the Newtown, Conn. elementary school shooting

giving this its own thread because it looks like one of the worst mass shootings in u.s. history

cbs says 27 dead, have to imagine most are children

Reuters Top NewsVerified
‏@Reuters
FLASH: At least 27 dead including children in Connecticut school shooting - @CBSNews http://bit.ly/Z5RP7u

this is just gut-wrenching

this is unbelievably depraved

probably going to remind everyone in the uk of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

CBS says 14 children killed

Earlier reports of a second gunman are unconfirmed. The Connecticut Post reports that police are also questioning a handcuffed man in connection with the shooting.

the problem with guns is that they were ever invented in the first place IMO

ap says 18 kids dead

my god

ags;di

this is horrifying

I feel sick to my stomach and helpless because american gun laws are never going to change.

how
many
more
will
it
take

what can anyone even say, assholes always want guns and they like to use them, guns are so pervasive in media and everywhere that people can easily imagine themselves shooting up shit even if theyve never held one and dudes in particular have fantasies and get a charge out of guns. Who can deny it, why do we love action films? I want my kid to grow up without getting used to the idea of guns = awesome shit, but then what, he lives a peaceful kind life only to run across some infantile douche who loved guns a bit too much and got picked on a few times and decides to take out everyone in sight. Who knows. What can even be said.

american gun laws are never going to change.

sad but true

omg wtf

I feel sick to my stomach and helpless because american gun laws are never going to change.

This. So frustrating. Not just the laws, but the attitude. It's worse than sad.

the attitude will change but it might take decades... laws, i'm not so optimistic

"one entire classroom is unaccounted for" is really not a phrase you ever want to see

This country is too sick at its core to be trusted with a 2nd Amendment.

jesus this is awful

a kindergarten class? fucking hell.

so sad. right where i grew up too. newtown one town over. next to danbury.

I really don't think the 2nd Amendment makes any sense without military conscription

otm

Key problem with the gun control debate in the US is that the proposed laws are generally pointless - 'assault weapon bans' and such do nothing to curb crime. CT is fairly restrictive on gun laws.

The only gun control that would conceivably work is absolute confiscation. Which is impossible.

i can't even fucking comprehend this right now

and the gunman was the father of one of the students?

I can't even...

but people need to shoot quail. The government might rise up. freedom is important. Guns are cool. Let's arm everyone. Fuck this country sometimes IMO.

this is just so fucking horrible and tragic. godfuckingdamnit.

can't wait for all the 'DONT POLITICIZE THIS TRAGEDY' assholes. fucking dipshits. ban guns.

Laws have changed actually, Clinton's 10-yr Fed Assault Weapon ban was passed in 94... but the problem isn't with the laws, it's that the gun mnfctrs were able to find loopholes in the law and basically sell identical assault weapons during the ban as they did previously. Which is why when the ban was up in 04 it wasn't even up for consideration... completely cosmetic legal verbiage versus real-world economics.

Also, 18 children dead according to a school official.

worst country in the world

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1214/breaking49.html

22 kids slashed in china, just while things arent fucked enough

so glad the worlds ending next week

^^ yeah I saw that - a depressingly common occurrence in china, all things considered. (for some reason when guys go mental over there, they think the best way to get attention is to slash up a playground.) thank god guns are banned in china.

civil disobedience by citizenry needed to stop this shit.

NBC says "a second person" is in custody

This is profoundly sad

an uprising against the nra needed to stop this shit. xxp

I can't stop being reminded of this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_bombing

In 1927, dude used dynamite.

In 1959, dynamite in a suitcase.

Crazy gonna kill however crazy can kill.

In a just world Wayne Lapierre would be hanging from a lamppost right now.

^

in a just world folks would voluntarily melt down every gun they own

this is so fucking awful. Their poor parents, I can't imagine how it must feel.

no mass shooting has ever been perpetrated by a woman... this seems relevant to me somehow

the governments of the world would join them. But a lot of actual adults and govts just love them soooo much.

Crazy gonna kill however crazy can kill.

Yes. We need to talk about mental illness.

abc: "one shooter was 24 years old, armed with four weapons and wearing a bulletproof vest"

only one I can think of was the Laurie dann shooting in winnetka IL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_San_Marco

that was a vv minor incident comparatively speaking. It didn't stem from the usual emasculated feeling male raised an a steady diet of "guns are instruments of justice" BS

yeah I was about to link the jennifer san marco. that happened where I grew up.

so 1, i guess

I am perfectly fine w/ making it illegal for men to own guns

they are v rare, but there's a few others aside from San Marco. But still, infinitesimal compared to male spree shooting

Sylvia Seegrist: On October 30, 1985, she opened fire at a Springfield, Pennsylvania shopping mall, killing three people and wounding seven others before being disarmed by a shopper John Laufer (who mistakenly assumed Sylvia shooting to be a prank, as it was close to Halloween). The individuals killed included two men, Ernest Trout and Augustus Ferrara, and a two-year-old, Recife Cosmen. She was 25 years old and had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia ten years earlier.

Brenda Spencer: On January 29, 1979, Brenda, then 16, used a .22 rifle and fired at the staff and students of an elementary school across the street on which she lived, killing two and wounding nine. She is currently serving time in a San Diego prison and has been denied parole four times. When asked why she did it, she simply said that she doesn't like Mondays and that killing "livens up the day".

Amy Bishop: Shot six colleagues, three of which died, with a 9mm handgun February 13, 2010 shortly after learning that she had been denied tenure. She was arrested and indicted for the shooting and is currently in custody. The authorities also reopened the case of her fatally shooting her brother years earlier, an incident which previously was believed to have been an accident. In June 2010, she was charged with first-degree murder of her brother, nearly 24 years after the shooting occured. In 1993, Bishop and her husband were also suspects in a case in which a pair of pipe bombs were sent to a Harvard Medical School professor.

reminder that this is the country we live in:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc196/dhollis51/2011-10-15184559.jpg

this is the worst

it feels like the wrong direction for this thread to go in but just re: jord's post, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer. the gender split is relevant & corrections are sorta pedantry but just fwiw.

this is unbearable anyway. it's unconscionable that this wouldn't at least prompt an attempt to debate gun law; to cede its futility in advance is fine, maybe even wise, but to not try is immoral i think. it should be acknowledged that laws aren't ever perfect, & that there is a history of modifications that testify to the ongoing attempt to balance things out, refine & improve. from that point at least to limit things somewhat would mean something. i don't get gun ownership at all so, for me: fuck gun ownership, but without it needing to progress to the binary opposites on each side it would at least be nice to know things were going to improve a little from this.

yeah i agree it's not really the right direction for the thread

"making it illegal for men to own guns"

how would this even work? people are always going to get their hands on weapons, illegal or legally. If someone wants to get guns and prepare for a mass killing, they will.

that's never an argument for anything

...

this is so sad.

it would at least be nice to know things were going to improve a little from this.

we already know they won't

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadliest-us-shootings/

so 6 of the 12 deadliest school shootings in us history have occurred since 2007

sociologically/psychologically it's kind of interesting how that combined feeling of failure/helplessness/stress manifests itself in a spree shooting for more men than women but yeah, it's a different thread

xxxpost, didn't realise a fully auto rifle was so cheap.

I think it's extremely interesting because shootings don't have one cause, they have so many, there's every reason to chip away at all of them if we can.

sociologically/psychologically it's kind of interesting how that combined feeling of failure/helplessness/stress manifests itself in a spree shooting for more men than women but yeah, it's a different thread

men commit more of every crime! in every country!

Wrong thread--also, do not think of a purple cow. Gun laws, widely and consistently enforced, can greatly reduce number of gun massacres; Canada's laws would work even better without guns from the USA. The Second Amendment gets red like tea leaves and entrails by so-called strict constructionists. (27 dead counted so far, 18 children)

okay I am sickened at the thought of so many people targeting children. go into some office, fine - adults are corrupt, mostly. but innocent little kids really tears me up. I'm pretty fucking sad over here.

I think it's extremely interesting because shootings don't have one cause, they have so many, there's every reason to chip away at all of them if we can.

― grossly incorrect register (in orbit), Friday, December 14, 2012 1:43 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otmfm

"read", not "red" (well, both are appropriate duh)

it would at least be nice to know things were going to improve a little from this.

we already know they won't

― iatee, Friday, 14 December 2012 14:41 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i mean sure, & there are probably broader reasons to basically feel this way about everything in life. but i think to not try is just worse still; some people are at the very least in a position to persuade, even to be able to usefully politicise & work with the clay of a terrible thing that happened. there is that dr king quote, "Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree." everything is a battle & the shitty result is where i would put my money but i can't deal with the idea that shot children is anything other than an absolute pole of most peoples' moral spectrum, & therefore the type of thing which might hold coiled some possibility to prompt marginal interior reevaluation. gun lobbies will be gun lobbies but to not even try to redefine what the issues are & talk about what america's like, per dayo's link, it feels awful, & irresponsible, & pessimistic beyond belief.

Gun laws; mental illness; the societal undercurrents of men who feel they're losing control of their lives, their families, things they think ought to be "theirs" but turn out not to be; the former being heavily influenced by un- and under-employment and recession....it's a long list.

A long and horrible list.

"making it illegal for men to own guns"

how would this even work? people are always going to get their hands on weapons, illegal or legally. If someone wants to get guns and prepare for a mass killing, they will.

― not_goodwin, Friday, December 14, 2012 1:39 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

xxxpost, didn't realise a fully auto rifle was so cheap.

xxxp Of things that the government doesn't find compelling enough to spend money to investigate or resolve.

"bad people are going to do this anyway" is a horrible reason to avoid "gun control" (such a shit euphemism since I mean BAN GUNS)

I'm sure it would be really difficult to find instructions online on how to modify one of those semi-autos into an auto

I was about fifty yards from a horrible massacre at a salon in seal beach last year, drive by a couple min after it occurred. Was with my wife and son at the time. This shit feels unavoidable sometimes.

yes but this is a pointless counter-remark because you still prevent some % of shootings because not 100% of potential killers will go through the trouble of finding/exploiting illegal channels. this isn't all or nothing, any degree of prevention is good

We should ban booze, guns, tobacco, cars, explosives, knives, all drugs, et al.

it feels too soon to try to make sense of this or analyze it. imagine the parents. this is just awful.

I'm sure it would be really difficult to find instructions online on how to modify one of those semi-autos into an auto

― 乒乓, Friday, December 14, 2012 6:53 PM (9 seconds ago)

actually, yes it would, and is in fact probably impossible to do.

an uprising against the nra needed to stop this shit. xxp

― how's life, Friday, December 14, 2012 6:24 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

To even make a dent you'd need a zealous, obsessive opposition like the anti-abortion people who go around the country putting up huge photos of aborted fetuses. Everybody hates those people, but they have an effect on how the issue is framed and talked about. But I don't see that kind of years-long zealotry coming out of the anti-NRA side.

Honestly my first response on seeing the "school shooting" headline was just, you know, I don't feel like engaging with this. It's exhausting. I don't even want to know who the murderer(s) is/are, I don't want to know anything about it. It's a beautiful Friday afternoon, I can't take the pointless immersion in misery.

What not to do. Especially today.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/12/14/meanwhile-in-michigan/

We should ban booze, guns, tobacco, cars, explosives, knives, all drugs, et al.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 1:53 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we should ban the ones that make it easy to hurt and kill strangers

We're not the parents or victims this time, but we're all at risk from other people's illness and access to deadly weapons. I disagree that it's too soon--see also any remarks about not "politicizing the issue." IT'S POLITICAL. ALREADY. ALL OF IT.

I'm sure it would be really difficult to find instructions online on how to modify one of those semi-autos into an auto

― 乒乓

sounds like a great argument for banning non-automatic weapons

we should ban the ones that make it easy to hurt and kill strangers

I don't think guns need to be banned wholesale, I just think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed so we can have sensible gun laws. If that eventually leads to guns being banned, so be it, but that doesn't seem like a logical consequence of stricter gun control in this country given its history and how much self-identification as an American, consciously or subconsciously rests on the idea that you can own a gun.

YES xp

cars, fertilizer, certain types of knives all have much more common practical uses than guns

IT'S POLITICAL. ALREADY. ALL OF IT.

Yes. See also this and this.

"making it illegal for men to own guns"

how would this even work? people are always going to get their hands on weapons, illegal or legally. If someone wants to get guns and prepare for a mass killing, they will.

I have a modest proposal. All men should be banned from having guns; it should be mandatory that all women should carry. If a woman sees a man with a gun, she shoots him. If a man takes a gun from a woman, and another woman sees, she shoots him. After all, he was asking for it.
There are additional bonuses to this plan. Women are safer; gun manufacturers are still happy.

<koff>

there are some mornings i go to drive to work and try to climb inside a gun because i forget that guns and cars are not the same thing.

I just think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed

it's only been very, very, very recently that the supreme court has read into the 2A the constitutional right for an individual gun ownership

Meanwhile , amongst all the horrid shit done in Michigan today, there's this:

http://mobile.mlive.com/advannarbor/pm_103387/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=RfajOIZh

NO LONGER ‘NO CARRY’

Concealed handguns can now be carried in these places, though exclusions are still possible in some.
• Schools and school property
• Child-care centers
• Bars
• Church, synagogues, mosques, temples, or other places of worship
• Entertainment facilities that seat 2,500 people or more
• Hospitals
• Dormitories and classrooms of a community college, college, or university

Over/under on first mass shooting in one of those locations in Michigan?

there are some mornings i go to drive to work and try to climb inside a gun because i forget that guns and cars are not the same thing.

obviously there won't be any now that people can concealed carry!

Over/under on first mass shooting in one of those locations in Michigan?

Well, my guns have been responsible for the exact same number of crimes as my truck - fewer if you count rolling stops and speeding.

o okay I guess everything is cool then

cool fact

very cool factoid

that just makes me feel a lot better

america is safe

why should we talk about all the kids that get killed by guns and cars when there is the counterargument 'milo does not commit crimes'

Order restored

milo thank you for not shooting me with your guns

people who love guns never seem to question their own love for them in the way they should, it's kind of an addictive thing IMO.

Glad y'all are as rational as the assholes who fantasize about "what if the teacher was packing heat."

^^ yeah they tend to think that their own responsible conduct is reflected in all gunowners nationwide. xp

this feels different to me somehow, a small turning point maybe... wanna say schlump is otm. talking about all of the causes to all of the people, fighting the shut down, the "actually..." police... we are all responsible in some immeasurable way when things like this happen because of the whole field from culture to policy that we're all a part of whether we like it or not

x-post yeah the desire to create statistical equivalencies and measurements and etc is such an avoidance tactic, one that apropos of nothing is also gendered strongly male

what have we said that's irrational?

Concealed handgun licensees are less likely to commit crimes

I'd be a bit happier if all legal gun purchases required the same background checks.

Concealed handgun licensees are less likely to commit crimes than the average population.

Yes, I know. And this is why we can't have a conversation about any of this, ever, because gun owners and NRA types get pre-emptively butthurt every fucking time.

(I can give you at least three CCW permit holders who killed innocent people in my immediate area, though. One of them killed a cop. Another killed a parking lot attendant. FREEDOM.)

guns are kind of perverse objects to worship. When you really think about them they're laughable. Got to laugh at myself for being thrilled by gun battles in action movies too I guess.

Make all guns shoot backwards

So is this the guy?
https://www.facebook.com/rlanza

guns not really "laughable" imo.

omar i admire you thinking through the symbolism of guns, that's actual real world responsibility and "manhood" if you want to call it that

I mean in a grim depressing way that makes me want to weep sometimes.

people who love guns never seem to question their own love for them in the way they should, it's kind of an addictive thing IMO.

I own a larger-than-average number of guns because I enjoy shooting and I shoot competitively (USPSA and '3-gun') as a hobby. I also have a compound bow because of an interest in archery.
I have a concealed handgun license but I never carry, I sat through the class just because having one made it easier to join a club I shoot at. This required electronic fingerprinting and a long background check by the state police.
I formerly had a special Federal Firearms License for antique and military surplus guns (basically, WWII and prior bolt action rifles could be delivered straight to my door). This required paperwork to go to the city PD and to the ATF and a 3-month approval process.

I don't keep any ammo in my apartment, much less a loaded gun. I see no purpose - basic risk assessment tells me that a healthy young male is not a prime candidate for anything worse than burglary. In which case I'll help the burglars load my shit and file a renters' insurance claim.

xpost Make all guns shoot backwards

OTM

xp Oh my god could this not be about you for a second?

UPDATE 2:16 PM A parent of the shooter has been found dead in a home in New Jersey, according to NBC News.

why can't you just play halo ffs

the actual act of deep gun enthusiasm is to me totally biZarre to the point that it is disturbing and casual acceptance of guns in society by pretty much everyone is weird. I've seen a gun fire IRL maybe ten times. And yet I'm so familiar with them. It's disgusting to me. I don't think all gun owners are really unthinking. I think we all are tbqf.

well on a mechanical level they're "laughable", it's the incredibly strong power binary embedded in the object that has so much potential for destruction... it's like life/death in a conveniently purchasable/consumable form. i think that power needs to be laughed at, ridiculed, shrugged off a lot more actually!

Guns are undeniably for lack of a better term "charismatic" objects for lack of a better adjective at the moment. To me and lots of
Others. That fact grosses me out.

UPDATE 2:23 PM: CNN has identified the shooter as 20-year-old Ryan Lanza. NBC News is reporting Lanza's mother was a kindergarten teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary and it was in her classroom where most of the violence occurred.

oh my god

It's about gun owners and Omar's take on them. I'll wager that I have more experience with guns and gun owners than almost anyone here, including Omar.
Some are morons. Some carry a gun because they have fantasies of being the hero in an event like this, or they've been a victim of crime in the past and feel safer doing so. Some collect guns and rarely, if ever, shoot. Some are hunters. Some shoot a great deal, recreationally. The 'average gun owner' is no more Omar's stereotype than the NRA wishes he was.

The connection between people who want to ban guns because of mass killings and people who want to carry more guns because of them, it seems to me, is that they don't treat the events rationally.

really cannot wrap my mind around any of this.

can somebody give milo a threadban thanks

fwiw stringent background checks to screen out the insane don't particularly help if the insane person with the gun was sane when the gun was purchased

I kind of feel like focusing on guns (which IMO should be focused upon, don't get it twisted) is deflecting somewhat from the way our country handles mental health as an ongoing, variable concern; it seems kind of obvious that a person could be mentally well at one point in their life and mentally unwell at another, much like one can be physically well and unwell, but it is always treated by the public as a monolithic state where the assumption is that crazy people were always crazy and can never be sane again, and sane people will never go crazy. In addition to looking at how we interact with guns, we need to look at how we are interacting with mental health.

The big problem is that people seem genetically geared to do whatever is easiest, regardless of whether it is in their self-interest or not, and I can't off the top of my head think of an effective way to make sure people get the help they need for their mental health without massive Big Brother-style intrusive monitoring.

also giving milo a threadban because he disagrees would be fucking stupid

one way of treating guns rationally is realizing that 'no no guys it's really fun to shoot at pieces of paper' doesn't make up for the rest of this shit

WTF

thread is going exactly as I expected, this whole making it political thing is really going well

guns are still blackly comedic objects that were an unfortunate invention

ugh, how did this story get even more fucked up.

i think that power needs to be laughed at, ridiculed, shrugged off a lot more actually!

This is pretty dangerous imho, it abstracts it, desensitizes it into some fantasy object. This year i've had a few friends go to shooting ranges and shoot a gun for the first time in their lives and the experience is life-changing. They had no idea it would affect them so much, that the act of simply shooting a gun would be so incredibly violent. It terrified them in a way they weren't expecting. The power and destruction of a gun is something everyone 'knows' but there is a difference between knowing about this power and respecting it.

I don't think it's really a pOlitical issue, it's def a psychological one but more how we as a society relate to guns even as casual observers of them in everyday media and film and videogames.

can somebody give milo a threadban thanks

― 乒乓, Friday, December 14, 2012 1:25 PM (2 minutes ago)

Are you serious?!

i do think everyone should shoot in a range at least once in their lives

I mean it IS political but I'm more interested in the psychological.

ned where did you get the cnn update from (the one about the victims being the classroom of the shooter's mother)? i can't find it on cnn

thanks for the words on mental health, DJP

thread is going exactly as I expected, this whole making it political thing is really going well

Honestly, if I stop to think about the fact that 18 or more little kids who were just minding their own business at an elementary school on a Friday morning are now shot dead, it's too much. I'd rather have a hollow political argument so I can postpone wrapping my head around what has actually happened.

It is political. It has always been political. Can please no one else here say anything about "politicizing" it because we are all at least marginally smarter than that.

I went to a bachelor party weekend in Vegas and everyone went to Vegas' famous "Gun Store" to shoot assault weapons. I bailed and went drinking at a casino instead. Terrified of heavy weaponry for the most part.

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/279666940442718208

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”
Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.

but it was such a casual thing. I don't get it. Why shoot guns? Don't understand. The "thrill" of it is what freaks me out.

Are you serious?!

― WilliamC, Friday, December 14, 2012 2:30 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sorry, really was not interested in reading about how utterly responsible and terrific and rational a gunowner milo is. I feel sick. threadban me too. I need to maybe go take a walk.

It doesn't actually have to be a thrill, any more than like laying cribbage is a thrill. It's possible for shooting guns to simply be a hobby or a pastime.

but it was such a casual thing. I don't get it. Why shoot guns? Don't understand. The "thrill" of it is what freaks me out.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, December 14, 2012 2:33 PM (56 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think on the surface it's much more thrilling than shooting pool or playing darts. but i learned a hell of a lot by doing it and it was a great tonic in terms of finding movie gun battles and that shit a lot *less* thrilling.

So is this the guy?
https://www.facebook.com/rlanza

no

https://twitter.com/Fletch788/status/279668466150166528/photo/1

ned where did you get the cnn update from (the one about the victims being the classroom of the shooter's mother)? i can't find it on cnn

― dexpresso (Z S)

not to mention deciding that shooter-type video games are somewhat repulsive

it is very important to remember that there are utterly responsible, terrific and rational gunowners out there IMO; ignoring that basically allows people to gloss over the complexity of the mental health issues that make this such a horribly dangerous topic when something goes wrong

I also think this also applies to the assumption that gun owners love or are obsessed with guns, that sort of rhetoric gets in the way of rational argument as much as any of the other assumptions involved in discussions about guns.

my brother says this is the guy. ryan lanza:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJowcdlGlo

It is completely understandable to be good at shooting and enjoy yr competence at it just like anything else most people can't do and that has an aura of power and coolness, c'mon, it's ME, you know how I thrill to action movies and tough-guy schtick like it's my full-time job. It's pretty fucking disingenuous to say it's BASICALLY THE SAME AS cribbage, though.

As someone who has enjoyed shooting guns, and who respects hunters and people who engage in sports and competitions involving guns, I'm not convinced we need special protection for gun ownership in the constitution (however you read the second amendment).

I would support a movement to repeal the second amendment. I understand that would be extremely difficult to achieve, but I would like to see it done.

I agree with Dan's point about mental health. Mental health care is very terrible in this country. That said, the mental illness issue is very complicated. Not sure what measures could have been taken w/r/t the treatment of mental illness that would have stopped these things from happening, unless it was a question of access for any of these individuals.

Firearms: Just like your bag of knitting! Those needles are pretty sharp it's true.

my main feeling when shooting was "fuck this is really loud"

it is very important to remember that there are utterly responsible, terrific and rational gunowners out there IMO; ignoring that basically allows people to gloss over the complexity of the mental health issues that make this such a horribly dangerous topic when something goes wrong

it doesn't matter how many utterly responsible, terrific and rational gunowners there are unless we believe the social benefit of them being able to shoot at pieces of paper is greater than the social benefit of having fewer kids brutally murdered

They should allow you to trade in guns for health care.

Z S -- I'm c/ping updates from Gawker's page.

http://gawker.com/5968442/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school-%5Bupdating%5D

ignoring that basically allows people to gloss over the complexity of the mental health issues that make this such a horribly dangerous topic when something goes wrong

Cue the mental health activists who rise up to say "DON'T BLAME US!" when something like this happens. Understandable, as no one wants to claim anyone who has shot almost 30 people dead, 18 of them tiny children, but I don't get the reactionary nature of some in the mental health community who act shocked when people assume a shooter might possibly have something wrong with his/her brain.

one way of treating guns rationally is realizing that 'no no guys it's really fun to shoot at pieces of paper' doesn't make up for the rest of this shit

If anyone had an argument in favor of confiscation and a plan as to how to go about it, that would be interesting.

In the long run, we're still an extremely safe country overall and guns kill fewer people than cars or cigarettes.

xpost

oh, thanks! I couldn't seem to find it on CNN or NBC but I'm sure it'll be up soon

Cue the mental health activists who rise up to say "DON'T BLAME US!" when something like this happens. Understandable, as no one wants to claim anyone who has shot almost 30 people dead, 18 of them tiny children, but I don't get the reactionary nature of some in the mental health community who act shocked when people assume a shooter might possibly have something wrong with his/her brain.

Eh? You'd think something like this would prove their point.

i think it should be harder to get guns. you get a license just like a driver's license. take a test and if you fail the test you don't get the license. there is a LOT of really normal shit you can do to make things more manageable. i dunno, the govt makes it hard to do lots of stuff it should be harder to own deadly weapons.

In the long run, we're still an extremely safe country overall and guns kill fewer people than cars or cigarettes.

Just not all at once, totally indiscriminately.

What I said is that assuming that people who shoot guns are doing it because of the thrill is not always accurate. It can be a fairly pedestrian activity to people who are accustomed to the experience. Many xposts I am sure

it doesn't matter how many utterly responsible, terrific and rational gunowners there are unless we believe the social benefit of them being able to shoot at pieces of paper is greater than the social benefit of having fewer kids brutally murdered

Bad events occur. They are tragedies and we should mourn the dead. But we should not pretend that it's possible to make them go away.

In the long run, we're still an extremely safe country overall and guns kill fewer people than cars or cigarettes.

"cars and cigarettes kill people" is a great argument for banning cars and cigarettes, but has nothing to do w/ whether or not guns should be legal. and we're not an extremely safe country compared to other western democracies, we're an extremely unsafe country on basically every measure.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-GYvvfCUAAD-0G.png:large

not to like begin another digression but I went to the nyt site and man the pictorial coverage and giant headline seem super disgusting to me

I think it should be amazingly difficult to get drivers licenses too tbh. And certain infractions shd lead to lifetime driving bans.

and you 'disagree with people on civil liberties' because you believe your god given right to shoot at pieces of paper is more important than other peoples god given right to not be shot by a stranger

In addition to looking at how we interact with guns, we need to look at how we are interacting with mental health.

DJP OTM here.

i think that power needs to be laughed at, ridiculed, shrugged off a lot more actually!

This is pretty dangerous imho, it abstracts it, desensitizes it into some fantasy object. This year i've had a few friends go to shooting ranges and shoot a gun for the first time in their lives and the experience is life-changing. They had no idea it would affect them so much, that the act of simply shooting a gun would be so incredibly violent. It terrified them in a way they weren't expecting. The power and destruction of a gun is something everyone 'knows' but there is a difference between knowing about this power and respecting it.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, December 14, 2012 11:28 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

guns are already a fantasy object. the already abstract power they hold over our culture is constructed. the disgust/seriousness/worship is all part of that power imo. i think it would do us well to laugh at how some assortment of parts with a simple ridiculous exaggerated mechanical projection, initially an idea, given tangible form by exploitation and colonialism and the industrial revolution and all of that, has been such a long-term member of the cast.

x-post laurel so otm on shooting as a hobby. we should be asking ourselves why people (mostly men) get so defensive about it. n.b. i've shot a gun before. it was boring and it kinda hurt my shoulder.

xxpost milo i don't know what to say other than you are horribly horribly wrong

i definitely believe that with drunk driving. caight once lose your license for a year. twice and you lose it forever.

x-post

In the long run, we're still an extremely safe country overall and guns kill fewer people than cars or cigarettes.

milo, I have a little sympathy for your point of view but no, compared to other comparable countries, we're not that safe at all. We're also a lot worse at driving and smoking than most, if that's what you mean.

I personally think banning weapons at the city/county level makes a hell of a lot of sense, especially in urban areas.

And yeah, I never felt any particular thrill at shooting a gun. It's fun when I find myself more skilled (more accurate, faster on a course of fire) but I've never felt a surge of adrenaline or fear or any sense of power simply from pulling the trigger.
I'd wager this is true of just about everyone who shoots a lot and especially anyone who shoots competitively. You can't be a thrill jockey and win at a sport.

Guns are just objects to me - expensive toys that can be dangerous if you're stupid and/or complacent.

like I said though I think as controversial an opinion as it
Might seem the relationship mainstream entertainment has to fun fetishiZation and how that affects things is impt as well. I feel like the mass killers are not usually hardcore gun collectors and hunters but rather people raised on a steady diet of media gun fetishization.

Eh? You'd think something like this would prove their point.

I'm talking about those who believe that mental illness is just a fact of life and they live with it and should be treated as any other person and everyone else should quit blaming society's ills on "the crazy". I see their point, but I also think in their haste to "normalize" mental illness, they're ignoring the fact that some people are far more sick than others.

Bad events occur. They are tragedies and we should mourn the dead. But we should not pretend that it's possible to make them go away.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2h3zm03.png

we also shouldn't pretend that there's not a difference in violent crime between the united states and most other industrialized countries that has to do with gun policies.

Guns are just objects to me - expensive toys that can be dangerous if you're stupid and/or complacent.

yeah but everyone is stupid and complacent sometimes

Forgive my previous post I'm Doug bad proofreading

guns are already a fantasy object.

interesting perspective re: an event where 30 ppl got killed by one, but good on you for taking the long view

Doug! doing

if I have guns around, even locked up, I'm not going to think "wow, I'm kind of stupid/complacent/mentally ill today, perhaps I should not be taking my guns out"

everyone check z s' graph

I think CAD has a somewhat valuable pt about people shooting guns. I did it a couple times and once you do you recognize how guns are these somewhat unenjoyable objects and shooting I think is for most people not fun.

I am perfectly fine w/ making it illegal for men to own guns

― iatee, Friday, December 14, 2012 10:34 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I get my pride at a target nicely taken out w/the occasional bullseye in darts tbh.

We are quite safe, actually. Statistically, our violent crime rate is behind the UK. More homicides, yes, but less violent crime overall.
Even that doesn't take into account that regional pockets of violence skew the overall rates. If you live in Vermont (extremely liberal gun control laws) or Hawaii (extremely restrictive) your homicide rate is lower than the UK.

Guns are not 'toys' or 'fantasy objects' or 'laughable'. Christ, i hope you guys don't own any.

I was the top marksman in my basic training platoon, having never fired a gun before. There was a sense of accomplishment, but that was 20 years ago, and I've never touched a firearm since.

On that ZS chart, my city (New Orleans) would be well off the scale, at 50 homicides / 100,000. Among the lower classes it closer 100/100,000.

I grew up hunting in a hilariously suburban way in Michigan. Haven't done so since the age of 14-15. I think every single person should go thru a gun/hunters/forest safety class, like when they taught CPR in gym.

Vermont and Hawaii should not be held up as examples of anything that can be extrapolated out on a national scale.

Guns are like having a car three times as wide as usual. Sure, you can learn to drive it, but when you don;t drive it well, you'll plow down dozens of people.

God, I first heard the news about this on the way to pick up my sick daughter, and I could barely keep it together.

We are quite safe, actually. Statistically, our violent crime rate is behind the UK. More homicides, yes, but less violent crime overall.

more homicides, yes. but record lows in public loitering.

re: that graph - you should also note that while the number of guns in civilian hands has risen dramatically, along with concealed carry in the majority of states, the rate has been cut in half over the last forty years.
If the presence of guns were the entire answer, that number should have continued to rise.

pretty satisfied to momentarily feel jingoistically british if you are gonna start swapping crime rates

Also, our brains aren't wired to process the odds of low-probability events too well. The things we use to process information stopped evolving a hundred millennia before the Information Age.

Bad events occur.

Ah, the passive voice. What a multitude of sins it covers.

If you live in Vermont (lots of actual hunting, rural space, population density of 67.7/sq mi)

you mean rationality xp

Yes, there are responsible, careful, rigorously trained gun owners, but that doesn't mean that depressed maniacs should be able to obtain the means to wage instant pushbutton warfare on his mother's kindergarten class. And yes, it's also a matter of screening etc; to say treatment would require Big Brother is just...

re: that graph - you should also note that while the number of guns in civilian hands has risen dramatically, along with concealed carry in the majority of states, the rate has been cut in half over the last forty years.
If the presence of guns were the entire answer, that number should have continued to rise.

the # has risen dramatically cause of gun nuts not cause the average american is more likely to own a gun, the opposite is true

Vermont and Hawaii should not be held up as examples of anything that can be extrapolated out on a national scale.

Getting rid of guns completely would decrease crime rates, undoubtedly. But that's a fantasy.
In our world, with guns, crime is a product of socio-economic opportunity, the drug war/gangs, education, the weakness of the mental health safety net, etc.

I think CAD has a somewhat valuable pt about people shooting guns. I did it a couple times and once you do you recognize how guns are these somewhat unenjoyable objects and shooting I think is for most people not fun.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, December 14, 2012 11:53 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

disagree quite strongly. i didn't care much about guns until i shot one. the experience was more thrilling and (for want of a better word) empowering than i ever would have imagined. have never felt so effortlessly powerful - and scared both of that power and of my own enjoyment of it - than when holding a heavy, ugly, loaded handgun. that dangerous thrill is the main reason i'd never want to own a gun. it's intoxicating, the feeling of driving a big truck among small cars magnified a thousand times. i can see how alluring it might be for some people, especially those who typically feel scared and powerless.

the # has risen dramatically cause of gun nuts not cause the average american is more likely to own a gun, the opposite is true

But no, what I said was "more guns in civilian hands" - which is absolutely true - and 75-80 million people own guns in total. Yet rates have declined precipitously.

If this country ever gets so bad that I need to carry a gun to feel safe, that's pretty much the end of the country.

It's not just a matter of "screening" so the mentally ill boogeymen don't get their hands on guns, it's a matter of instituting a national plan to help people who have mental health issues. But I honestly can't foresee you guys changing either your gun laws or your mental health programmes, so, yeah. Everything is shit.

I know a couple of gun nuts who collect all manner of guns, mostly to trade for parts they weren't allowed to buy or whatever. An extra clip here, a scope there, a silencer there ...

"Trading for a silencer" would be a federal felony. Ask TI.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png

But no, what I said was "more guns in civilian hands" - which is absolutely true - and 75-80 million people own guns in total. Yet rates have declined precipitously.

If you 'know' anyone who's done that, you should call Crimestoppers and get a reward.

Eh, this was a decade ago. Law the same then?

Uh-huh, iatee. More guns in civilian hands and 75-80 million people owning them in total. Exactly what I've said.

But you didn't respond to the first part - shouldn't 'gun nuts' be the problem? If they're the source of the rapid increase in private gun ownership, shouldn't they have committed a lot more crimes?

Yup. The law on suppressors/silencers has been the same since 1934.

so how many little kids are dead

now

better mental health services, yes, but also just ban all the fucking guns. i'm sick of bending over backwards to maintain a sensible, fair, midde-ground position about this. guns have no legitimate non-lethal function. too many people are killing and dying for no reason. americans can't apparently handle the responsibilities that come with freedom and power. fuck moderation. ban them all. if that does't work, then we'll try something else.

uh, in that most recent chart, polls from the same organization (GSS) show that in 2010 about 18% (or so) have a "pistol or shotgun in home", but about 32% (or so) have a "gun in their home". does that mean that the 14% (or so) have an assault rifle in their homes, or is there some other class of gun i'm not thinking of?

Uh-huh, iatee. More guns in civilian hands and 75-80 million people owning them in total. Exactly what I've said.

But you didn't respond to the first part - shouldn't 'gun nuts' be the problem? If they're the source of the rapid increase in private gun ownership, shouldn't they have committed a lot more crimes?

the point is that 'more' means nothing when its not adjusted for population growth. gun nuts aren't necessarily more likely to kill people just like jerry seinfeld isn't more likely to kill someone w/ a car even tho he owns 300 or whatever. maybe we should only allow guns to people who are willing to buy 300.

I know emotions are riding high but it would help if people would think when they read things ppl wrote on this thread

"I can't think of an idea off the top of my head that isn't laughably intrusive" isn't actually saying "instituting proper mental health requires turning into Big Brother"; it's saying "I don't have a good answer for this". The problem is still there for debate and there's an implicit invitation for people with better ideas to offer them.

To legally acquire a suppressor, you have to file a Form 4 with the ATF - as an individual, that includes a signature by a county law enforcement chief giving you the ok and fingerprints (and photographs, I believe). You send in a $200 check to the ATF when you file your paperwork. 6-9 months later they give you the okay, cash your check and you can go pick up your suppressor from your specialist dealer.

I can't imagine the illegal trade in them amounts to much - the ATF has every suppressor registered in the NFA along with the owner who has the stamp. If used in a crime, it would take nothing to trace the suppressor back to the owner - who either committed the crime or sold the suppressor illegally (which will net you several years in the federal pen).
Dealers who have the ability to deal in NFA items are unlikely to have any fall off the truck as the penalties are quick and severe.

xxxp

standard rifle, for one

yeah, that's pretty much the same thing, Jesus. emily, I said "screening etc.", screening should indeed lead to effective mental health resources, as you say. And some are beyond such help. Identity of shooter confirmed: Ryan Lanza, b. 1988, his various weapons all appear to have been legally purchased. More than twice as many people killed here than Columbine.

I think CAD has a somewhat valuable pt about people shooting guns. I did it a couple times and once you do you recognize how guns are these somewhat unenjoyable objects and shooting I think is for most people not fun.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, December 14, 2012 11:53 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

disagree quite strongly. i didn't care much about guns until i shot one. the experience was more thrilling and (for want of a better word) empowering than i ever would have imagined. have never felt so effortlessly powerful - and scared both of that power and of my own enjoyment of it - than when holding a heavy, ugly, loaded handgun. that dangerous thrill is the main reason i'd never want to own a gun. it's intoxicating, the feeling of driving a big truck among small cars magnified a thousand times. i can see how alluring it might be for some people, especially those who typically feel scared and powerless.

― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:04 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well this all was really my point--folks should do it because you'll learn something abt guns and learn something abt yourself.

me i was pretty neutral on it, it's fun to hit the range once in a while but i can't fathom handling a gun outside of that environment.

milo did you ever quit smoking?

xpost I imagine the vast majority of collector gun trade is not in service of committing a crime. Until it is, of course. See: rapid accumulation of Denver shooter's stockpile.

I've shot guns before, though never killed anything. I would be fine never shooting a gun ever again.

the point is that 'more' means nothing when its not adjusted for population growth.

I'm so glad that it's so difficult to get a silencer, because the only way guns can work is if there's a silencer on them

what is the fucking point

except that the number of guns in civilian hands has outpaced population growth, so you have no point here

my point is that the average american is less likely to own a gun, but there are more guns owned by americans, that is because crazy people like you buy 20

xpost I imagine the point is similar to the point made by owning an assault rifle.

obama wiping away tears

there are literally billions of people alive right now, who have never touched a gun, have never touched a gun, never will shoot a gun, will fucking die of old age in peace and happiness surrounded by their family and friends and loved ones without having shot a gun, and they will not have missed a fucking thing worth living for.

And some of them will be shot by people with guns

Sorry someone asked about the law on silencers, buddy.

many xposts to dow - sorry, I wasn't directing that at you particularly, or suggesting that you personally thought mentally ill people were "boogeymen", just riffing off your mention b/c it stirred stuff up in me.

the word "crazy" doesn't always apply, but otherwise iatee OTM

what is the fucking point

i'd be a little scared of anyone who wants to shoot something but not attract attention

And the vast majority of Americans who've touched and shot guns will die of old age in peace and happiness too.

Actually, because we're Americans, they'll die of heart disease or cancer.

these people don't fucking care, they just kill themselves in the end anyway.

I guarantee you there are hundreds of gun collectors with silencers who take them out to the range to quietly shoot paper targets.

xpost

I think this whole lower crime rate thing is misleading, just bc it's better doesn't mean it's as good as it could be. Studying for a test for an hour an getting a D is a passing grade and better than what would have happened if you hadnt studied at all but what if you'd studied for a week.

interloper's comment ---> even as an educator who frequently finds herself in rooms full of potentially unstable people (and their angry family members), i still don't want to have a gun in my desk. i'm never going to use it and if it's there, there's a higher chance of someone using it on me rather than the other way around.

i don't understand how anyone even thinks that is an answer. i really don't get it.

i'd be a little scared of anyone who wants to shoot something but not attract attention

Does the low gun homicide rate defense factor in people seriously injured, maimed, disfigured or disabled by guns? It's like reading the relatively low Iraq war deaths, but ignoring the tens of thousands of people seriously injured, sometimes just on base let alone in the field.

nobody's 'quality of life' will be negatively impacted if guns are banned. in fact, everybody's 'quality of life' will be immeasurably improved. it's as simple as that. ban guns.

Where was that TNC bit awhile ago, about finding himself so mad at a car of teenagers he would have drawn on them had he been packing

dayo otm. like so much of the world is really doing okay without trying to brainstorm One Weird Trick to stop people falling in love with firearms. it doesn't have to be entrusted to changeable, emotional minds, it should be something that we work towards just not being an option.

Certain subsonic rounds get that down to ~85db, which is still the threshold for damage.

my point is that the average american is less likely to own a gun, but there are more guns owned by americans, that is because crazy people like you buy 20

nobody's 'quality of life' will be negatively impacted if guns are banned. in fact, everybody's 'quality of life' will be immeasurably improved. it's as simple as that. ban guns.

But what about all the people who will contract Lyme disease from unchecked deer population growth?

NYT:

News outlets are reporting that the brother of Ryan Lanza was found dead at his home in New Jersey.

Does the low gun homicide rate defense factor in people seriously injured, maimed, disfigured or disabled by guns?

And yet is still more violent than the rest of the developed world by a factor of 2+.

you know how american society could get even safer? ban guns

One Weird Trick To Make America Safer: Ban Guns

The point of only criminals having guns if you make gun ownership illegal is so true. It's easy -- now if you see anyone with a gun at all, you are 100% sure they are either a criminal or law enforcement. And law enforcement officers wear uniforms.

Jonah Goldberg ‏@JonahNRO

Yeah I'm going walk away from twitter for a while RT @jbarro: More incredibly tiresome gun policy tweets, please.

All violent crime rates - homicide and assault - have dropped. American society has been getting increasingly safe for two generations.

So people's corks pop less often, but apparently are popping with a lot more force when it does happen?

the logistical/financial/legal effort required to remove all the guns from the general populace is roughly proportional to the effort required to deport all illegal immigrants fwiw

Policemen Are FURIOUS At This 26 Year Old For Teaching This One Weird Trick To Make Our Lives Safer: Ban Guns

As if the crime rate would go up if the gun ownership rate went down.

on pace for 500 gun deaths in chicago this year but hey american society is getting safer so who gives a fuck

News outlets are reporting that the brother of Ryan Lanza was found dead at his home in New Jersey.

the logistical/financial/legal effort required to remove all the guns from the general populace is roughly proportional to the effort required to deport all illegal immigrants fwiw

what if we paid illegal immigrants to take peoples guns and throw them away, then gave them citizenship when they were done

it's as simple as that. ban guns.

yes, just like the ban on marijuana and cocaine that's worked so well

How many years ago was it that the majority of Americans smoked, despite evidence it can kill you? Change takes time. The few guns introduced to the population, the more effort made to reduce interest in guns, the fewer guns there will be in several decades.

The U.S. gun homicide rate is 10 times the combined rate of the countries that belong to NATO.

LOL at the idea of gun plants cropping up deep in the jungles of South America.

gladwelling about overall trends in US safety feels like a canard, here, unless you're able to tie-in gun ownership or regulation as a causal factor

And yet is still more violent than the rest of the developed world by a factor of 2+.

people are less likely to live in a place where there's any real 'excuse' for owning a gun beyond committing crimes or 'I really like shooting at pieces of paper'. its not comparable to smoking pot, which is enjoyable both in rural and urban environments and not likely to go away.

xp

yes, just like the ban on marijuana and cocaine that's worked so well

this article that DD posted on facebook is worth reading:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/#.UMt4wQ2_wqI.facebook

Also, pot takes virtually no raw materials to cultivate in the wild. I can't grow my own guns.

the logistical/financial/legal effort required to remove all the guns from the general populace is roughly proportional to the effort required to deport all illegal immigrants fwiw

And yet is still more violent than the rest of the developed world by a factor of 2+.

This is simply not true.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z)

The U.S. gun homicide rate is 10 times the combined rate of the countries that belong to NATO.

― dexpresso (Z S)

using guns xp

The US gun homicide rate is not the total homicide rate nor the total violent crime rate.

i'd be a little scared of anyone who wants to shoot something but not attract attention

Suppressors aren't that effective. Outside of a few cases, a suppressed handgun or rifle will still cause permanent hearing damage with every shot - we're talking a shift from 145-150db to 115db.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 2:24 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lmao @ professor glockenstein

what if we paid illegal immigrants to take peoples guns and throw them away, then gave them citizenship when they were done

let's get this bill passed bro

The few guns introduced to the population, the more effort made to reduce interest in guns, the fewer guns there will be in several decades.

I think you underestimate how many guns are ALREADY out there

The US gun homicide rate is not the total homicide rate nor the total violent crime rate.

is this conversation not about using guns to kill people in the US? citing a stat that shows that the U.S. gun homicide rate is 10 times that of the NATO countries seems relevant to me.

Legit question - how do you accomplish this without pissing all over the 4th Amendment?
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:37 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol the 4th amendment gets pissed on every fucking day in this country, at least this time it would be for something worthwhile

That was quick:

http://m.kotaku.com/5968569/fox-news-links-connecticut-shooting-to-violent-video-games

To legally acquire a suppressor, you have to file a Form 4 with the ATF - as an individual, that includes a signature by a county law enforcement chief giving you the ok and fingerprints (and photographs, I believe). You send in a $200 check to the ATF when you file your paperwork. 6-9 months later they give you the okay, cash your check and you can go pick up your suppressor from your specialist dealer.

I can't imagine the illegal trade in them amounts to much - the ATF has every suppressor registered in the NFA along with the owner who has the stamp. If used in a crime, it would take nothing to trace the suppressor back to the owner - who either committed the crime or sold the suppressor illegally (which will net you several years in the federal pen).
Dealers who have the ability to deal in NFA items are unlikely to have any fall off the truck as the penalties are quick and severe.

this should be the process required to buy any gun.

LOL at the idea of gun plants cropping up deep in the jungles of South America.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, December 14, 2012 2:34 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm kind of tuned out on this whole discussion, but, brazil already has a few firearms manufacturers that do plenty of business up here. if you weren't kidding.

video gaaaaaaames

Because A Ban On Guns Would Slightly Inconvenience Americans, We Should Just Take That Option Off The Table And Go Eat A Cheeseburger

I'm stumbling into this thread after lunching with a friend and everyone at the bar not saying a word while staring numbly at the TVs as the news rolled in. Can't swallow right now.

Seriously how many of these crazies could you deter just by making gun owners have to wade through tons of tedious bureaucracy?

Since We Can't Eliminate 100% Of The Guns In This Country With A Ban On Guns, Let's Just Pull Out Our Penises And Masturbate Some More

And yet is still more violent than the rest of the developed world by a factor of 2+.

This is simply not true.

It absolutely is.

Hi, I’m ILX’s resident biathlete. I use an Anschütz 1827 Fortner:

http://www.championshooters.com/images/ansguns/1827-Fortner-big.JPG

I wish I didn’t.

Unlike other target sports, biathletes still use firearms, rather than air guns. It’s absurd. Firearms remain stupidly dangerous, and hamper practice (i.e. I can shoot an air rifle in my backyard). We still firearms because of inane, testosteronic reasons. Regardless of sport, everyone should move toward safer arms.

P.S. We shoot metal targets.

hey milo if I paid you the current appraised value of your guns plus a grand would you turn them into the police and relinquish ownership? if not, is there a dollar amount you would do so for? thinking of an ilx fundraiser idea here

Guns Are Here To Stay, Folks.

is this conversation not about using guns to kill people in the US? citing a stat that shows that the U.S. gun homicide rate is 10 times that of the NATO countries seems relevant to me.

But the statement you were responding to was about overal safety and violence.

I don't even know how to begin addressing the question of "gun control" -- what does the term mean? How do we even begin to have "the conversation"? How do we phrase it? The fuckin' NRA believed in gun control until the last thirty years of its existence.

thanks Allen! I was going to ask if target shooting was the same deal with air guns, and you've answered that.

xp i would totally read an "ask a biathlete" thread

Does anyone know of any studies on the mental health histories of people who have commited these types of crimes?

Serious question. I think this is something I will look into myself, but if anyone knows of something, please post.

Also, pot takes virtually no raw materials to cultivate in the wild. I can't grow my own guns.

the point is if there's something people are willing to pay good money for, there will be people willing to make it, regardless of the legality. period.

Because A Ban On Guns Would Slightly Inconvenience Americans, We Should Just Take That Option Off The Table And Go Eat A Cheeseburger

not the argument at all though

All I can think about is the "madman with a gun" drill we had last year. One classroom had all the kids lined up absolutely silent against the wall perpendicular to the doorway. The other had all the kids cowering down before the teacher with her arms outstretched to enclose as much of them as possible. I was so proud that they managed to keep silent for five minutes. This was in Pre-K. Since, I as the aide, had to monitor and lock the glass doorway, I had no idea what bullshit reason the teachers gave the kids. All I could think about was the previous aide saying that we were sitting ducks since we were the first classroom that lead into the building, even before you got into the main lobby.

the point is if there's something people are willing to pay good money for, there will be people willing to make it, regardless of the legality. period.

Then where's my fuckin' lightsaber?

The NRA ceased being anything other than paranoid people and the marketing arm of the gun industry a long, long time ago. Even people I know who like guns tend to believe that.

hey frogbs I think people don't generally quietly use guns in their own homes, and tend to take them places where people would notice they have guns

http://i.imgur.com/o7whj.jpg

and if they did somehow quietly use them in their own homes, then they'd run out of ammo eventually.

http://i.imgur.com/vgezA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ALM6x.jpg

lol

fucking horrible to have to do that tbh

the drill i mean

hey frogbs I think people don't generally quietly use guns in their own homes, and tend to take them places where people would notice they have guns

could you rephrease that, i'm really having trouble parsing it

thank you for the frog pics. was actually trying a real response and then was like wtf am i doing.

People are able to use drugs quietly and discreetly?

real gz puff in silence like lasagna

hey milo if I paid you the current appraised value of your guns plus a grand would you turn them into the police and relinquish ownership? if not, is there a dollar amount you would do so for? thinking of an ilx fundraiser idea here

$100k and I'll melt the guns and sign a contract saying I won't buy any for five years, though. Anything to buy a house...

why couldn't we have...

- heavy taxes and fees on all ammunition and all new and used gun purchases so that young people can't afford to stockpile a huge arsenal
- all guns should be sold through government retailers like state liquor stores
- mandatory annual mental health screening for all gun owners
- outlaw the manufacture of any gun that holds more than 2 rounds
- recreational shooters have to leave their guns at licensed shooting ranges where they're safely locked away
- make gun ownership really inconvenient through added DMV style bureaucracy
- just ban civilian purchase of ammunition

and if they did somehow quietly use them in their own homes, then they'd run out of ammo eventually.

man, you're not making friends with iatee with that angle
xp

the key is making this shit extremely difficult

not making it impossible, because it never will be

wk otm

People are able to use drugs quietly and discreetly?

maybe you missed the point of the analogy

Blogger Tbogg notices that Tucker Carlson's "Daily Caller" site, which is of course running this as their top story, has a special "Guns and Gear" page on the site paid for and sponsored by the NRA, which includes this:

http://static1.firedoglake.com/29/files/2012/12/Screen-Shot-2012-12-14-at-11.39.32-AM.png

which was one of the weapons used by today's psychopath.

fucking disgusting tools

is this conversation not about using guns to kill people in the US? citing a stat that shows that the U.S. gun homicide rate is 10 times that of the NATO countries seems relevant to me.

― dexpresso (Z S), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:39 PM

If the US only has 2-3 times the total homicide rate of NATO (which looks to be accurate if you look at US homicide vs Europe excluding Eastern Europe) and less violent crime than some NATO members (the UK and Austria), that's equally relevant.
But the statement you were responding to was about overal safety and violence.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:42 PM

this thread is moving too fast for me, what you just said only demonstrates that gun-related violence in the U.S. is way higher than it should be.

total homicide rate - gun and non-gun related - in the US is "only" 2-3 times the rate of NATO, while the gun homicide rate in the US is 10 times the rate of NATO. that shows that the gun-related homicide in the US can be largely attributed to our gun control policies, or lack thereof.

I have two big hobbies - photography and shooting (competitive and target).

literally hundreds of people are shot and killed by cameras every day

- mandatory annual mental health screening for all gun owners

like i said, just because the crime rates are "better" doesn't mean they're exactly "good"

which was one of the weapons used by today's psychopath.

they need health screenings more than anybody

To have a pilot's license you have to have a valid physical performed by a doctor on file.

but mh won't somebody think of the civil liberties

jesus fucking christ

It's also a less-lethal round than any given hunting rifle or shotgun.

tell that to those kids' parents, i'm sure they'll feel better

why does some bureaucrat get to decide whether or not I get to fly a plane

hey milo, do the targets you shoot at have bullseyes or human profiles? just wondering.

xxp

a) Epic point-missing A+++++.
b) I nominate you to tell the parents of the dead kids that they were killed by a less-lethal round. When are you available?

people don't understand probabilities about lethality tbf

Also the weapon used by every member of the US military and a large percentage of police.

Hmmmmmm yes interesting I wonder if perhaps those people have a work-related use for them that perhaps child murderers do not. It is truly an unsolvable mystery.

Just Imagine What Would Have Happened If The Killer Had Used A .357 Caliber Gun. Thank God He Only Used A .223 Caliber. Imagine How Many More Children Would Have Been Killed.

i feel like improving mental health in this country is going to do way more than changing gun control laws

I find it more difficult with each passing day to imagine bringing kids into this world.

It's also a less-lethal round than any given hunting rifle or shotgun.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 2:54 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not in here busting on you, because i'm a mite softer on guns than most of the people itt. but come on, this is really disingenuous.

the joules + fragmentation put out by this caliber is as lethal as any gun needs to be, just because there's plenty of stuff more powerful is pretty irrelevant.

That's certainly not a terrifying power to give to the government.

ooooh, the terrifying power to prevent some people from owning guns. how do the japanese sleep at night?

the drill i mean

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, December 14, 2012 2:46 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Last year was the first time we have done it in the six years I worked there. I really think it's something that should be done yearly.

- mandatory annual mental health screening for all gun owners

That's certainly not a terrifying power to give to the government.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 2:53 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I happen to think the 2nd amendment is, by and large, a terrifying -- or at least horribly ill-defined -- government-involved power.

i feel like improving mental health in this country is going to do way more than changing gun control laws

― frogbs

hey why not both

A) What point was missed? The AR-15 is the most popular semi-auto rifle in the country. There are literally millions of them in private hands. It is not a particularly dangerous or evil rifle, any more than Charles Whitman's bolt-action hunting rifle.
B) The parents' reaction is irrelevant if you want to talk about the merits of gun control policy or specific weapons.

xxp Yeah, Charlie Pierce at Esquire points out that all the kids that were hidden and saved, were saved by those lazy, overpaid, good-for-nothing unionized public school teachers. We should probably cut their pay.

Last year was the first time we have done it in the six years I worked there. I really think it's something that should be done yearly.

― Theodora Celery, Friday, December 14, 2012 12:59 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^

Where was that thread that said that we really needed an academic Violence Studies?

What makes me almost as sick as the tragedy itself? Knowning that absolutely fuck all is actually going to be addressed and we'll be going through this same fucking cycle again in a few months.

Fuck this country and fuck gun owners. For real. Sick of pussyfooting around "acceptable" gun ownership bullshit.

it's a good drill for sure, but a terrible necessity it seems

The Day After They Banned Guns In This Country, I Woke Up Feeling Really Listless And Depressed. I Could Not Shoot A Gun At White Sheets Of Paper Anymore. What Else Was There To Do? How Would I Pass The Time? What Was The Point?

i'm not in here busting on you, because i'm a mite softer on guns than most of the people itt. but come on, this is really disingenuous.

the joules + fragmentation put out by this caliber is as lethal as any gun needs to be, just because there's plenty of stuff more powerful is pretty irrelevant.

The point was that the Daily Caller is running sensationalized stories about a school being shot up by a gun that they're paid to recommend on their own website. Which is kind of ironic.

The AR-15 is the most popular semi-auto rifle in the country. There are literally millions of them in private hands. It is not a particularly dangerous or evil rifle, any more than Charles Whitman's bolt-action hunting rifle.

That dude in Aurora did pretty well with one.

B) The parents' reaction is irrelevant if you want to talk about the merits of gun control policy or specific weapons.

SO IS YOUR FUCKING GUN COLLECTION AND SHOOTING HOBBY.

ooooh, the terrifying power to prevent some people from owning guns. how do the japanese sleep at night?

Everything that shoots a projectile is dangerous - it does no good to pretend that some are worse than others for cosmetic reasons.

I agree with you 100% on this, great reason to ban all of them

Don't You Get It, If You Can't Own Guns, You Have No Civil Liberties

great job not quoting the important part, phil

Everything that shoots a projectile is dangerous - it does no good to pretend that some are worse than others for cosmetic reasons.

How Do Those People In The United Kingdom Live Each Day Without Civil Liberties

the aurora shooter was receiving psychiatric treatment

That wasn't part of the post I was quoting, CAD.

The terrifying power to require mental health examinations in exchange for civil liberties.

you don't get to define 'civil liberties' dawg

it's a good drill for sure, but a terrible necessity it seems

To be fair, I don't know if my school did this in the fall semester this year. I no longer work there since I had quit to go back to finish my degree. School shootings and dealing with violent parents being one of the Things that Made Me Decide that Early Childhood Education is Not For Me.

oh sorry, moving too fast.

if you guys think its hard to legislate gun control and take guns out of people's hands, wait until you try to legislate sanity and take crazy out of people's heads

otm

xxp Yeah, Charlie Pierce at Esquire points out that all the kids that were hidden and saved, were saved by those lazy, overpaid, good-for-nothing unionized public school teachers. We should probably cut their pay.

OTFM, My experience is that everyone in my public school would have put their life on the line to save their kids

Everything that shoots a projectile is dangerous - it does no good to pretend that some are worse than others for cosmetic reasons.

I agree with you 100% on this, great reason to ban all of them

― 乒乓, Friday, December 14, 2012 4:04 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

The point was that the Daily Caller is running sensationalized stories about a school being shot up by a gun that they're paid to recommend on their own website. Which is kind of ironic.

SO IS YOUR FUCKING GUN COLLECTION AND SHOOTING HOBBY.

They check my vision when I get my drivers license renewed! Liberties.

it's fucked up that people are so addicted to guns that they don't even want to discuss a drastic overhaul of gun laws that might in the end still allow them to have their precious weaponry

Let's Just Shake Our Heads and Talk About The Kardashians Instead

Though that's probably true of most teachers/staff, public or not.

you guys who are treating mental health the same as vision or physical fitness are fucking nuts

what is that last (but one) comment in relation to?

mh - do you think a vision check is analogous to a mental-health exam? Before you get your license should you have to sit down with a government-appointed shrink and talk about the possibility you'll kill yourself or others with a car? Should any findings about this be kept as part of your official documentation? Does the government get to decide you're too depressed to drive?

How about an official govt. approved "second amendment gun." It's the one gun that anybody is allowed to own without restriction, but it's designed to be very slow to reload, not particularly deadly, etc. and the ammo is expensive. Then ban everything else. That way we can basically ban guns but the gun nuts can keep their "rights."

If you read, I've actually said that there's one viable way to curtail gun crime completely (or even substantially) - complete confiscation, it just happens to be impossible - and would be interested to read how that might be accomplished.

man, we've gotta stop talking in these absolute terms because it's completely fucking pointless. no one's talking about eliminating violence completely, or gun violence completely. there will always be a black market, people will always do things they're not supposed to do. HOWEVER, there's no reason that should stop us from legislation to significantly decrease gun ownership, make it much harder (or illegal) to obtain one, etc. there are plenty of good examples in the rest of the world on how to accomplish this.

lol @ not particularly deadly gun

Z S otm

Whoops, xp to my own comment

xxp Yeah, Charlie Pierce at Esquire points out that all the kids that were hidden and saved, were saved by those lazy, overpaid, good-for-nothing unionized public school teachers. We should probably cut their pay.

OTFM, My experience is that everyone in my public school would have put their life on the line to save their kids

― Theodora Celery, Friday, December 14, 2012 3:08 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

mh - do you think a vision check is analogous to a mental-health exam? Before you get your license should you have to sit down with a government-appointed shrink and talk about the possibility you'll kill yourself or others with a car? Should any findings about this be kept as part of your official documentation? Does the government get to decide you're too depressed to drive?

I will answer for mh: No, Yes, Yes, Yes

just replace all handguns with nerf mavericks

also make it really disgusting

http://horrornews.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eXistenZ-1999-movie-5.jpg

DAMN IT XP TO THIS COMMENT. Thread moving too fast

what is that last (but one) comment in relation to?

― everlasting fonts of (soda), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Does anyone know of any studies on the mental health histories of people who have commited these types of crimes?

Serious question. I think this is something I will look into myself, but if anyone knows of something, please post.

― SHUT UP AND GET YOUR TURKEY SCIENCE BOOKS (Austerity Ponies), Friday, December 14, 2012 4:43 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fwiw, this came up in the batman shooting thread iirc. the columbine book is good & goes into the parametered definition of psychopath, sociopath, &c. there were probably others, too, though i remember one refrain from the thread referring to the complication of such murderers ordinarily killing themselves.

I have to admit I'm short-changing the difficulties in accurately assessing the viability of a mental health exam in lieu of a rhetorical point, but it's definitely frustrating to assume there's nothing that can be done.

Then again, my grandfather and his old friends were gaming the system by going to the same doctor for their flight physicals for years and flying hobbyist airplanes for years with horrible vision and reflexes

mh - do you think a vision check is analogous to a mental-health exam? Before you get your license should you have to sit down with a government-appointed shrink and talk about the possibility you'll kill yourself or others with a car? Should any findings about this be kept as part of your official documentation? Does the government get to decide you're too depressed to drive?

You're right, I take back the mandatory mental health screening idea. The big problem there is that eventually somebody would get through anyway and the doctor would be held responsible.

So yeah, just ban all ammo.

What is the actual issue here - what's different if the ad were for a hunting rifle or if the killer had used a shotgun?

It's not an ad, it's a whole section of what is ostensibly a news website; and yes, I know it's targeted towards hobbyists and competitive shooters and collectors and whatever, but it certainly is a data point about the country's attitude toward and relationship with guns.

If you read, I've actually said that there's one viable way to curtail gun crime completely (or even substantially) - complete confiscation, it just happens to be impossible - and would be interested to read how that might be accomplished.

I believe stating categorically that "There's only one way to do X and it's impossible" is called deck-stacking.

An aside for a news update (Fox, hopefully they've gotten their facts straight this time):

The shooter in this case may not be Ryan Lanza, but his brother. Ryan Lanza is in custody in New Jersey and that Adam, 20, is, in fact, the shooter and used an assault rifle and a glock handgun and may have killed his father in New Jersey and then gone to his mother’s home here near Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut, killed his mother and went to her kindergarten and slaughtered every child in the classroom. We’re told the death toll is 26 including 20 children and five adults … The shooter is confirmed dead and I’m told the shooter is, in fact, Adam Lanza and his brother, Ryan, may be in custody. I am told the two weapons were registered to his mother.

I'm going to go away for now, but I authorize iatee to continue in my stead

ZS, more guns in civilian hands has not increased violent crime, or even gun crime. Why would decreasing it help?
What steps short of confiscation have been shown to lead to decrease violent crime and firearm homicides?

Confiscation is an absolute term because it's what works, particularly in a nation that has 200 million unregistered, all but undocumented firearms in the wild. Confiscation is why the UK has extremely low homicide by gun.

I am told the two weapons were registered to his mother.

g;ahhghaigghaiewhigaew

lol @ not particularly deadly gun

it's just a flesh wound.

http://i.imgur.com/QUiAg.png
http://i.imgur.com/hwAlM.png

milo you are doing a great job convincing everyone itt that a confiscation policy is the right step for america

ZS, more guns in civilian hands has not increased violent crime

vs

I am told the two weapons were registered to his mother.

+25

that is kind of a bombshell wow

i agree to the extent that "assault" or "tactical" are basically cosmetic designations -- an interesting problem when it comes to restricting certain types of them. people (and therefore lawmakers) have an "i know it when i see it" attitude to guns that cross the line from "civilian" to "dangerous", and gun makers end up engineering around the letter of the law

many xps but this to milo

the premise of the gun debate is fundamentally poisoned by the inherent idea that people deserve to have guns for any reason

also make it really disgusting

maybe the toy gun law got it backwards. It's the real guns that should be required to be neon pink and really dorky looking.

ZS, more guns in civilian hands has not increased violent crime, or even gun crime. Why would decreasing it help?

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9627011/photos/facepalm.gif

the premise of the gun debate is fundamentally poisoned by the inherent idea that people deserve to have guns for any reason

― salute me or crut me (J0rdan S.)

otmmmmmm and that having guns is in any way about having liberty

the premise of the gun debate is fundamentally poisoned by the inherent idea that people deserve to have guns for any reason

― salute me or crut me (J0rdan S.)

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:18 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes or that people need to have guns for any reason

Yet another point supporting the idea that having a gun in the home makes it X times more likely you'll kill either a family member or innocent person before you will a criminal. In this case, both.

you guys if milo thinks its fun it's probably a civil liberty

otmmmmmm and that having guns is in any way about having liberty

tbf it used to be

Don't Tread On My Civil Liberty Of Being Able To Own A Gun

I believe stating categorically that "There's only one way to do X and it's impossible" is called deck-stacking.

OTOH, crime rates - with guns and without - have fallen steadily even as gun laws have been less and less restrictive and more guns are out in the wild.

the premise of the gun debate is fundamentally poisoned by the inherent idea that people deserve to have guns for any reason

― salute me or crut me (J0rdan S.)

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:18 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes or that people need to have guns for any reason

― congratulations (n/a), Friday, December 14, 2012 9:18 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the point isn't that they've fallen, i guess they have. how much more would they have fallen might be the real point.

^^^

it's fucked up that people are so addicted to guns that they don't even want to discuss a drastic overhaul of gun laws that might in the end still allow them to have their precious weaponry

OTM

An AR-15 is an indefensible weapon. It’s wholly inadequate for meaningful competition. It’s fetishism, not sport.

OTOH, crime rates - with guns and without - have fallen steadily even as gun laws have been less and less restrictive and more guns are out in the wild.

just saying mass shootings have spiked dramatically since the company who makes twinkies went bankrupt, i'm not drawing any arrows here

Tend to think if your mental health is ok and you grew up around guns you're less likely to use them. Guns are loud! And hot after firing them! It wouldn't have occured to me to use my dad's guns.

That recent book about the Second Amendment and the NRA is a great read. The NRA's evolution into a genuine political wing of the gun lobby is the nub of it.

i just don't want to read the news, i don't think i can handle the inevitable gallery of victims pics

Well, we've tried near-total local gun bans (NYC, DC), magazine limits, licensing for handgun ownership (Connecticut) and AWBs (CT again) that don't seem to eliminate gun violence as fully as some would like.

because if it doesn't FULLY eliminate gun violence, only drastically reduce it, it's not worth doing

i just can't imagine. it's corny but i hugged my kid extra long this morning.

the ability to own a gun is pretty much the definition of a civil liberty, whether you like them or not
let's not pretend I said they were a god-given right

milo you are doing a great job convincing everyone itt that a confiscation policy is the right step for america

not corny
xp

An AR-15 is an indefensible weapon. It’s wholly inadequate for meaningful competition. It’s fetishism, not sport.

the trouble is, you could have a gun that performs exactly the same way (caliber, barrel length, magazine) and doesn't LOOK like that at all. ander breivik used a Ruger Mini 14, if i recall.

so, total ban here we come, ha ha ha.

not corny at all. I plan to visit my niece today for the express purpose of hugging her

the ability to own a gun is pretty much the definition of a civil liberty, whether you like them or not

sorry, it's just not. you have no idea what a civil right is, do you?

Anyone who brings up DC in any discussion of crime, gun control or anything else needs to account for the fact that it is fully surrounded by two states with much, much more liberal - in one case, near-crazy - gun ownership laws.

xxxp Those things haven't drastically reduced gun violence. That's the point.

An AR-15 is an indefensible weapon. It’s wholly inadequate for meaningful competition. It’s fetishism, not sport.

the ability to own a gun is pretty much the definition of a civil liberty, whether you like them or not

what is this I don't even

sorry, it's just not. you have no idea what a civil right is, do you?

just another horrible reminder that the 2008 ruling that the second amendment really 'means' individual gun rights is one of the worst and most destructive things this supreme court's ever done.

liberty, right, whatever the fuck you want to call it

like i said i think guns themselves are part but not all of it. i think as a society our collective relationship to guns is completely skewed, their depiction in media as casual items everyone owns and deploys w/o consequence vs the reality, which is 99% of the time i've seen guns they're strapped to a cop's belt.

ZS, more guns in civilian hands has not increased violent crime, or even gun crime. Why would decreasing it help?

1) as you pointed out earlier in this thread, gun-crime rates have to be considered in tandem with things besides rates of gun ownership: mental healthcare, the "war on drugs", etc. but in the quote above you're doing exactly what you advised not to do. here's why it's wrong: isn't it highly likely that violent crime rates would have gone down even further had gun ownership rates not continued to rise?
2) from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-control-laws-and-gun-deaths-florida.jpg

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

thinking about all this makes me pissed off about that call of duty ad with nicely sheltered celebs who have never experienced actual violence just shooting at each other.

UPDATE 4:22 PM: The Associated Press is clearing up mixed reports: 20-year-old Adam Lanza is the shooter, his older brother Ryan is in custody being questioned. AP is also claiming Lanza's death was by suicide.

To say that we've tried gun bans in any serious way is a joke, not least because the second said gun bans were enacted (including where I live) the NRA/congress went to work, hard, to unravel said bans. And also, they were never bans in the first place, just limits.

Owning a gun is a civil liberty because it is a specific privilege outlined for citizens by the law and the courts. That's not real difficult.
You can change civil liberties - you can ban guns, you only have to change the law or convince the USSC.

Kinda scary how closely Z S's map tracks the fucking electoral map.

okay, nobody here is arguing that guns are currently illegal

i think as a society our collective relationship to guns is completely skewed, their depiction in media as casual items everyone owns and deploys w/o consequence vs the reality, which is 99% of the time i've seen guns they're strapped to a cop's belt.

― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, December 14, 2012 4:26 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's not even particularly true though, so many countries where guns are illegal but still consume media that heavily features guns, I mean, just look at hong kong, ground zero of triad flicks and john woo but probably some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and 0 people there die from guns each year.

i just want to say that if schools had trained dogs this wouldn't have happened. screw gun control, let's put safety dogs in the classroom.

A law enforcement official said the boys' mother, Nancy Lanza, works at the school as a teacher. The Associated Press is reporting that she is presumed dead.

The official also said Ryan Lanza's girlfriend and another friend are missing in New Jersey.

yes the idea of a "civil liberty" is a fluid one. hundreds of years ago we thought plenty of things were "civil liberties" that we no longer think are. for instance, owning a person. i think now is about the time that we realize owning a gun serves no purpose as a "civil liberty"

^^

well i think it's the confluence of all of these elements, obv media isn't making guns easily accessible. but to my point about how the violence could be less w/stricter laws, what would the violent crime rate be w/o the everyday pummeling of fetishized violence in the media? serious question! i'm not even saying we should really regulate it, i'm not sure what could be done.

Owning a gun is a civil liberty because it is a specific privilege outlined for citizens by the law and the courts. That's not real difficult.
You can change civil liberties - you can ban guns, you only have to change the law or convince the USSC.

Sure--but the fact that you are OK equating owning a gun with other civil liberties in the Constitution (free speech! the right to vote!) shows me how warped your brain is. just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean a) it's right or b) you should hide behind the phrase civil liberty. you like guns, you think they're fun.

j0rdan OTM

Guns will always end up in the wrong hands, illegal or not. You can argue about it for as long as the argument has already been going on for twice over, nothing will change.
There's too much money involved!

j0rdan so otm; it just leads me to iatee's stance, where so many of the arguments are rendered irrelevant by the contemporary calculus being: people's right to shoot paper versus the social benefit of kids not getting slain

was looking to see if there are any pro-control alternatives to the nra, turned up a grim list of alternatives- because the nra is too soft.

milo you and your dad should take up the quietly satisfying sport of fishing

they would just shoot the fish instead

Owning a gun is a civil liberty because the Supreme Court says it is and it's enshrined in the Constitution. Even if the idea of it being a form of liberty disgusts you, it exists.

well, milo's right: we gotta change the laws by hiring our own lobbyists, like the NRA does.

milo is also right in that the left needs to be talking about confiscation more often

SCOTUS' heinous Heller decision left room for legislatures to pass gun control legislation. Until we can overturn Heller, we gotta organize and put pressure on legislators.

Owning a gun is a civil liberty because the Supreme Court says it is and it's enshrined in the Constitution. Even if the idea of it being a form of liberty disgusts you, it exists.

― Matt Armstrong, Friday, December 14, 2012 5:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it is a lil more complicated than that though, right, what with the context being ownership amongst militians

Women not being able to vote isn't a civil liberty because the Supreme Court says it isn't

xp - Chicago and DC both had "serious gun bans" for quite a long time. The Assault Weapon Ban lasted 10 years with no modification.

ZS -two problems - yes, places with more guns have more gun-specific crime, just as places with more cars have more car-specific deaths; your article also appears to mix topics (gun deaths and gun homicides).
Thing is - how does that matter in the big picture? Would all crimes committed by guns not be committed without them?

California has 439.6 violent crimes per 100k people. Oregon has a little more than half that, despite much laxer gun laws. Texas has roughly the same number of violent crimes as California.
California has 4.8 homicides/100k. Texas has 4.4. Oregon has 2.1.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4

Would all crimes committed by guns not be committed without them?

yes

9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

man iatee is so taking on the hardman stance itt that i just want to hug it out and pretend we never, ever butted heads in that suburbs thread

/Owning a gun is a civil liberty because the Supreme Court says it is and it's enshrined in the Constitution. Even if the idea of it being a form of liberty disgusts you, it exists.

― Matt Armstrong, Friday, December 14, 2012 5:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink/

it is a lil more complicated than that though, right, what with the context being ownership amongst militians

Right, but it's hard to argue that the constitution doesn't allow private gun ownership in some form.

well illinois just started allowing concealed carry, so i'm sure we'll see the gun murder rates drop precipitously over the next couple of years, right?

'[the second amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the american public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.' -- warren burger, 1990

for the purpose of a militia

xxpost

California has the strictest gun control laws on the books in the US, FWIW. As a result, its crime statistics are essentially on par with a redneck state that not only has a lot of guns but a state culture tied into them. Both have twice as many crimes and murders as a blue state with lax gun control.

Meanwhile, the Onion is there in our time of grief:

Fuck Everything, Nation Reports

Just Fuck It All To Hell

DECEMBER 14, 2012 | ISSUE 48•50 | MORE NEWS

WASHINGTON—Following the fatal shooting this morning at a Connecticut elementary school that left at least 27 dead, including 20 small children, sources across the nation shook their heads, stifled a sob in their voices, and reported fuck everything. Just fuck it all to hell.

All of it, sources added....

i look at the idea that "total prohibition is worthless bcuz people will still have guns" this way:

we know that speed limits are completely and utterly ineffective in a total sense. i'd say that more people "speed" than drive the speed limit. but they are effective in depressing mass chaos. if we had no speed limits anywhere, you would basically never be able to cross the street because people would be driving 60 mph everywhere. now, speeding is an acceptable level because of speed limits. the country can function -- generally speaking -- without mass deaths on the motorways.

if the total prohibition of guns brings us down to the equivalent of every car driving 10 mph everywhere all the time, we'd be worlds better off than we are now.

Right, but it's hard to argue that the constitution doesn't allow private gun ownership in some form.

― Matt Armstrong, Friday, December 14, 2012 4:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the Constitution also implicitly endorses slavery, what's your point?

Owning a gun is a civil liberty because the Supreme Court says it is and it's enshrined in the Constitution. Even if the idea of it being a form of liberty disgusts you, it exists.

― Matt Armstrong, Friday, December 14, 2012 5:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cool here's an easy solution: re-write the constitution. it's been done plenty of times.

also the reason the second amendment is there has zero to do with why people use guns today

2 things

part of the problem wrt all of this, time and time again, is that people have a hard time having a civil conversation about this, so very little can be accomplished. i understand the horror and awfulness and emotionally loaded aspects of this, but personally going after milo like pitbulls while (and correct me if i am wrong) he seems to be fairly even in tone and not resorting to any sorta cranky argumentative tactics is a microcosm (on both sides) of why there is a near zero chance for rational discussion. we divide into "gun nuts" and "hippies" and both sides become intractable.

also, there is literally no political chance of successful national gun policy change, right or wrong, it is never going to happen. local/state legislation is much more feasible.

Yes. Part of the "social contract" is that we pass laws and pay taxes for laws that keep us from descending into chaos. That's all we can expect of laws!

it's obvious to anyone who has read the text of the 2nd amendment that the current interpretation is so distorted that it's a mockery of the constitution

Yes, I always wondered why there was not a lobby group as big as the NRA that would exist solely to counter those assholes. (If there is one then my bad)

well illinois just started allowing concealed carry, so i'm sure we'll see the gun murder rates drop precipitously over the next couple of years, right?

Here's another idea: it should be illegal to release the names of these spree shooters. The media can talk about the victims and that's it.

speed limits are ineffective because it requires a lot of resources to police them, but it's easier and easier w/ technology. different subject but it's something where a lot can and probably will change in coming decades. xp

Here's another idea: it should be illegal to release the names of these spree shooters. The media can talk about the victims and that's it.

― wk, Friday, December 14, 2012 4:42 PM (38 seconds ago) Bookmark

this is stupid & it doesn't make sense when anyone says it. it's news.

Part of the problem with the Second Amendment is that it includes the most destructive comma splice in human history

the problem is that idiot wastes like milo exist and $$$$$$$$ is behind them

that's why it's been misinterpreted

Just noting that most of the correlation of gun ownership with gun deaths is from suicides.

http://familyinequality.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/suicide-map.gif?w=500&h=367

Kinda interesting what Google search terms show high correlation with state suicide rates:

http://familyinequality.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/suicide-search-list.jpg?w=500&h=666

Yes, I always wondered why there was not a lobby group as big as the NRA that would exist solely to counter those assholes. (If there is one then my bad)

Same reason large climate change groups are still rather less ineffectual than ones funded by Exxon.

egomaniacal self-deluded piece of shit

jill lepore wrote a pretty good overview of the history of the second amendment debate a while back:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore

Hey, Matt P, go fuck yourself. I've never paid a dime to the NRA.

this garry wills piece from the 90s is great too:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false

Women not being able to vote isn't a civil liberty because the Supreme Court says it isn't

Yes the Supreme Court has often denied us rights and liberties that we deserve.

The ability to purchase a firearm is a civil liberty and Americans have been granted it. Even if you think it's a BAD liberty or somehow disgusting it's still fundamentally a civil liberty.

Part of the problem with the Second Amendment is that it includes the most destructive comma splice in human history

so so true

the problem once again is that guns are viewed as rational, normal items that adults and even children ffs have pretty easy access to. guns are just really strange and fucked up when you really think about it. like cigarettes are fucked up when you think about them. some of our objects in everyday society that we unfortunately take for granted as being normal are fucked up!

The ability to purchase a firearm is a civil liberty and Americans have been granted it. Even if you think it's a BAD liberty or somehow disgusting it's still fundamentally a civil liberty.

― Matt Armstrong, Friday, December 14, 2012 4:45 PM (0 seconds ago) Bookmark

until the day that we decide that it isn't. it's not a complicated thing.

The ability to purchase a firearm is a civil liberty and Americans have been granted it. Even if you think it's a BAD liberty or somehow disgusting it's still fundamentally a civil liberty.

great, you think it's a civil liberty! I don't.

Owning a gun is a civil liberty because the Supreme Court says it is and it's enshrined in the Constitution. Even if the idea of it being a form of liberty disgusts you, it exists.

― Matt Armstrong, Friday, December 14, 2012 5:34 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cool here's an easy solution: re-write the constitution. it's been done plenty of times.

For sure this would be the ideal solution.

Hey, Matt P, go fuck yourself. I've never paid a dime to the NRA.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 1:45 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you might as well be on their payroll scumbag

we know that speed limits are completely and utterly ineffective in a total sense. i'd say that more people "speed" than drive the speed limit. but they are effective in depressing mass chaos. if we had no speed limits anywhere, you would basically never be able to cross the street because people would be driving 60 mph everywhere. now, speeding is an acceptable level because of speed limits. the country can function -- generally speaking -- without mass deaths on the motorways.

i don't think people would drive 60 down rural streets just because they can. those roads simply aren't designed to allow you to go that fast. i know a lot of areas where the speed limit is 25 and people go 30 and a lot where the limit is 25 and people go 45 (usually wherever there's two lanes).

still you're comparing a low risk/low reward crime with the idea that someone would say "I wish I could go on a murderous rampage, then kill myself, but I can't buy a gun, so therefore I'll just stay at home". I mean maybe it's possible but I don't feel like many of these shooters are the type to just go psycho on a whim. they spend years planning this shit.

So, wait, during the assault gun "ban," no assault guns were made or sold in the US? Somehow I doubt this is accurate.

Hey, Matt P, go fuck yourself. I've never paid a dime to the NRA.

Yet, you’re competing in high-powered rifle competitions? Who is sponsoring said competitions? Hint: Not the ISSF.

thx for illustrating my point Matt

some of them do, maybe even most. but i think a lot of them (like the aforementioned seal beach salon massacre i had the misfortune of being near) came about them a dude on anti-psychotic meds decided not to take them and grabbed his gun (maybe not "his", but he had access to one.) if he didn't, who knows?

During the ban, no new guns were produced for civilian purchase that met the definition of an assault weapon. No new magazines were produced that could hold more than 10 rounds.

you might as well be on their payroll scumbag

shut the fuck up matt, seriously

everyone should read Adam Winker's Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, the subject of Lepore's review.

I'd like to know what kind of horrible mass-killing weapons didn't meet the "definition of an assault weapon."

Also, xposting, the reason it is so hard to have a civil conversation about this shit is because not a week goes by, it seems, without this shit popping up in the news again in the worst way possible, with the exact same outcry, and the exact same "well, not's be hasty ..." hedges.

no. i won't shut the fuck up. people here arguing against gun control do not deserve to be taken seriously or listened to because they are fucking wrong

we should settle this with a duel at dawn

Yet, you’re competing in high-powered rifle competitions? Who is sponsoring said competitions? Hint: Not the ISSF.

sorry. x-post

is there a rolling gun control thread

i don't think people would drive 60 down rural streets just because they can. those roads simply aren't designed to allow you to go that fast.

uh i grew up on a farm and lots of rural streets are very much designed to let you go that fast - very straight and long stretches with no stop signs. guessing you might've meant "urban".

note: I'm not even a member of the USPSA, I just show up to local club matches and shoot

lol not urban either, i live on a side street in l.a. marked with many stop signs and every night dudes (and let's face it, they're dudes) fly down the street at 60-100 MPH. speed limit it 25.

no. i won't shut the fuck up. people here arguing against gun control do not deserve to be taken seriously or listened to because they are fucking wrong

this is the kind of attitude that accomplishes exactly zero and quite honestly you're about the last person I'd trust to judge someone's character

i mean if there was no limit, who knows. the laws don't stop everyone. some people are just minor sociopaths.

and I meant rural like small town streets like what I grew up in, you go 60 down those you're gonna hit a building

or a lily pad

A gun is often one big difference between a minor sociopath and a major one.

and they'll argue convolutedly until the cows come home and appeal to "rationality" (loooooool) when the reality is they have the status quo behind them and a lot of money and the state of global violence and hundreds of years of fucked up history. this is why gun confiscation or just simple policy limiting gun manufacture/access/whatever is unimaginable in this country right now. and they won't stop throwing up the bullshit until their child steals their two guns and kills them (along with 20 children). xxxxp

speed is correlated w/ streetwidth so some modern 'urban' environments have plenty of streets you can go 60 mph next to people walking and some old rural downtowns wouldn't. xp

jjjusten depressingly otm about the limits imposed by conversational dynamics btw. i do not have a plan but it would be cool if we could get into the parameters of what someone pro-gun-rights would accept in terms of limitations.

http://i.imgur.com/DsROj.jpg

Gun confiscation is unimaginable because we don't know where the guns are and we don't allow the state to search everyone's home at will.

http://i.imgur.com/Wqk45.png

this is stupid & it doesn't make sense when anyone says it. it's news.

why? you don't think these people are at least somewhat driven by the desire for recognition?

and I meant rural like small town streets like what I grew up in, you go 60 down those you're gonna hit a building

― frogbs, Friday, December 14, 2012 1:53 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and you're a fucking racist piece of shit to boot

so this kid was only 20 and his name was adam. sorry for posting that youtube of his brother.

Daily Show had a great bit about "when can we discuss this" last week, on the night before the Oregon mall shooting, come to think of it

why? you don't think these people are at least somewhat driven by the desire for recognition?

― wk, Friday, December 14, 2012 4:55 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark

that doesn't mean that we should keep the public in the dark just because we may be giving someone what they want

this is why gun confiscation or just simple policy limiting gun manufacture/access/whatever is unimaginable in this country right now. and they won't stop throwing up the bullshit until their child steals their two guns and kills them

milo - if you thought total gun confiscation was somehow possible, would you be in support of it? i'm getting the impression you would be but I think you should make it clear

and you're a fucking racist piece of shit to boot

― Tome Cruise (Matt P)

based on my small town heritage? good call you fucking idiot

well to be fair, frogbs......

I'd like to know what kind of horrible mass-killing weapons didn't meet the "definition of an assault weapon."

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, December 14, 2012 3:50 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if i remember right most of the deaths and injuries in the aurora shooting were by shotgun.

that doesn't mean that we should keep the public in the dark just because we may be giving someone what they want

why "in the dark"? why do we need to know? I don't even know who this guy is. Knowing his name and seeing his picture is meaningless for me.

I'm only in favor of a gun ban if that includes the police and military as well.

Gun control seems to work pretty well in Singapore. Population of 5 million or so. In 2006 (most recent year I could find data for), there were a total of 17 homicides, of which just 1 involved a firearm.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/CTS10%20homicide.pdf

$1000 tax credit and a ticket to a federal guaranteed $5m/winner lottery (with dece odds) for every handgun turned over.

well to be fair, frogbs......

― salute me or crut me (J0rdan S.)

proceed

why "in the dark"? why do we need to know? I don't even know who this guy is. Knowing his name and seeing his picture is meaningless for me.

― wk, Friday, December 14, 2012 4:58 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark

cool, you don't speak for everyone

milo - if you thought total gun confiscation was somehow possible, would you be in support of it? i'm getting the impression you would be but I think you should make it clear

singapore is one of the most unfree places on earth and i don't want america to be like it very much

cool, you don't speak for everyone

why does the public need to know the identity of the shooter?

why "in the dark"? why do we need to know? I don't even know who this guy is. Knowing his name and seeing his picture is meaningless for me.

― wk, Friday, December 14, 2012 4:58 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark

if a suspect is dead or in jail for the rest of his life what does he gain from "notoriety" -- it's a meaningless entity and one that certainly doesn't outweigh the public's right to basic information

http://www.me-me-me.tv/images/2011/04/model-licking-gun-540x388.jpg

why does the public need to know the identity of the shooter?

― wk, Friday, December 14, 2012 5:00 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark

why does the public need to know anything that doesn't personally affect them?

great, you think it's a civil liberty! I don't.

― beef richards (Mr. Que), Friday, 14 December 2012 21:46 (5 minutes ago) Permalink

With respect, you don't think it's a civil liberty that should be recognized and protected by the government, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Civil Liberties aren't determined by natural law or whatever Mr. Que determines to be a valid liberty, they're determined by whatever actions and practices private citizens can engage in without the interference or restriction of government.

the great thing about focusing on confiscation is that we've now entered the waning era of crazy white men w/ guns being able to control our electoral process, so this doesn't have to be a third rail anymore

I mean if it WAS totally effective. Like no guns. Ever.

b/c a LOT of people ITT are making it out to be "gun guys think that their right to shoot paper is more important than the lives of our children" or whatever

b/c a LOT of people ITT are making it out to be "gun guys think that their right to shoot paper is more important than the lives of our children" or whatever

― frogbs, Friday, December 14, 2012 5:01 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark

there still hasn't been a valid counter to this argument btw

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trading-guns-bedroom-fun/story?id=12877303#.UMuhz44zO19

that is what you pro gun guys believe, yes

um, the United States Practical Shooting Association and various unsanctioned multi-gun/3-gun competitions.

I don’t want this to turn into an argument about the merits of USPSA—but the USPSA exists because UIT, and to a lesser extent, IPSC, began encouraging the use of safer, or, as USPSA described it, “unconventional” arms. Frankly, I’m not sure what a “real world” self-defense scenario is.

Never said I shoot High Power, though I believe another ILXor used to.

My bad. This thread is a bit much.

singapore is one of the most unfree places on earth and i don't want america to be like it very much

― before and after broscience (goole), Friday, December 14, 2012 2:00 PM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think singapore is unfree because of deeper reasons than a gun imbalance, 90% of which are theological iirc

that is what you pro gun guys believe, yes

for the record I never fired a gun in my life

if singapore allowed its citizenry to have guns you'd have a very violently unfree state

gun heads think the lives of children depends on people owning guns

there still hasn't been a valid counter to this argument btw

whole lotta fascism itt

we don't just want to take away yours tho

New overall summary:

http://gawker.com/5968604/the-sandy-hook-elementary-shooting-what-we-probably-maybe-possibly-know-about-the-shooter

Eighteen children were killed in the school. Two died at the hospital. Six adults were killed in the school. The shooter was also found dead, reportedly from a self-inflicted gunshot. Twenty-seven dead in all.
The shooter was reportedly armed with a .223 caliber rifle, as well as two handguns.
There has been a ton of confusion surrounding the identity of the shooter. Initial reports pointed to 24-year-old Ryan Lanza. But now, the very latest official reports from the AP confirm that the shooting suspect is 20-year-old Adam Lanza, Ryan's younger brother. Ryan Lanza is reportedly being questioned by police in Hoboken. There are no confirmed photos of Adam Lanza yet.
We cannot say for sure that the Ryan Lanza whose picture initially rocketed around the world is, in fact, the brother of shooter Adam Lanza. But his details do appear to match the Ryan Lanza who is Adam Lanza's brother.
Nancy Lanza, Adam Lanza's mother, was a teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary. She was killed. Lanza's father was also found dead in Hoboken today, according to NBC.
UPDATE: "NBC News and other sources appear to be backing off the statement that Lanza's father was killed in New Jersey Friday." Jesus Christ. All we can say for sure on this point is that someone was found dead in a house in Newtown owned by Lanza's mother. We should note that although Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school, it has not been said that she was killed at the school. She may have been killed elsewhere.

Gun confiscation is unimaginable because we don't know where the guns are and we don't allow the state to search everyone's home at will.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 3:55 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if they keep their guns in their homes and never take them out, who cares, they are effectively confiscated. i think we all realize that confiscation would have to be a long-term process, not something that would happen over a couple of years.

i think gun control laws would be more effective if they were crafted with more knowledge of gun engineering in mind

the 10-round limitation in the assault weapons ban was good, and could be cut in half imo

a bad example is a california law that banned rifles capable of firing the browning .50 caliber round -- these had become popular in part because of their use as a sniper round in the military. the idea of people being able to pick off cops from a mile away led to the ban, understandably enough. but the law proscribed that particular round only, and gun makers began to offer "california" models ("fuck california" models, in one case, iirc) of those rifles that fire a nearly-identical european round that is the same caliber but a few milimiters shorter in case length.

I don’t want this to turn into an argument about the merits of USPSA—but the USPSA exists because UIT, and to a lesser extent, IPSC, began encouraging the use of safer, or, as USPSA described it, “unconventional” arms. Frankly, I’m not sure what a “real world” self-defense scenario is.

It's a false dichotomy. Taking away my guns makes childrens' lives no safer.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, December 14, 2012 2:04 PM (2 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it would have made about 20 kids' lives a lot safer if nancy lanza's guns were taken away.

It's a false dichotomy. Taking away my guns makes childrens' lives no safer.

I mean taking away all guns period. Like wave a magic wand and they all disappear.

i think singapore is unfree because of deeper reasons than a gun imbalance, 90% of which are theological iirc

― Tome Cruise (Matt P), Friday, December 14, 2012 4:02 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Singapore

aside from being really angry you're throwing out a lot of weird garbage itt, matt

if they keep their guns in their homes and never take them out, who cares, they are effectively confiscated. i think we all realize that confiscation would have to be a long-term process, not something that would happen over a couple of years.

we are talking about a jillion dollar law enforcement effort that would be heavily, heavily resisted.

I'm not saying I'm against it, but the logistics of it really are sort of unworkable.

I'm 100% down with getting rid of all guns ever. But living in a country where only the police and military have guns....yeah i don't trust our gov't enough.

Taking away my guns makes childrens' lives no safer.

This is blatantly false. It makes them 100% safe from getting shot by your guns, however slim you believe that likelihood is.

guns for cash have been effective in inner cities afaik, in more affluent communities i think we could work out incentives to get people to give up their guns voluntarily

I'm 100% down with getting rid of all guns ever. But living in a country where only the police and military have guns....yeah i don't trust our gov't enough.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, December 14, 2012 5:10 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark

lol

you think if the government/army did something crazy, it would make one whit of difference whether you had your own gun or not?

journalists have really done a great job in covering this story today

Fuck the "fear the government" mentality. As if any of us stand a chance against gun copters or big assault weapons, let alone trained soldiers, even if were were all packing.

But living in a country where only the police and military have guns....yeah i don't trust our gov't enough

nobody has any guns in America that could put up even a token of resistance against the military/police. this is a fact.

the solution is to make assault weapons + gun choppers available to everybody

I have a feeling it's going to take one of the states to say, "you know what? Fuck all this violence, we're banning guns completely - we don't care what the Feds or the constitution says." If Colorado and Washington can ignore the Feds when it comes to weed, I'm all for any state taking a stand and forcing the issue.

Even if guns were banned in the US (I'm mostly gun agnostic, but believe it would be a step in the right direction), gun manufacturers would simply export more outside the country - much in the same way that smoking rates outside the country are increasing despite laws and declining trends in the US. Ask anyone living in Mexico as to how they feel about guns.

I have a Blue Thunder copter parked in the back I'd like to see them pry from my cold dead hands.