Another school shooting

[Bob78164]

Take away the guns from SSS's drunk idiots and the only ones who will have them are the professional criminals.

Why doesn't this happen, then, in countries that actually implement strong gun control laws? Don't they have criminals and black markets? Yet their death toll, even on a relative level, is far, far lower than ours. --Bob

[ten96lt]

You mean like Mexico that has one of the strongest gun laws?

I'm going to paste what I posted as a reply to Kristof's OpEd in the NYT:
Mr. Kristof wants to say that its time to look at the gun issue from a different point of view. But the problem is, their examination has been viewed time and time again. A modest proposal, instead of looking at the tool and how, we look at why people are using the gun to cause violence.
With suicides, maybe instead of looking at how people are committing suicides, we now look at why people are committing suicide rather than how and attacking those causes. That would be something better suited for the CDC to examine, than the tool used which would be best left to be researched by law enforcement experts.
Now Mr. Kristof wants to compare improving a gun to improving a car. The problem is you can add all of the safety features to a gun you want, but with a car, it does you no good if the operator is steering the car into a crowd and pressing the accelerator. The same can be said with a gun. You have to work on stopping people from wanting to get in the car, or stop them from getting in the car in the first place.
Now, after suicides, where are the rest of the deaths coming from? According to the DoJ, over 80% of the other half are due to drug/gang homicides. What does this tell us? It tells us that most of the gun deaths are actually the result of the US losing a war it’s been fighting for over 60 years…….the drug war. Australia, and other countries do not have the Gangster's Disciples, Latin Kings, and Aryan brotherhood fighting each other constantly for drug territory. I propose that if Mr. Kristof wants to seriously bring down gun violence, he urges the government to bring the drug war to an end that has cost us countless treasure and lives. Only problem is, if there’s a group that Congress is more afraid of than the NRA, it’s the drug lobby. Mr. Kristof seems to ignore that and just attack the tool, rather than attack the root of why people are using that tool.

I'll start taking gun control proposals seriously once those that propose gun control actually start looking at and fixing why people are using guns to kill, rather than just looking at the tool itself. Banning the how isn't going to end the violence unless you seriously address the why, but it's a lot easier to blame the tool than to actually take constructive action.

[silverscreenselect]

What about the guy who sells drugs? I think he'd probably have enough cash to get an illegal gun for him/her self and all the goons that work for him. What about the neighborhood gangs. They ain't the Jets and Sharks anymore. They'll get them. I would think anyone who makes a decent living from breaking the law would have an incentive to own one or more, whether they're legal or not.

Having an incentive to do something and having the ability to do it are two different things. You seem to think that we have some breed of supercriminals who aren't phased in the slightest by the fact that currently legal gun outlets dry up. Yes, they will still get them, but they won't be able to get as many and they open themselves up to new risks, namely that the person from whom they buy their guns is either an undercover cop or someone who rats them out. And there will be a lot more cases where they can get hauled in if they're caught and frisked anywhere in possession of a gun.

Bob's got the numbers to back up his points and all you have are gloom and doom predictions in which every street corner punk turns into Lex Luthor.

[silverscreenselect]

According to the DoJ, over 80% of the other half are due to drug/gang homicides.

Where's your proof of this?

I don't mean Right Wing websites; I mean actual statistics from the DOJ or some objective source that back this up. Everything I've come across suggests it's another one of those popular right wing invented statistics that they just love to pass around from one website to the next.

[silverscreenselect]

Australia, and other countries do not have the Gangster's Disciples, Latin Kings, and Aryan brotherhood fighting each other constantly for drug territory.

Wrong again. What you mean is that these other countries don't have gangs that are fighting each other constantly with guns. Gang problem is big in Great Britain, one estimate in this article is that as many as 6% of teens belong to gangs. There are over 170 gangs in London and Glasgow. So, it's a problem. It's just not a problem that ends in them shooting each other.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15238377
http://www.news.com.au/national/austral ... 6645615303
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/fears ... 1nbxm.html

[BackInTex]

Having an incentive to do something and having the ability to do it are two different things. You seem to think that we have some breed of supercriminals who aren't phased in the slightest by the fact that currently legal gun outlets dry up. Yes, they will still get them, but they won't be able to get as many and they open themselves up to new risks, namely that the person from whom they buy their guns is either an undercover cop or someone who rats them out. And there will be a lot more cases where they can get hauled in if they're caught and frisked anywhere in possession of a gun.

But they don't care about those risks when they are buying or selling drugs now, or carrying guns now. The risks are the same. Why would they care in your Nirvana?

Bob's got the numbers to back up his points and all you have are gloom and doom predictions in which every street corner punk turns into Lex Luthor.

Do you realize how foolish you sound saying that, given every thing you say about every possible gun possessor is an "if this or that" gloom and doom prediction (every gun possessor turns into an Adam Lanza)? Probably not.

[silverscreenselect]

But they don't care about those risks when they are buying or selling drugs now, or carrying guns now. The risks are the same. Why would they care in your Nirvana?

I didn't say they cared about the risks. Just like people who invest in fly-by-night stocks don't care about the risks. But when the investments go sour, they won't have their money. People who smoke don't care about the risks of various diseases. But when they get sick, they die. And when previously legal methods of getting weapons through various loopholes become illegal, more of the people who don't care about the risks and carry them illegally will get caught and will get put away.

And at some point in the chain, you're dealing with legitimate businesspeople, gun manufacturers and dealers. And these people do care about the risks and they will alter their behavior accordingly. And every one of them who does so makes it that much more difficult for the criminals down the chain to obtain weapons.

[silverscreenselect]

Do you realize how foolish you sound saying that, given every thing you say about every possible gun possessor is an "if this or that" gloom and doom prediction (every gun possessor turns into an Adam Lanza)? Probably not.

I'm not saying that every possible gun possessor is going to turn into a nut case. It's a matter of percentages and statistics. But you don't care about percentages and statistics when you make silly statements about how criminals are going to get guns anyway. The fewer guns there are floating around, the fewer that will get into crooks' hands. And the more crooks that get caught trying to get guns illegally, the fewer of them that will be on the street.

When you and Flock and the NRA make these blanket statements about what crooks are going to do, you might just as easily say let's repeal all criminal laws because crooks are going to steal and kill anyway.

[ten96lt]

According to the DoJ, over 80% of the other half are due to drug/gang homicides.

Where's your proof of this?

I don't mean Right Wing websites; I mean actual statistics from the DOJ or some objective source that back this up. Everything I've come across suggests it's another one of those popular right wing invented statistics that they just love to pass around from one website to the next.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423

Non-biased enough for you?

The other countries you cite do not have a gang problem as wide spread as ours. There's reported over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone (the article reports 60,000 as of 2009, but I've heard 100,000 as of a year ago). I doubt there's even that many in Australia and Europe. You're marginalizing the issue in the US by just saying, "it happens in other countries also, so we're no different."

Australia also doesn't have a country bordering them to their south that is smuggling in drugs which the cartels and smugglers will do anything to protect. It's a lot easier to ban guns and confiscate when you're essentially an island and no 2nd amendment where guns are ingrained in the culture of the country.

Do you realize how foolish you sound saying that, given every thing you say about every possible gun possessor is an "if this or that" gloom and doom prediction (every gun possessor turns into an Adam Lanza)? Probably not.

I'm not saying that every possible gun possessor is going to turn into a nut case. It's a matter of percentages and statistics. But you don't care about percentages and statistics when you make silly statements about how criminals are going to get guns anyway. The fewer guns there are floating around, the fewer that will get into crooks' hands. And the more crooks that get caught trying to get guns illegally, the fewer of them that will be on the street.

When you and Flock and the NRA make these blanket statements about what crooks are going to do, you might just as easily say let's repeal all criminal laws because crooks are going to steal and kill anyway.

The difference is the NRA and BiT want laws that go after the criminals where the gun control people want to pass laws that effect everyone negatively whether they deserve it or not. Making murder illegal is not going to affect me as I don't commit murders, banning concealed carry/firearms/etc. does affect me as now I have fewer means to defend myself. How about passing laws that go after the criminal (mandatory sentencing for violent crimes) without affecting the rights of other individuals (blanket bans)? We tried blanket bans before (prohibition) and have seen it doesn't work.

You ignoring my suggestion about ending the drug war also proves it's not about ending the violence and more about going after the "evil" gun. Until you're willing to address the why, instead of how, it's always going to be gridlock.

[flockofseagulls104]

you might just as easily say let's repeal all criminal laws because crooks are going to steal and kill anyway.

There are already laws against stealing and killing as there should be. Do you on the left ever look at your arguments to see how stupid they are? Debbie Wasserman Shultz doesn't. Apparently neither do you, SSS. But you can go ahead and believe conservatives want to repeal criminal laws. It's a good way to rile up the ignorant.

The problem the left has is that they want to define what kinds of stealing and killing are more or less acceptable than others, according to their definition. Because they are more compassionate than everyone else and know how things should be. Witness the hate crime laws. They want to do the same thing with guns. Not to protect anyone. Just to have a utopia where guns don't exist and everyone is happy and there are peace signs everywhere. Yup, let's just make a law and guns will go away. And no one will decide they want to make a name for themselves and go to a school and kill a bunch of innocent people anymore. Well, at least not with legal guns. And all violent crime will disappear. Well, some of it anyway.

If there were such a law that would do that, I'd be all for it. But there ain't SSS, and there never will be. And it's not worth throwing away what's left of the US Constitution to try it.

[silverscreenselect]

Just to have a utopia where guns don't exist and everyone is happy and there are peace signs everywhere. Yup, let's just make a law and guns will go away.

No one has ever said that passing a law or a combination of laws will make guns go away. But passing the right law means that more of them will stay out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. The Brady bill is proof of that; it's taken millions of guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. But you and the others on the right conveniently overlook that every time with your all or nothing insistence.

I'll be honest. I wish all civilian gun use would go away. You and I would both be safer. But I know that's not going to happen. Just as drunk driving won't go away. But I'll settle for whatever incremental steps we can get. You keep insisting that guns are never part of the problem and that since we can't stop them completely we shouldn't try. That's sheer nonsense.

[silverscreenselect]

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423

Non-biased enough for you?

You mean these statistics?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investiga ... story.html

And many of the "gangs" referred to in the original statistics are essentially organized crime syndicates, Mexican, Russian, whatever, no different from the Mafia except for their ethnicity. They aren't street corner youth gangs of the sort referred to in the articles I cited.

And don't you think that one reason teens don't join these types of gangs as often in other countries is because they would have to mix it up hand to hand instead of firing off a magazine in a drive-by?

[ten96lt]

Just to have a utopia where guns don't exist and everyone is happy and there are peace signs everywhere. Yup, let's just make a law and guns will go away.

I'll be honest. I wish all civilian gun use would go away. You and I would both be safer.

That sums it up in one sentence what the NRA and the pro-gun have against the gun control advocates. "I know whats best for you, you don't know what's best for you." If I own a gun, of course I'm more likely to die getting shot, but I'm also 100x more likely to die from drowning if I build a pool and I'm 100x more likely to die in a car accident if I own a car. I'm also 100x more likely to get mauled by a bear if I live in a cabin in Alaska than in Chicago. (And I have yet to see one statistic citing you're more likely to get shot with your own gun that doesn't account for suicides) Yet we don't stop people from taking on those risks. And until the Brady people are willing to address why people are killing each other, I have no interest in hearing about further gun control laws since all they are interested in is putting a band-aid on a patient who's been impaled; sure we're going to stop a little bit of the bleeding, but that's not the best solution.

And when the Christian conservatives want to "regulate" abortions, the same Brady people would be up in arms screaming personal rights and that a woman has a right to choose what to do with their body. Well the NRA people have bodies (and their family's bodies) also that they want to protect and want to choose to protect it with a gun because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[flockofseagulls104]

I'll be honest. I wish all civilian gun use would go away. You and I would both be safer

Thanks for being honest. People on the left usually hide behind PC catch phrases, but we all know what they really mean. Every once in a while one of them actually says what they really think.

We all know that the end game is to ban guns. And we all know the incremental game the left plays. "We just want a common sense law". No, you don't.

It is your opinion that you and I would be safer without civilian gun use. Other people have a different opinion. Again, you on the left think you know everything and are willing to use the power of the law to enforce your opinions on everyone else and take away their constitutional rights.

[silverscreenselect]

If I own a gun, of course I'm more likely to die getting shot, but I'm also 100x more likely to die from drowning if I build a pool

The difference of course is that I don't run the risk of drowning in your pool if I take the simple precaution of not using it. I have no way to avoid the risk of being shot by one of my idiotic neighbors (who by the way shot off a total of 11 shots two nights ago).

"I know whats best for you, you don't know what's best for you."

And doctors tell their patients this all the time (and get ignored). If you don't care enough about your loved ones to needlessly put them at greater risk, that's your doing. And based on where you live, there's virtually no chance that I or anyone I care about will be a victim of your decision. But I've got a whole neighborhood full of idiots making the same decision that I am at risk from.

[Bob78164]

Just to have a utopia where guns don't exist and everyone is happy and there are peace signs everywhere. Yup, let's just make a law and guns will go away.

I'll be honest. I wish all civilian gun use would go away. You and I would both be safer.

That sums it up in one sentence what the NRA and the pro-gun have against the gun control advocates. "I know whats best for you, you don't know what's best for you." If I own a gun, of course I'm more likely to die getting shot, but I'm also 100x more likely to die from drowning if I build a pool and I'm 100x more likely to die in a car accident if I own a car.

My issue is that if you own a gun, I'm more likely to die of getting shot. Your pool, on the other hand, doesn't put me at risk of drowning.

There are also utilitarian arguments to be made for both pools and cars. The statistics refute the same arguments when applied to guns allegedly purchased for self-defense, which is the only reason I can think of for possessing them outside a shooting range or while hunting. --Bob

[ten96lt]

If I own a gun, of course I'm more likely to die getting shot, but I'm also 100x more likely to die from drowning if I build a pool

The difference of course is that I don't run the risk of drowning in your pool if I take the simple precaution of not using it. I have no way to avoid the risk of being shot by one of my idiotic neighbors (who by the way shot off a total of 11 shots two nights ago).

You do have a way to avoid the risk, get away from the risk. I don't walk into a bad neighborhood where I know I'm likely to get accosted. I don't walk along the edge of the lake shore and risk falling into the water to drown. I don't go driving near bars at 2AM in case there's drunk drivers. If he's shooting off 11 rounds and creating a public nuisance, report it. You also avoid the risk by not attacking me or breaking into my house since I have no reason to pull a gun then.

If you don't care enough about your loved ones to needlessly put them at greater risk, that's your doing.

I guess then cops and security people shouldn't have families then because by the nature of their job, they have to have a gun in the house, because they "wouldn't care enough about them" by doing their job and maintaining a gun in the house.

[Bob78164]

If I own a gun, of course I'm more likely to die getting shot, but I'm also 100x more likely to die from drowning if I build a pool

The difference of course is that I don't run the risk of drowning in your pool if I take the simple precaution of not using it. I have no way to avoid the risk of being shot by one of my idiotic neighbors (who by the way shot off a total of 11 shots two nights ago).

You do have a way to avoid the risk, get away from the risk. I don't walk into a bad neighborhood where I know I'm likely to get accosted. I don't walk along the edge of the lake shore and risk falling into the water to drown. I don't go driving near bars at 2AM in case there's drunk drivers. If he's shooting off 11 rounds and creating a public nuisance, report it.

You haven't thought this through. How many of my neighbors own guns legally? Which ones? I have no way to know that, so the only way I can avoid this risk is to become a hermit. That's not a price I should have to pay.

Suppose I live in that "bad neighborhood" because it's the only one I can afford. Then what? Which neighborhoods qualify as bad? Is it okay for me to drive through them on my way to the freeway?

The issue isn't just the idiot shooting off 11 rounds. (And by the way, what if that idiot is half a mile away and decided to fire into the air?) It's the idiot too stupid to secure his weapon, whose kid gets his hand on it and pulls the trigger just to see what will happen. It's the drunk guy who gets pissed off and instead of taking a swing at someone, takes a shot instead, missing his target and hitting me instead. It's the untrained idiot getting robbed who turns a simple purse-snatching into the Gunfight at the OK Corral, with me as an unwitting bystander. It's also the college campus where someone decides to go on a shooting spree. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself and my family from those risks? --Bob

[ten96lt]

There are also utilitarian arguments to be made for both pools and cars. The statistics refute the same arguments when applied to guns allegedly purchased for self-defense, which is the only reason I can think of for possessing them outside a shooting range or while hunting. --Bob

The fact I put a pool there still increases your risk of drowning.What if you get drunk one night and stumble in my yard? What is the utility of a pool besides recreation in someone's backyard?

I've seen the statistics that claim the use in self defense is low, but that is because they only count a defensive use when a shooting happens. They do not account in those instances where the situation de-escalates when the gun is drawn and no shot is fired. How many of those situations also go unreported? How many people own fire extinguishers, but never use one, or use it, but don't necessarily call the fire department so the fire isn't reported as a statistic because there's no record?

You haven't thought this through. How many of my neighbors own guns legally? Which ones? I have no way to know that, so the only way I can avoid this risk is to become a hermit. That's not a price I should have to pay.

Suppose I live in that "bad neighborhood" because it's the only one I can afford. Then what? Which neighborhoods qualify as bad? Is it okay for me to drive through them on my way to the freeway?

The issue isn't just the idiot shooting off 11 rounds. (And by the way, what if that idiot is half a mile away and decided to fire into the air?) It's the idiot too stupid to secure his weapon, whose kid gets his hand on it and pulls the trigger just to see what will happen. It's the drunk guy who gets pissed off and instead of taking a swing at someone, takes a shot instead, missing his target and hitting me instead. It's the untrained idiot getting robbed who turns a simple purse-snatching into the Gunfight at the OK Corral, with me as an unwitting bystander. It's also the college campus where someone decides to go on a shooting spree. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself and my family from those risks? --Bob

You haven't thought this through, how many of my neighbors store chemicals dangerously in their house/garage that I don't know about that could take my house out along with theirs with one wrong move? How many have faulty gas/electrical utility equipment that could set my house on fire with theirs because they do not maintain it properly? How many have dangerous pets that could get loose and maul a child while playing on the front lawn? Which ones? I have no way to know that, so the only way I can avoid this risk is to become a hermit. That's not a price I should have to pay.

The issue isn't just the idiot driving recklessly, it's the idiot too stupid to refrain from alcohol, who gets behind the wheel and takes out a family on the highway. It's the drunk guy who get's pissed off and instead of being rational because he was sober, acts in a drunken moment of rage and grabs a knife/bat/name your own tool in a garage instead of a gun, along with his buddy who's an idiot for escalating the situation by letting it get to that point and not trying to avoid it. It's also the college campus where someone decides to go on a shooting spree. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself when I'm banned from having any means to protect myself and my family from those risks? Hell, I could be arrested and expelled just for carrying mace. Instead, I'm supposed to be a sitting duck.

I just took every fear you have with guns and just replaced gun with another risk that exists with life. Just because they exist doesn't mean we completely infringe on the other person's life (home ownership, drinking, etc). There's steps we can take to reduce those risks, but the Brady people insist that blanket bans are the end all solution instead of actually attacking why it's happening.

[silverscreenselect]

. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself when I'm banned from having any means to protect myself and my family from those risks?

Actually, you and your family are safer if you don't have a gun to "protect" you from those risks. Your gun merely increases the risks in a variety of ways.

Here's an article and statistics about a number of people who had the "means to protect myself and my family from those risks." Only it didn't work out that way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... bout-them/

[ten96lt]

. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself when I'm banned from having any means to protect myself and my family from those risks?

Actually, you and your family are safer if you don't have a gun to "protect" you from those risks. Your gun merely increases the risks in a variety of ways.

You can say it all you want, but there's countless people that would disagree with you on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire, ... on_murders
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevad ... ry-hearing

How does it increase the risk if it stays where it's at and I don't touch it unless I hear a break in? What if I'm a hermit and never have a visitor who could get at it and it just stays there? It's not going to grow legs and shoot itself.

Interesting that less than 100 children are killed each year by accidental gun deaths, yet total 2009 accidental deaths of children, ages 1-19, were 9,143 deaths by accidental occurrence. The top five (5) causes of accidental deaths in children in 2009 (and every year since until present) are motor vehicle crashes, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, and fire- and burn-related injuries. Accidental gun deaths don't even register in the top 10 causes of accidental deaths of children 1-14 years of age. In fact, accidental gun deaths account for less than 3% of all accidental deaths of children 1-14 years of age.
See, National Vital Statistics System from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/NAP/background.html

So when are we going to ban pools and ovens and plastic bags?

I'd find the concerns from an OpEd legitimate if the NRA wasn't the only group promoting, "Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the Area, Tell an Adult" campaign. In kindergarten they played an Eddie the Eagle video learning not to touch a gun unattended. That video was made by the NRA. What are the Brady people doing to promote gun safety to kids? Instead of claiming it is just a marketing gimmick, make your own safety campaign instead of sitting on your hands. It is unfortunate kids do get shot, but like I said before, how many die from drowning in the bathtub/pool? How many die because a tv fell on them unattended? How many die or get seriously burned from a running oven that was unattended or because the kid was unattended? The problem is you can't legislate poor parenting.

[flockofseagulls104]

. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself when I'm banned from having any means to protect myself and my family from those risks?

Actually, you and your family are safer if you don't have a gun to "protect" you from those risks. Your gun merely increases the risks in a variety of ways.

You can say it all you want, but there's countless people that would disagree with you on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire, ... on_murders
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevad ... ry-hearing

How does it increase the risk if it stays where it's at and I don't touch it unless I hear a break in? What if I'm a hermit and never have a visitor who could get at it and it just stays there? It's not going to grow legs and shoot itself.

Interesting that less than 100 children are killed each year by accidental gun deaths, yet total 2009 accidental deaths of children, ages 1-19, were 9,143 deaths by accidental occurrence. The top five (5) causes of accidental deaths in children in 2009 (and every year since until present) are motor vehicle crashes, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, and fire- and burn-related injuries. Accidental gun deaths don't even register in the top 10 causes of accidental deaths of children 1-14 years of age. In fact, accidental gun deaths account for less than 3% of all accidental deaths of children 1-14 years of age.
See, National Vital Statistics System from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/NAP/background.html

So when are we going to ban pools and ovens and plastic bags?

I'd find the concerns from an OpEd legitimate if the NRA wasn't the only group promoting, "Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the Area, Tell an Adult" campaign. In kindergarten they played an Eddie the Eagle video learning not to touch a gun unattended. That video was made by the NRA. What are the Brady people doing to promote gun safety to kids? Instead of claiming it is just a marketing gimmick, make your own safety campaign instead of sitting on your hands. It is unfortunate kids do get shot, but like I said before, how many die from drowning in the bathtub/pool? How many die because a tv fell on them unattended? How many die or get seriously burned from a running oven that was unattended or because the kid was unattended? The problem is you can't legislate poor parenting.

We need to ban idiots in general. SSS and Bob, you are hereby banned. Go to Australia.

[flockofseagulls104]

wait a minute. Isn't IDIOT one of those PC words you're not supposed to utter? Shame on you, SSS. You can't say that.

Oh, you're describing someone you think is a conservative. It's ok then....

[BackInTex]

It's also the college campus where someone decides to go on a shooting spree. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself and my family from those risks? --Bob

Campus carry.

[BackInTex]

What I see is the problem with the anti-gun crowd is the impact of the news on their emotional state. They are similar to the folks who see a plane crash and are terrified to fly somewhere, so they drive.