO, it's not worth wasting anymore of my breath over.

[OnMyOwn]

Yup, it was obvious. You don't care about the people who aren't like you who are killed in mass shootings.

 

You keep saying that these aren't really mass shootings and call the numbers nonsense. The *fact* is there have been 355 mass shootings - defined as "incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire"

 

what would you call those if not mass shootings?

 

If you are only interested in a certain kind of mass shootings, then I guess you should look for those specific numbers, especially if you've been so afraid you can't even go to the mall. But it doesn't make the 355 number false.

 

& there is a lot we can do to help stop these tragedies from happening. We need to change our gun culture. Including being informed about our actual *needs* for carrying guns, being honest about the kinds of danger we are actually in on a daily basis. Also not normalizing guns being carried in public, just because they have that right. More guns, more accessible guns are not the answer. Don't buy into *that*.

Well, I do care. I am horrified by violence and really feel for the victims. I just don't want to live in irrational fear all the time. Understanding the statistics actually makes me less likely to want to carry a gun, not that I would anyway.

 

I support gun control and you support gun control.

 

But you stand on higher moral ground than me because you think you care more?

[Joules]

I think it's a lost cause. Little kids get shot to shit at their little school desks and no legislation resulted. What a sad write off. So... go ahead.  Arm up and shoot the crap out of each other.  It's the favourite national pastime after all. 

 

IMO, it's not worth wasting anymore of my breath over.

 

It feels that way.  I feel like I have to accept the fact that the majority of Congress wants it this way (and I guess the majority of citizens, since they keep getting elected.)  I think I lost hope when they decided that we couldn't even use federal funds to research possible solutions to gun violence (though I hear Dickey, at least, changed his mind.)

 

I think the Onion's satire piece says it all...you can scroll down to see previous pieces, but it's the same old story:

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-prevent-says-only-nation-where-regularly-ha-51938

[Word Nerd]

nm

Edited December 5, 2015 by Word Nerd

[Audrey]

Caustic posts like this and ChocolateReign's snark-filled jabs certainly don't help.

 

 

Neither does doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  That's working so well for your country. 

 

Mass shooting #356 of 2015 coming ??

#357??

#358??

 

The news industry is having such fine field days this year.

[8circles]

Well, I do care. I am horrified by violence and really feel for the victims. I just don't want to live in irrational fear all the time. Understanding the statistics actually makes me less likely to want to carry a gun, not that I would anyway.

 

I support gun control and you support gun control.

 

But you stand on higher moral ground than me because you think you care more?

 

No - you're the one that only cares about the numbers of people like you - only those are "mass shootings".  You said that, not me.

 

I support not buying into the fear.  I support educating yourself.  I support changing gun culture.  I support caring about ALL gun deaths and not throwing up my hands and saying - well can't help THOSE people.   

[8circles]

I think it's a lost cause. Little kids get shot to shit at their little school desks and no legislation resulted. What a sad write off. So... go ahead.  Arm up and shoot the crap out of each other.  It's the favourite national pastime after all. 

 

IMO, it's not worth wasting anymore of my breath over.

 

Unfortunately, I agree with you at the moment.  I seriously can't bang my head against the wall anymore.  It's painful.

[Word Nerd]

Neither does doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. That's working so well for your country.

 

Mass shooting #356 of 2015 coming ??

#357??

#358??

 

The news industry is having such fine field days this year.

As long as the state laws that have been put in place are dismissed as irrelevant so people can keep claiming we've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, the debate is pointless.

[OnMyOwn]

No - you're the one that only cares about the numbers of people like you - only those are "mass shootings". You said that, not me.

 

I support not buying into the fear. I support educating yourself. I support changing gun culture. I support caring about ALL gun deaths and not throwing up my hands and saying - well can't help THOSE people.

No, I never said I don't care. Of course I do. Understanding the statistics just helps me better understand my risk and reduces my fear.

 

So educate me on what I should be doing beyond supporting gun control? What do you do besides support ideas that makes me so guilty?

[Catwoman]

First, only a couple of posters endorse banning guns.

Second, though, the assertion that se people live in places where guns are a necessity is 1) created by the gun culture and 2) imposed down onto situations by the influence of gun culture.

It is not fact any more than you can be safe without a gun is fact.

I live in a place where guns aren't a necessity and I am anti-carry, so I understand this mindset. But I also remember people on this forum talking (in past threads) about living on farms or ranches or in very rural areas and needing their guns for protection from things like wild animals, and that made sense to me. And they weren't talking about the squirrels and the chipmunks -- these were big, dangerous animals.

 

I don't think gun culture is necessarily a factor for people in those situations.

[Carol in Cal.]

As long as the state laws that have been put in place are dismissed as irrelevant so people can keep claiming we've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, the debate is pointless.

Right, and we are not allowed to even consider what effect the state laws do or don't have in figuring out a federal system?  Wow, that's different from every other thing that is tried by the states and studied and then maybe perfected before it is implemented federally.  

 

And we are not allowed to look at regional variations in actual needs in figuring out what the laws should be?  Unlike every single other major issue?

 

Some of us have tried to forge a middle path or at least illumine the middle path of existing gun control laws that it seems like many don't even know about, and that's completely dismissed.  

 

I've never even held a loaded gun in my hands, let alone shot one.  But anti-gun fundamentalism is so nutsy that I'm a freakin murderer and/or don't care about anyone but PLUs for not thinking that all guns should be banned.  Alrighty then.  The longer we talk about this, the more kneejerk the 'don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up' attitude appears.  This is a ridiculous level of discourse that is quite unworthy of the intelligence and careful consideration that is normal among classical educators schooled in logic and in history.

[goldberry]

As long as the state laws that have been put in place are dismissed as irrelevant so people can keep claiming we've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, the debate is pointless.

 

Individual state or city laws are never going to be significantly effective because there is nothing to keep people from going across the state or city or county border.  Then people can just say, "See, California had laws but they didn't help" and use it to support having no further laws. 

 

Yes, these laws make a statement and are the best people can do right now, but the reality is they will never solve the problems and in fact tend to be used to show they are ineffective.

 

As a country, we in fact have done absolutely nothing.  That is a valid statement.

 

[poppy]

As long as the state laws that have been put in place are dismissed as irrelevant so people can keep claiming we've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, the debate is pointless.

 

If every pro-gun person promises to never use Chicago as an example of why gun control doesn't work, I'll consider your point.

[poppy]

 

 

Yes, it's all about manipulation.  The truth is that as long as you live in a safe neighborhood, you are safer than you have ever been.

Like Newtown. Right.

 

Listen, I am safer than I've ever been on the road because of increased car safety manufacturing regulations. So that's good.  I'm grateful for that.

[goldberry]

I am happy to see that there are many gun owners in this thread that are not opposed to further regulation.  I wish they had more representation, and I think that is something that responsible gun owners should focus on, if they don't want to be lumped in with the hard-core-no-regulation gun owners.  That is something I am gleaning from these discussions.  That those people are out there, but they are not well represented.  If they don't start demanding representation though, then they should not be surprised to be lumped in with those who value their rights over other people's lives.

 

It does make me sad to see so many even on this thread that still seem to be in total denial that there is a problem or that guns have anything to do with the problem.  The fact that we have a significant gun problem in our country is not propaganda or imaginary or partisan.  It is not made better by the fact that Mexico or any other country has worse problems.  It is not made better by the fact that some of it happens to gang members, or to blacks, or to family members.  It is a horrible sad reality,

 

Although I am encouraged by the statements of some responsible gun owners, I am saddened and discouraged to still see so many denying the problem.  And yes, "He could have used a knife" or "There will always be violence, so what's the point" or "other countries are worse than us" are denying the problem.

 

Thanks to those who have been willing to discuss the real issues.

Edited December 5, 2015 by goldberry

[*Lulu*]

http://fusion.net/story/220788/americas-worst-gun-stores/

 

I don't know what the solution to our gun violence problem is, but it seems to me that putting the handful of gun dealers who repeatedly violate existing laws out of business is an excellent place to start.

[Joanne]

Right. So the fact that my life was saved by a gun is imaginary, or was caused by the criminal having access to guns too?

 

Yes, you can argue that many or even most of these situations would happen with different weapons if we were like France and banned all guns. Criminals by definition disobey laws.

You both ignored what I actually wrote and misrepresented it. It is diff dulce tongue a conversation that way. Edited December 5, 2015 by Joanne

[Joanne]

Like Newtown. Right.

 

Listen, I am safer than I've ever been on the road because of increased car safety manufacturing regulations. So that's good. I'm grateful for that.

Yes. Had my accident happened in the 70's, 80's or even part of the 90's, I would be dead.

[Murphy101]

I'm not sure why people want to keep taking certain categories out of the numbers of shootings. It seems like people only want to know how many people *who are like me* are killed. To hell with all the other people that die because of guns. The DV one is particularly confusing. People in DV situations are people who are just like me whose family member has been programmed to reach for their gun to solve a problem. Why are these numbers not relevant?

I specificly noted I'd like to see it addressed.

 

But I also think the categories MUST be broken down to be addressed too.

 

Because the fact is that not all gun deaths are the same just like all drug related deaths are not the same.

 

For example how laws or regulations are written to address

 

Accidental Overdoses of prescription Rx

Vs

Meth deaths

Vs

otc cold meds influenced car wrecks

Vs

Date rape drugs slipped in drinks

Vs

Slowly poisoning for murder

 

Are all reasonably going to need different strategies to combat. Sure some things will help in multiple areas, but they simply can't be addressed in the same manner.

 

So lumping all "drug related deaths" into one category and screaming we have to DO SOMETHING is not likely to actually get something very effective done.

 

It is not saying any particuliar category of injury/deaths doesn't matter.

[poppy]

I specificly noted I'd like to see it addressed.

 

But I also think the categories MUST be broken down to be addressed too.

 

Because the fact is that not all gun deaths are the same just like all drug related deaths are not the same.

 

For example how laws or regulations are written to address

 

Accidental Overdoses of prescription Rx

Vs

Meth deaths

Vs

otc cold meds influenced car wrecks

Vs

Date rape drugs slipped in drinks

Vs

Slowly poisoning for murder

 

Are all reasonably going to need different strategies to combat. Sure some things will help in multiple areas, but they simply can't be addressed in the same manner.

 

So lumping all "drug related deaths" into one category and screaming we have to DO SOMETHING is not likely to actually get something very effective done.

 

It is not saying any particuliar category of injury/deaths doesn't matter.

Ask congress to lift the van on tracking gun violence as a first step.

[Laura Corin]

I live in a place where guns aren't a necessity and I am anti-carry, so I understand this mindset. But I also remember people on this forum talking (in past threads) about living on farms or ranches or in very rural areas and needing their guns for protection from things like wild animals, and that made sense to me. And they weren't talking about the squirrels and the chipmunks -- these were big, dangerous animals.

 

I don't think gun culture is necessarily a factor for people in those situations.

For reference: even in Britain people can get a gun licence to hunt or deal with intrusive wild animals. I have my neighbour's mobile number in case I hit but do not kill a deer. He's a farmer.

[Murphy101]

Ask congress to lift the van on tracking gun violence as a first step.

Did would and have.

[Katy]

Like Newtown. Right.

 

Listen, I am safer than I've ever been on the road because of increased car safety manufacturing regulations. So that's good.  I'm grateful for that.

 

The sad fact is, school shootings are not new. There were pre-colonial school shootings. They did go up dramatically after stripping federal funding from mental health care in the 80's, but even those have been going down.  Gun crime in general is down.  It just doesn't feel like it because of media coverage.

 

Now, having said that, the majority of true mass shooter incidents (as defined by killing 4 strangers in a public place) that aren't terrorism (as defined by having a political motivation for your crime - be that Islamist motivations or white supremacy or other political motivations) are committed by young men with emotional problems who have been previously put on the autism spectrum.  Usually their weapons are provided by their mothers. If we want to make it illegal for young men with that sort of history to purchase guns or to be given access to them by their families, I'm open to that.

 

(Preparing to be yelled at for discrimination...  keep in mind I have a family member in that age range on the spectrum too).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

For reference: even in Britain people can get a gun licence to hunt or deal with intrusive wild animals. I have my neighbour's mobile number in case I hit but do not kill a deer. He's a farmer.

 

Canada also manages to handle this issue quite well, and has a very strong hunting culture.

 

I find there is a weird disconnect within those arguing additional stricter controls.  They are quick to point out we don't have "real" mass shootings (and for some reason are trying to pretend a mass shooting by definition must be in public), and that we are safer than we have ever been overall (which frankly is true), yet then say that they must be allowed to carry guns willy nilly to defend themselves.  We have people on this board who have went on at length about "strapping on their gun" to go to Target, yet they say those of us pushing for tougher regulations are the ones afraid.  What?  You tell me how safe we are but then say you have to pack a gun to pick up milk or your life is in danger?  Which is it?

 

And you may have to forgive those of us who don't feel completely safe when we are told the only reasonable solution this insanity is to arm kindergarten teachers.

 

[Katy]

You both ignored what I actually wrote and misrepresented it. It is diff dulce tongue a conversation that way.

 

If I misrepresented what you said I truly did not understand you.  The culture is the culture. I don't like to travel into imaginary lands where no one has guns because that isn't reality. 

 

What concrete changes would you make?

[poppy]

The sad fact is, school shootings are not new. There were pre-colonial school shootings. They did go up dramatically after stripping federal funding from mental health care in the 80's, but even those have been going down. Gun crime in general is down. It just doesn't feel like it because of media coverage.

 

Now, having said that, the majority of true mass shooter incidents (as defined by killing 4 strangers in a public place) that aren't terrorism (as defined by having a political motivation for your crime - be that Islamist motivations or white supremacy or other political motivations) are committed by young men with emotional problems who have been previously put on the autism spectrum. Usually their weapons are provided by their mothers. If we want to make it illegal for young men with that sort of history to purchase guns or to be given access to them by their families, I'm open to that.

 

(Preparing to be yelled at for discrimination... keep in mind I have a family member in that age range on the spectrum too).

. I would like to make it a lot harder for people who want to kill a lot of other people to get a firearm . Really really simple.

 

But early on in this thread one of the first posters said that deaths are an acceptable consequence for freedom. It's just gang people and domestic violence people and only a few random mass shootings a year ..... Acceptable.

 

Can you understand how frustrating that is to hear for those of us who aren't virulently anti regulation?

[Katy]

Canada also manages to handle this issue quite well, and has a very strong hunting culture.

 

I find there is a weird disconnect within those arguing additional stricter controls.  They are quick to point out we don't have "real" mass shootings (and for some reason are trying to pretend a mass shooting by definition must be in public), and that we are safer than we have ever been overall (which frankly is true), yet then say that they must be allowed to carry guns willy nilly to defend themselves.  We have people on this board who have went on at length about "strapping on their gun" to go to Target, yet they say those of us pushing for tougher regulations are the ones afraid.  What?  You tell me how safe we are but then say you have to pack a gun to pick up milk or your life is in danger?  Which is it?

 

And you may have to forgive those of us who don't feel completely safe when we are told the only reasonable solution this insanity is to arm kindergarten teachers.

 

 

If this is aimed at me, I'm the one who said open carry to intimidate people is harassment, and having been raised in a stand your ground state, harassing people with guns is at best foolish and is at worst deadly.  Those guys are jerks.

 

Yes, people are safer than ever.  Yes, people still live in areas where guns are necessary to protect yourself.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  Criminals exist.

 

I have never said to arm kindergarten teachers, but frankly I'd be okay with that given what we know about gun free zones.  I am equally happy with schools with police officers and metal detectors.  Mostly I prefer home school to any of those options.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If this is aimed at me, I'm the one who said open carry to intimidate people is harassment, and having been raised in a stand your ground state, harassing people with guns is at best foolish and is at worst deadly.  Those guys are jerks.

 

Yes, people are safer than ever.  Yes, people still live in areas where guns are necessary to protect yourself.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  Criminals exist.

 

I have never said to arm kindergarten teachers, but frankly I'd be okay with that given what we know about gun free zones.  I am equally happy with schools with police officers and metal detectors.  Mostly I prefer home school to any of those options.

 

Except we have showed that some of what you have claimed about "gun free" zones is not accurate.

[Katy]

. I would like to make it a lot harder for people who want to kill a lot of other people to get a firearm . Really really simple.

 

But early on in this thread one of the first posters said that deaths are an acceptable consequence for freedom. It's just gang people and domestic violence people and only a few random mass shootings a year ..... Acceptable.

 

Can you understand how frustrating that is to hear for those of us who aren't virulently anti regulation?

 

Most of those things are a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

Is your point that we should take away guns from everyone? 

 

What law would make it harder for those who want to kill a lot of other people to not get a gun?  What law would stop gang violence, domestic violence, terrorism, and a few random shootings?

[poppy]

Most of those things are a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

Is your point that we should take away guns from everyone?

 

What law would make it harder for those who want to kill a lot of other people to not get a gun? What law would stop gang violence, domestic violence, terrorism, and a few random shootings?

There have been a lot of suggestions on this thread . There is a whole lot of room between 'anyone can buy a arsenal from his brother in law' and all guns banned. And I think you know that.

 

I personally am disgusted as guns as recreation. I always think of Adam Lanza's mom. Always. Let's not make firearms fun toy or a nifty Christmas gift for your 15 year old. Let's treat them like serious tools. Guns are not less deadly than cars. Treat them like cars- get a license , pass a test, get insurance. That sounds eminently reasonable to me.

 

At least put some regulations in place to track violence realistically. And make people who buy a gun pass a background checks. Not crazy wild idea.

[SKL]

You know, blaming gun murders on the "culture" of gun owners who you know are innocent and nonviolent is exactly the same as blaming radical Islamic terrorism on peaceful Muslims who just want to mind their own business.

Edited December 5, 2015 by SKL

[TechWife]

Did would and have.

 

Funding?

[SKL]

And isn't it ironic that some people's way of responding to cruel and violent acts is to turn on fellow peaceful countrymen with cruel and violent words.  When you know that isn't going to fix anything.

[poppy]

You know, blaming gun murders on the "culture" of gun owners who you know are innocent and nonviolent is exactly the same as blaming radical Islamic terrorism on peaceful Muslims who just want to mind their own business.

No, it's like blaming the groups that arm the terrorist.

[SKL]

No, it's like blaming the groups that arm the terrorist.

 

Most legal gun owners are not in any way arming mass murderers.

 

[poppy]

Most legal gun owners are not in any way arming mass murderers.

 

Fight for legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Legislation that would hurt straw purchasers - like universal background checks. Fighting those laws most definitely helps to arm murderers.

 

Fight for smart guns. The NRA tries to shut down stores that offer an option to buy a smart gun. Do not support the NRA or politicians who cowtown to them.

Edited December 5, 2015 by poppy