https://twitter.com/pbump/status/649715304344481793/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

https://twitter.com/pbump/status/649715304344481793/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Holy ****.

 

 

etc etc etc  can't have legal access to firearms, and murders, who obviously don't care about the law, will still get them.

Nobody in this thread, nor anybody in congress (or Obama) or really any rational person is saying that people can't have legal access to firearms, so perhaps let's stop with the extreme rhetoric for a second and have an adult conversation?
 

 

 

 

 

There's a big difference between pulling a trigger and bludgeoning someone.  The mindset and the willpower to follow through are completely different.   

Not to mention the actual chances someone dies from a gunshot versus a "punch" "stab" "hit" are significantly higher. I am no physics major nor a doctor but I am quite confident my friend would stlil be alive today if the the would have thrown a knife or baseball bat into the crowd instead of shooting into it wildly.

 

These "Well they will just kill them with something else" arguments have been floating around forever.

 

Nobody in this thread, nor anybody in congress (or Obama) or really any rational person is saying that people can't have legal access to firearms, so perhaps let's stop with the extreme rhetoric for a second and have an adult conversation?

Well, liberals are constantly saying we should ban semi-automatic rifles, which is literally the same as banning certain books, religious sects, or words, so this eventually will bring about the criminalization of firearms all together. I would agree with you that no rational person would say we shouldn't have legal access to firearms, but people are.

 

Well, liberals are constantly saying we should ban semi-automatic rifles, which is literally the same as banning certain books, religious sects, or words, so this eventually will bring about the criminalization of firearms all together.

No those literally aren't the same, and the only things proposed by the "liberals" thus far was reducing the high capacity magazine capabilities in fully automatic weapons (nothing about banning them completely)

 

Again, this is just more baseless rhetoric that has no real facts behind it and is almost akin to something found on Curt Schillings facebook page.

 

No those literally aren't the same, and the only things proposed by the "liberals" thus far was reducing the high capacity magazine capabilities in fully automatic weapons (nothing about banning them completely)

 

Again, this is just more baseless rhetoric that has no real facts behind it and is almost akin to something found on Curt Schillings facebook page.

You want facts?

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

 

Now look at how many were killed by rifles, whether these were simple muzzle loaders, or semi-automatic, they were nothing compared to handguns, but it really doesn't matter what kind of gun was used, it only takes one bullet. It doesn't matter what capacity the magazine has, it won't affect how many people die, which is what really matters.

 

You want facts?

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

 

Now look at how many were killed by rifles, whether these were simple muzzle loaders, or semi-automatic, they were nothing compared to handguns, but it really doesn't matter what kind of gun was used, it only takes one bullet. It doesn't matter what capacity the magazine has, it won't affect how many people die, which is what really matters.

When I said facts is was meant to your comment of:

 

"this eventually will bring about the criminalization of firearms all together"

 

Also  FWIW: yes in mass shooting type crime/atmosphere, the type of gun/magazine does in fact matter. There is a reason why columbine, aurora, oregon, Virginia Tech etc all involved automatic weapons. They are made to do the most damage in the least amount of time.

 

You want facts?

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

 

Now look at how many were killed by rifles, whether these were simple muzzle loaders, or semi-automatic, they were nothing compared to handguns, but it really doesn't matter what kind of gun was used, it only takes one bullet. It doesn't matter what capacity the magazine has, it won't affect how many people die, which is what really matters.

We are talking about mass shootings.  Assault rifles and handguns are the weapons of choice in these  situations.

 

This is just another area where the far right is going to get smashed during the next decade.  People are not going to accept that 'this stuff just happens' and consider this the new normal.  It is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. 

 

The longer that the GOP drags their feet on (and denies) the issue then the more restrictive the law will be that eventually get passed.  These mass shootings are becoming more frequent and worse. 

Here is an article with a chart showing gun deaths vs gun control laws.  This isn't the same as mass shootings but it should show that gun control does actually show some results.  Certainly better results than throwing your hands in the air and saying 'these things just happen'.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html

I guess I'm still confused how gun control laws are going to help THIS situation.  I mean, just looking at the last few states that have had mass shootings, they're not on the looser end of gun control laws.

 

Let's put aside the merits of better gun control laws for more general gun related violence, the argument being made here (and nationally) is that gun control will help reduce mass shootings.

 

That appears to me to be a pretty dubious claim.

 

 

I guess I'm still confused how gun control laws are going to help THIS situation.  I mean, just looking at the last few states that have had mass shootings, they're not on the looser end of gun control laws.

 

Let's put aside the merits of better gun control laws for more general gun related violence, the argument being made here (and nationally) is that gun control will help reduce mass shootings.

 

That appears to me to be a pretty dubious claim.

Which shootings are you talking about?

 

SC was ranked #34, TN #38, VA #20 and OR was ranked #18.  They aren't the worst if that is what you meant.

 

I can tell you one thing that won't work - concealed carry.  This is what happens when untrained enthusiasts get involved - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/30/1426395/-Carjacking-victim-allegedly-shot-in-head-by-responsible-gunowner-who-started-shooting-at-carjackers#

Edited October 3, 201511 yr by kab21

CT was also number 2 for the toughest and didn't stop the shooter. He just got the weapons from his mother, who had obtained them legally.

 

Some of this is that the existing proliferation makes for such a ready supply that any gun laws will likely take years to be effective. Unless we can convince gun nuts to hand them over willingly that is.

 

And before anyone runs in crying that this is a "throw our hands in the air" argument -it's not. I'm being realistic about what has happened and how effective these proposed solutions appear. Bad solutions that sound good are still bad solutions.

So propose a good solution.

I think we need an aggressive deglorifying of the gun. Get them off childrens shows. Run ad campaigns like the anti smoking crowd. Push back against the image of guns.

 

Then you supplement with mental health reforms and gun laws, but they wont mean anything unless we change how we think.

 

I really liked that super bowl commercial about spreading kindness. Another good avenue.

I think there will be a big reversal of public opinion and the toleration of guns in the US over the next 5 years.  What is being fought about now will seem very moderate compared to the rather strict laws that end up being enacted.

 

We are talking about mass shootings.  Assault rifles and handguns are the weapons of choice in these  situations.

 

This is just another area where the far right is going to get smashed during the next decade.  People are not going to accept that 'this stuff just happens' and consider this the new normal.  It is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE. 

 

The longer that the GOP drags their feet on (and denies) the issue then the more restrictive the law will be that eventually get passed.  These mass shootings are becoming more frequent and worse. 

It won't stop massacres. Like I already said people will just use bombs, so what we really need to be doing is helping people with mental disorders, because banning high capacity magazines will not change the way these people think. By the way, the far right won't get smashed during the next decade, they are the ones with the young, intelligent leaders, so I think it highly unlikely that they do. The problem with liberals is that they are acting like the GOP doesn't care about this issue, or any issue, but they do, they just have other ideas.

Guys don't make this into the election thread. This is actually important vs. who's dogma is bigger.

 

Guys don't make this into the election thread. This is actually important vs. who's dogma is bigger.

Thanks, Craig ... was just about to add a moderator note to that same point.

 

It won't stop massacres. Like I already said people will just use bombs,

Again, there is nothing of substance backing this up. I want to avoid going down a "bombs" vs "guns" rabbit hole, but it is pretty much known that using and owning a "gun" is significantly easier then building and detonating a bomb successfully.

Generally, it's far harder to minimize an idea or a culture than it is a physical object.   Ad campaigns? Give me a break. 

 

Generally, it's far harder to minimize an idea or a culture than it is a physical object.   Ad campaigns? Give me a break. 

It did wonders for Tobacco, I don't agree with everything Lev has said, but I think a nationwide ad campaign would be great, it won't fix the problem right away, but will help as generations grow etc.

Clearly this is going take take a multi-pronged approach. Just about any prong seems to be worth hearing out.

 

No single means can do it, and it sure isn't going to happen overnight.

 

I think of this little bit of dialogue:

 

 

It did wonders for Tobacco, I don't agree with everything Lev has said, but I think a nationwide ad campaign would be great, it won't fix the problem right away, but will help as generations grow etc.

I think it's a foolhardy idea.  I think an anti-gun ad campaign would face just as stiff opposition from the NRA than actual legislation.   Gun-lovers aren't addicted, like tobacco users; their stance lies not in a place of ignorance or biological dependence.   An ad campaign is a band-aid that just kicks the ball down the road. 

 

And really tobacco use was essentially banned from television both in ads and in television shows; I doubt we'll ever see that with guns.  No more crime shows? No more superhero shows?  If an ad campaign would have any effect it would need to be ubiquitous, and can't be a commercial inter-spliced into shows that glorify guns.  Not mention this starts to move into first amendment territory.  

 

It's a good idea in a vacuum.  Executing it to have any effect seems far more fruitless, than actually passing some sensible gun control legislation.  

 

That said, an ad campaign combined with actual legislation is compelling, but an ad campaign alone is a gun advocate's dream of a 'workable solution.'

Edited October 3, 201511 yr by PseudoSABR

 

Clearly this is going take take a multi-pronged approach. Just about any prong seems to be worth hearing out.

As long as hearing that prong out doesn't lead to the exclusion of others.  Some ideas serve a hegemonic purpose, that distracts and detracts.   Our society has mastered "looking as if we care to find a solution" without actually caring to find one. 

Edited October 3, 201511 yr by PseudoSABR

 

I think it's a foolhardy idea.  I think an anti-gun ad campaign would face just as stiff opposition from the NRA than actual legislation.   Gun-lovers aren't addicted, like tobacco users; their stance lies not in a place of ignorance or biological dependence.   An ad campaign is a band-aid that just kicks the ball down the road. 

 

And really tobacco use was essentially banned from television both in ads and in television shows; I doubt we'll ever see that with guns.  No more crime shows? No more superhero shows?  If an ad campaign would have any effect it would need to be ubiquitous, and can't be a commercial inter-spliced into shows that glorify guns.  Not mention this starts to move into first amendment territory.  

 

It's a good idea in a vacuum.  Executing it to have any effect seems far more fruitless, than actually passing some sensible gun control legislation.  

 

That said, an ad campaign combined with actual legislation is compelling, but an ad campaign alone is a gun advocate's dream of a 'workable solution.'

I'm not saying its the only thing to do, it's just one piece of the puzzle IMO

As I have mentioned, I would be registry lists, longer waiting periods and stronger background checks off the bat. (No more "gun show" or "internet" sales either)

As long as hearing that prong out doesn't lead to the exclusion of others.  Some ideas serve a hegemonic purpose, that distracts and detracts.   Our society has mastered "looking as if we care to find a solution" without actually caring to find one.

 

Then we're going to meet a well-deserved extinction. But maybe creative minds can yet think up a way out.

 

I'm not saying its the only thing to do, it's just one piece of the puzzle IMO

As I have mentioned, I would be registry lists, longer waiting periods and stronger background checks off the bat. (No more "gun show" or "internet" sales either)

Right.  But Levi's offering advertising in exclusion of changing the laws, and can we put that to rest as a bad idea?

 

Right.  But Levi's offering advertising in exclusion of changing the laws, and can we put that to rest as a bad idea?

Yeah of course. He has basically taken the "Stuff happens" Jeb Bush approach to this IMO, but at least he gave one idea that could potentially help a little bit.

 

Then we're going to meet a well-deserved extinction. But maybe creative minds can yet think up a way out.

Deserved? I don't know about that.  Humanity--in moments such as these--seems hopelessly deranged--hellbent on self-annihilation swallowing the whole earth's innocent life.  Yet, it is only humanity that can recognize that.  In our sorrow over our own behavior, within that judgment of ourselves, maybe already demonstrate enough to be worthy of saving.