Connecticut School shooting!

[rudder]

Maybe we should focus on the FDA rather than weapons...

http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12

I don't recall if the Aurora shooter was taking anything. Have to look. I do know that a lot of teens have committed suicide while starting medications. In my opinion the mom of the shooter should have better secured her arsenal... especially knowing more about her son that we do.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Maybe we should focus on the FDA rather than weapons...

http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12

I don't recall if the Aurora shooter was taking anything. Have to look. I do know that a lot of teens have committed suicide while starting medications. In my opinion the mom of the shooter should have better secured her arsenal... especially knowing more about her son that we do.

IIRC the Aurora shooter was on some type of anti depressant.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I have to say that he is by far the most disturbing poster on here. Speaking of mental health, he sounds like he could use some help.

I've always had trouble understanding the second amendment fetishism I see in America. We seem to so readily toss away other protections in the name of safety, (I'm looking at you, 4th amendment) but so many seem completely unwilling to allow even modest restrictions on weapons, despite there being in my opinion far more evidence of the latter's threat to safety.

I don't want to ban guns, but the blanket opposition to any change is maddening.

I don't know if you saw the Toobin piece the other day but it's interesting reading, and reminds us that the idea that the Second Amendment provides sacrosanct protection of individuals' gun rights is actually a fairly recent development. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

 

[spidey07]

And with recent supreme court rulings, the 2nd amendment is incorporated. As such it applies to all citizens, states and local governments. Any AWB could likely be ruled unconstitutional because it would not pass strict scrutiny.

 

[shortylickens]

Indeed.

Memo to the Internet: if you feel the need to use words like "Rethuglicant," "Dimocrat," or "dimwit libotards" to make your point, you are doing it wrong and the only point you're making is one about your own intellect or lack thereof. Maybe we need a "you must have THIS many IQ points to post" here bar, like the one at Space Mountain.

An IQ score only represents your ability to do well on an IQ test. Nothing more.

Also, everyone here has a 180 IQ.

 

[irishScott]

I very seriously doubt it - Congress would never go for that because too much of the public would be incensed. The most recent polling I've seen (yesterday) suggested that the majority of Americans favor some degree of new gun restrictions, but I can't imagine most people saying they would favor making magazine-loaded pistols illegal (though as you say, there is a lot of ignorance out there about guns, and the phrase "semi-automatic" sounds scary to some people who are completely ignorant).

Hell even to those that aren't ignorant. My dad's a PhD Electrical Engineer, and while he doesn't own guns I've carefully explained the issues surrounding gun control and all the problems that come with it.

He's repeatably and openly questioned why you need more than a revolver to defend your life. He's proposed requiring $1000 of training to own a gun, and brought up the car licensing/gun licensing analogy as supports. He's also said the NRA is "directly responsible" for assault rifle shootings like Colorado and Sandy Hook.

It's simple, most people (including my dad) are pussies. They don't want nor understand the self reliant mentality of gun ownership, nor do they see it as an essential freedom. They see it as a privilege, a toy to be confiscated when it isn't used properly, or they think it only applies to muskets (dad's said that too).

Granted my dad is a sample of one, but I don't think his views are too dissimilar from many who lack any significant exposure to guns.

 

[lotus503]

...of which you know nothing more than what you heard from the media.


If you had bothered to step outside your hippie commune / college campus, you'd have realized that armed civilians have stopped more crimes than you will ever know, because an armed target does not give the criminal the advantage, and therefore the crime does not occur. Naturally, the puppets on the idiot tube never report on it, so it would be off the radar for you dimwit libotards.

Incorrect you ignorant prick. I shop at that mall, I know where Meli was hiding behind the pillar, I know where the shooter was standing based in his description, I know where the shooter ended up shooting himself, granted that's per the police media report.

But I don't think the cops are being coy with where he killed himself. Your right I have no idea how many crimes are prevented by gun owners. I just know this crime wasn't stopped by a gun owner.

 

[dmens]

Hell even to those that aren't ignorant. My dad's a PhD Electrical Engineer, and while he doesn't own guns I've carefully explained the issues surrounding gun control and all the problems that come with it.

He's repeatably and openly questioned why you need more than a revolver to defend your life. He's proposed requiring $1000 of training to own a gun, and brought up the car licensing/gun licensing analogy as supports. He's also said the NRA is "directly responsible" for assault rifle shootings like Colorado and Sandy Hook.

It's simple, most people (including my dad) are pussies. They don't want nor understand the self reliant mentality of gun ownership, nor do they see it as an essential freedom. They see it as a privilege, a toy to be confiscated when it isn't used properly, or they think it only applies to muskets (dad's said that too).

Granted my dad is a sample of one, but I don't think his views are too dissimilar from many who lack any significant exposure to guns.

Statists gonna state. Once a person has outsourced their lives and morality to the government, no amount of logic can turn them around. They think if they kneel and bow down low enough the government won't bother them.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know if you saw the Toobin piece the other day but it's interesting reading, and reminds us that the idea that the Second Amendment provides sacrosanct protection of individuals' gun rights is actually a fairly recent development. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

I hadn't, thanks! I'm currently reading the law piece referenced in it,which is also pretty fantastic, not that I needed another reason to know that the whole originalism thing for Scalia was hilarious, hypocritical bullshit.

The appeal for gun rights seems much more visceral than any appeal to the constitution though. Fivethirtyeight also had an interesting piece on the demographics of gun ownership as did some other sites. The breakdowns are illuminating, and not very flattering. Gun ownership is concentrated in white people and the less educated. I thought that was interesting. It indicates to me a culture of fear.

 

[Farmer]

I don't know if you saw the Toobin piece the other day but it's interesting reading, and reminds us that the idea that the Second Amendment provides sacrosanct protection of individuals' gun rights is actually a fairly recent development. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Interesting read.

Here is a blog post/article from a left-leaning gun owner that is worth a read:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Interesting read.

Here is a blog post/article from a left-leaning gun owner that is worth a read:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

This is a an interesting and well written piece, and makes some legitimate points. I think by obsessing about the gun control issue we are collectively missing an opportunity to make reforms that will actually help.

 

[jackstar7]

It's simple, most people (including my dad) are pussies. They don't want nor understand the self reliant mentality of gun ownership, nor do they see it as an essential freedom. They see it as a privilege, a toy to be confiscated when it isn't used properly, or they think it only applies to muskets (dad's said that too).

Whenever you see the words: "It's simple" in discussion of a complex issue, you know what follows is bullshit.

Way to publicly talk shit about your dad though. Happy holidays.

 

[dmens]

I don't know if you saw the Toobin piece the other day but it's interesting reading, and reminds us that the idea that the Second Amendment provides sacrosanct protection of individuals' gun rights is actually a fairly recent development. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Shit article, totally lacks any context.

Firstly, the NRA transformed itself in the 70's because the rank and file kicked out the old guard for selling them out to the state. The quid pro quo struck by the NRA leadership was that the trap and skeet fudds would keep their trap shotguns and hunting rifles in return for political support on the GCA68 legislation. Betraying 90% of your membership is generally not a good idea.

Secondly, the feeling among gun owners in the late 60's was that the government has gone too far. It used the social unrest of the 60's (most of it caused by oppressive government policies, but I digress) to pass the most restrictive gun control legislation in US history, the Gun Control Act of 1968. What really pissed them off was the "sporting purpose clause". I'm amused by the New Yorker article claiming that an individualist interpretation of 2A was a "new invention". Not quite. The individualist interpretation was always accepted norm, hence the ability of the citizenry to own any military small arm up until 1968. The "sporting purpose clause" is the real invention, a massive power grab written in the exact same language as the Nazi anti-gun legislation passed in 1934.

So what this guy sees as a NRA movement to re-interpret 2A is really the reaction of gun owners against a massive power grab by the federal government. When the government uses an insanely twisted reading of the Commerce Clause to grant itself new powers, naturally the people will resist the new powers with new arguments.

 

[Genx87]

Interesting read.

Here is a blog post/article from a left-leaning gun owner that is worth a read:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Awesome article!

 

[irishScott]

Whenever you see the words: "It's simple" in discussion of a complex issue, you know what follows is bullshit.

Way to publicly talk shit about your dad though. Happy holidays.

1. It's a figure of speech, and making such assumptions is called "being conveniently retarded".

2. You'll see whatever you want to see, I stated the truth. If I wanted to "talk shit" about my dad I could give you about 25 pages of my family history that would make your and this entire forum's skin legitimately crawl, my dad's a big part of that. But I think I'll spare myself the effort and just have you take or leave my word that he's a pussy.


From the sound of your post, you probably hold views similar to my dad and took offense. Well, if pigeon-holing me as some angsty whatever is the only way to justify those beliefs... yeah I think that fits the general criteria of "pussy".

 

[Druidx]

Interesting read.

Here is a blog post/article from a left-leaning gun owner that is worth a read:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Thanks for posting, it sums up my opinion.
I hate all this talk about renewing the AWB, claiming it was effect when every independent study says just the opposite. Many of the weapon they claimed would be off the street due to the ban were back a few months later. All it took was a cosmetic change, removing the bayonet mount and the assault weapon was no longer an assault weapon.

Maddow had a great story last night or the night before. It focused on how successful gun buy back programs are. Most importantly they are completely voluntary.

 

[diesbudt]

Whenever you see the words: "It's simple" in discussion of a complex issue, you know what follows is bullshit.

Way to publicly talk shit about your dad though. Happy holidays.

It's simple. Happy Holidays!

 

[jackstar7]

1. It's a figure of speech, and making such assumptions is called "being conveniently retarded".

2. You'll see whatever you want to see, I stated the truth. If I wanted to "talk shit" about my dad I could give you about 25 pages of my family history that would make your and this entire forum's skin legitimately crawl, my dad's a big part of that. But I think I'll spare myself the effort and just have you take or leave my word that he's a pussy.


From the sound of your post, you probably hold views similar to my dad and took offense. Well, if pigeon-holing me as some angsty whatever is the only way to justify those beliefs... yeah I think that fits the general criteria of "pussy".

Way to counterpoint me so effectively.

You brought up your dad, not me. And I care nothing about what he believes or what you believe about him.

I'm also not sure how I was pigeon-holing you... I just thought your shorthand to describe the position counter to yours was laughable, and so I laughed.

 

[irishScott]

Way to counterpoint me so effectively.

You brought up your dad, not me. And I care nothing about what he believes or what you believe about him.

I'm also not sure how I was pigeon-holing you... I just thought your shorthand to describe the position counter to yours was laughable, and so I laughed.

Actually you brought up the fact that I brought him up. Indicating you cared.

Laugh all you like. The question of an assault weapons ban taken to any significant lengths eventually boils down to personal philosophy. In my experience, having debated dozens of people on this, the viewpoint favoring a ban is typically less self reliant, less confident in its individual strength, and more fearful of its neighbors. There are exceptions to every rule and that mentality does exist on the anti-ban side as well, but that's the trend I've observed.

 

[jackstar7]

Just keep in mind this paraphrasing from a recent AT article:
Lots of anecdotal evidence != data


And father-son relationships generally interest me, that's true. The way you seem to be a mirror of your dad (only based on what you've posted) is intriguing, but hardly the topic of this thread.

 

[BladeVenom]

Now at least one source said his mom was trying to have him committed to an asylum. It sounds like it's harder to get someone committed in Connecticut than many other states. http://news.yahoo.com/sandy-hook-shooting-adam-lanza-lashing-against-treatment-231300962.html

So why doesn't the media place the same blame on the ACLU as they do the NRA? It's the ACLU who's keeping dangerous crazies on the streets.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...ation-law-that-might-have-prevented-killings/

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I would also support eliminating the gun show loophole and other means through which people are able to buy guns at retail without a background check. Not sure where I fall on the question of private sales - in general I don't like the idea of burdening private citizens with unneeded bureaucracy, but on the other hand private transfers of car ownership are regulated this way, so there's a model for it (and yes, I know the right to bear arms is a constitutionally-protected right and there is no accompanying "right" to own a car). On balance I don't feel that strongly either way and thus would probably rather such a law were not passed, because when in doubt, I'd rather have fewer laws than more.

I posted an article about this yesterday. The author was presented as the leading authority on this matter and, IIRC, was from the BATF or FBI.

He cited the statistics for the acquisition of weapons used in crimes. Gun shows weren't even on the radar. IIRC, the order was as follows:

-Straw purchases were number 1.
-Crooked FFL dealers were #2
-Thefts came in at between 10%-15%
-Black Market dealers - non-FFL who make a living selling to criminals (they acquired theirs by straw purchase, theft etc.)
-Acquired from family and/or friends whether by gift, loan or theft.

I don't recall the date of the article, but I do believe the govt has been working pretty diligently on #2 above. I believe a large reduction in the amount of FFL's has occurred consequently.

Edit: Forgot to say I think it would be a good idea for the govt to make its criminal background check available for free to anyone who is privately selling a gun. Gun show and private sellers could use this to ensure they aren't selling criminals.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

For the last time, there is no gun show loophole.

 

[irishScott]

Just keep in mind this paraphrasing from a recent AT article:
Lots of anecdotal evidence != data


And father-son relationships generally interest me, that's true. The way you seem to be a mirror of your dad (only based on what you've posted) is intriguing, but hardly the topic of this thread.

Ironically enough, my dad and I actually agree in principle that assault weapons should be strictly controlled, but still readily available to someone who can prove they're capable/stable (essentially gun licensing). The difference in our perspectives comes from the simple fact that I don't trust the government to properly implement such a system, or not abuse it once it's in place; not that any legislators are even entertaining the notion of assault weapon licensing (nope, just straight to the blanket bans).

 

[irishScott]

For the last time, there is no gun show loophole.

Which is exactly why it should be considered as a bargaining chip in the upcoming negotiations. Let them legislate nothing into nothing, in return for backing down on some conditions of the ban or something.