Newtown murders
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 people, mostly children, have been killed in a shooting spree at an elementary school in Connecticut. I have no idea what could motivate a man to gun down 3rd graders, but I do know it’s past time to put rational gun control laws in place.
Give it an hour, some idiot will propose arming all the 7 year olds instead.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
I have a proposal: Any person who says that this situation could have been made better by more guns be locked in a room with every other person who made the same proposal and a lot of guns.
What? Were you waiting for something else? There is nothing else. That’s all there is to the proposal. Apparently, some people think that enough guns will solve any problems. Well, they’ll have enough guns now.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Fuck fuck fuck fuck.
I can’t stop crying.
Brett McCoy:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Didn’t even take an hour, I saw people arguing about arming the schools within 5 minutes of the story going up on a local news site.
dobbshead:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
If only that baby had a gun, none of this would have happened.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/live-updates-newtown-ct-school-shooting/)
PZ Myers:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Oh, and the other popular message right now: have some respect for the dead, this isn’t the time to talk about gun control! You’re politicizing a tragedy!
Fuck those people.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Only one guy did this? Not a well armed militia?
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Agreed.
I respect the dead by not wanting any more people to die that way.
Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it!:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Jebus.
Strewth:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Rational gun control AND a cultural shift. There are plenty of nations where firearms can be acquired legally that don’t have anywhere near the sort of firearm fatality rates the US has.
Blondin:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Wut, sorta like this?
Bill allowing concealed weapons in schools approved by House committee
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
w
t
f
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I just wanted to write this, Rev. It seems his mother was a teacher and she’s among the dead.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I’m listening to live report here
Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it!:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Bryan Fisher tweeted about 10 minutes after the first reports complaining about how the school was a “gun free” zone. Said that the kids were “sitting ducks.”
-_-
tbtabby:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
If someone went and shot up an animal shelter, some gun nut would propose arming all the kittens.
aaronbaker:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
You missed Bryan Fischer, who said the kids were sitting ducks because the school is another gun-free zone.
joed:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
This is indeed a major tragedy.
Unfortunately, the U S military causes the violent death of many children worldwide often. Seems the deaths of “foreign” children don’t catch the attention of the U S media. Indeed a major tragedy.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Fuck you joed
tsig:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Armed kitten:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=armed+kitten+pic&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
jaranath:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
I know some people who had a kid present at a school shooting that didn’t end up with anyone hurt. They could barely handle it then. They are beside themselves today, don’t even want to let their kids go to school Monday.
I agree with Audley. Fuck.
tsig:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
second the fucking of joed
flapjack:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I’m just surprised the NRA haven’t wheeled out the tired “Guns don’t kill people, people do” mantra yet – sure, and those ‘people’ do it much more efficiently and rapidly causing greater devestation with guns than with a sharpened stick.
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Hmm… This Bryan Fischer?
Do we have a word in English which means the opposite of totally fucking surprised?
anubisprime:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
I remember an Onion article…
Article
I got stomped on for taking it seriously….
Does not seem so much of a spoof after all!
spence:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
I’m just stunned.
Some “fun” gun facts from NPR:
“The latest year for which we have data available, 2009, there were 34,500 motor vehicle deaths, and there were 31,400 firearm deaths. But what we know is that motor vehicle deaths have come down so that they have come down to 32,000. And we also know that firearm deaths may be rising.”
“In the area of motor vehicle injuries, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on research: how to make safer roads, how to make safer cars, and how to make safer drivers. And as a result, since 1974, we’ve saved more than 300,000 lives.
But in the area of firearm injury deaths, we spend almost nothing.”
“…[A] congressman from Arkansas named Jay Dickey in 1996… was successful in cutting off all the research funding at CDC for firearm injury research.”
“Sixty percent of the gun fatalities are suicides, and 40 percent, about, are homicides.”
“a study that was done to look at whether having a firearm in your home actually does protect you, or whether it puts you at greater risk, showed that families and homes in which there was a gun, not only were they not protected against homicide, but the risk of gun homicide to people in those households was 2.7 times greater than the households without a gun. And the risk of suicide in those households was 4.8 times greater in the households with firearms.”
“…in the most recent year, 2009, there were only about 550 unintentional firearm deaths. On the other hand, there were 11,500 homicides”
“the number who are reported with non-fatal injuries from firearms through hospital emergency departments in 2009 was about 58,000 people”
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158433081/guns-101-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont
siiigh.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Meanwhile, CNN asks “What can be done to stop the violence?”
I hate this part of US culture so much it makes me stabby. Our thinking is so fucking perverted and obscene that anyone could actually ask this question.
Grumps:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
seconded
anubisprime:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Sorry link format failure seemingly…
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nra-sets-1000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount,28352/?ref=auto
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Important details for this proposal:
Will these people be locked WITH their guns in the same room, or without?
And will the walls of the room be bullet-proof?
Ricochets?
elpayaso:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
flapjack—and we have a nice contemporaneous example from China, where there was just a school attack with a knife….a few people got injured, not 27 dead.
this really puts this week’s decision from the federal 7th circuit, where they held that the 2d amdt protects the right to keep AND BEAR arms (Ie, tote your loaded gun with you at all times) into timely perspective.
this country is fugging insane.
throwaway:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
A Christian family member of mine posted a graphic on facebook that said:
I really want to respond, but I know no good would come from it. *sigh*
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Will these people be locked WITH their guns in the same room, or without?
And will the walls of the room be bullet-proof?
Ricochets?
With their guns. In fact, with every gun in the country. But they can have their own to start with.
Yes. Bullets should not be able to get out either.
Hopefully.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Dear God,
Never mind. If you’re so weak that a local legislature can keep you out, you clearly aren’t going to be very effective against a murderer with a weapon of mass destruction. And if you could have stopped it and didn’t, you’re clearly evil. Please stay away.
vole:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I am a Brit who has never visited the US because of the danger presented by all the crazy people running around with guns. I have been to numerous countries that I perceive to be safer. These include Ukraine, Venezuela and Zambia.
infraredeyes:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Meanwhile, in China, a fellow gets loose with a knife. Some serious injuries, but nobody dead.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Dear God,
Why are you such a contradictory, passive-aggressive fuck?
A Conserned studEnt
michaeld:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
That’s the nice part about knives, less lethal then shootings…
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Fuck fuck fuck.
I don’t really have anything coherent to add to this. I’m just so goddamn sick over this shit happening over and over and the fuck over again.
broboxley OT:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
the school was a gun free zone
the shooter is a NJ resident, it was illegal for him to transport those guns from New Jersey without special permits
I do not know if the weapons were purchased legally
Sick illegal act, worst part is that the police have a second suspect in custody of some kind. What was the sick object?
All I know is that kids are dead and the shooter is beyond punishment
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. People who have been steeped in a violent gun culture, nurtured and expanded by the NRA as a marketing tool to boost gun sales in a world where on average people actually need to buy guns less than ever before.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but “more guns” is absolutely not it.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I think the guy in custody is his brother.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Jesus Christ. So it begins. YES GUNS DO FUCKING KILL PEOPLE AND NO, HAVING A PATCHWORK OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS THAT CAN’T WORK DOESN’T MEAN GUN CONTROL CAN’T WORK.
bcmystery:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Tuesday I was at the Clackamas Town Center mall when that shooting happened. When I blogged about it, I got ragestorm comments about being an “anti-gun traitor” even though I hadn’t even mentioned guns, gun laws, the Second Amendment or anything like that. My post was basically, “It was scary, I was lucky, I feel for the victims, I never want that to happen again.”
Lesson: gun fetishists don’t even need something to rail against. They’ll imagine it and rail anyway.
This morning, watching Twitter, it occurred to me the defenders of gun culture use all the same bullshit arguments, derailings, elisions, and silencing techniques the defenders of rape culture use. There is something seriously ugly in these people.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
I think the guy in custody is his brother.
That’s what I’m seeing. And his mother was a teacher there and also one of the victims.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
sigh blockquote flail
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Er, Joe, maybe “guns don’t kill people, …” isn’t the best phrase to use.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Of course. It’s all interwoven. . .misogyny, military fetishization, glorification of violent “masculinity,” deep, toxic levels of entitlement bizarrely out of step with reality, imagining that not being able to grind others down is actually an oppression. . .
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
bcmystery, this stranger’s glad you got out of the mall okay.
There’s a lot of overlap. Gun laws in the US at least have a historical undercurrent of racism and sexism; it’s even visible in the implementation today – see how Stand Your Ground laws generally exonerate white male shooters, but don’t apply to abused women or black people acting in self-defense.
eric:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
That suggests a solution: arm the gun targets at gun rangesso that if they are missed or ‘wounded,’ they shoot back uprange. That should cut down on the number of gun owners who aren’t good shots.
Agent Silversmith, Honey Powered:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Sick to my stomach here.
joed, with the greatest respect, go piss in your own mouth.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Bingo. That entitlement and privilege is a massive factor in this.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Obama’s on TV talking about how he’s reacted “not as a President, but as anyone would. . a parent.” Fuck you. You’re not my Daddy. Be a goddamn leader, not a pseudo parent figure.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Obama: clue—Lots of us aren’t parents and we’re capable of grieving, too. It’s also sad when non-children are murdered.
Jeezis.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Oh, goodie. Quote me some more scripture, Obama.
dobbshead:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
I personally support rational gun control. I’d like to see serious firearm training as well as psych evaluations in addition to simple background checks. That is about as good as the US can do without nullifying the 2nd amendment. The background checks are even difficult though (see: Printz V. The United States), forcing a psych evaluation runs afoul of the 10th amendment apparently.
That being said, I worry that the attempt at gun control is going to focus on limiting sales on the type of weapon used rather than the kind of person who did the killing. In that sense, the trite NRA saying is correct: It doesn’t matter if it’s an automatic weapon or a hunting shotgun, all modern weapons are about as lethal in a crazy person’s hands. Things like the assault weapon ban, which regulate things like the size of a weapon’s clip or how it looks, are a distraction from policies that will actually decrease the rate of these disasters.
Or better yet: let’s spend money on social services and economic support networks so that fewer people will actually feel like doing this kind of thing.
bcmystery:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Thanks, Pteryxx. And you and Josh both really nailed it, I think.
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Dammit, I held it together until I heard this.
http://boingboing.net/2012/12/14/elementary-school-shooting-in.html
caveatimperator:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
consciousness razor, #24,
TVTropes has the Dull Surprise.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DullSurprise
Slightly more on topic, here’s one gun violence statistic I want to see; how much time murderers spent planning their attacks. Opponents of gun control claim that of we outlaw or restrict assault rifles and other military-grade weapons, the only people who will have them are the criminals. If they’re talking about professional criminals, like drug smugglers, they’re more or less right.
However, most gun crime is probably not committed by professionals. Most spree killings are definitely not. If these spree killers had to find a black market fixer who would charge them an arm and a leg, and wouldn’t get them their gun for a week or so, would they have been as likely to commit their crimes, or would their crimes at least be less deadly?
gridironmonger:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
The Henan province (China) school slashing/stabbing story was on the BBC News homepage just a bit below this story. If these gun fetishists were at all rational, it would be a good counterpoint to the old “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” canard they use.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Bullshit. This is wrong and it’s important to recognize why. The notion that the 2nd amendment gives unfettered access to all citizens to any type of gun in any quantity is a blatant lie that has nothing to do with what it actually says. What part of “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” is unclear?
Seriously. We need to change the conversation. We need to stop looking at black and calling it white just because we’ve all agreed to pretend the amendment says something it clearly does not.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I’m not sure what the answer is, but “more guns” is absolutely not it.
How about fewer guns? Ban individual ownership of handguns nationally or, preferably, internationally. Start regulating any factory that makes guns closely to ensure that they don’t make more than they can legally sell and see where they are selling them. Start closing or retooling factories that make guns that are clearly not for sport or hunting. Start making the laws against illegal gun ownership have some teeth, as in, get caught with an illegal gun, spend the next decade in prison kind of teeth. Make it hard to get a license for a gun. Melt down any illegal firearms confiscated. Ban the NRA and list them as a terrorist organization.
In short, go ahead and do everything the gun nuts say they’re afraid Obama will do and which Obama lacks the intestinal and gonadal fortitude to actually do.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Pteryxx, I think that just broke me. Jesus Christ.
Mattir:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Actually, Josh, I think part of the job of being a leader *is* to admit/embrace one’s feelings as a parent/child/spouse/neighbor/whatever at the time of the tragedy. Then to get to work doing stuff, whether it’s enacting real gun control laws, increasing funding for mental health resources and systems (both preventive and treatment), and seriously beefing up job training. The disaffected, underemployed, undereducated, hopeless white guy phenomenon scares the crap out of me, and there are a LOT of them out there.
Immediately after the event, though, yeah, be a person in a role. That’s part of the job.
TonyJ:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
With all the shootings we have, you have to wonder when is a good time?
broboxley OT:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
#49 Pteryxx quite correct. In california they didnt bring up gun control until persecuted black folk showed up at the capitol bearing rifles. Ronnie Raygun got all gun control over that
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
without nullifying the 2nd amendment.
NULLIFY THE SECOND AMENDMENT! Amendments aren’t set down by god for the good of humanity. They’re not even a part of the original Constitution. Just get rid of the fucking thing. It’s, at the very best, 100 years outdated and does far more harm than good.
Rey Fox:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Why, it’s almost as if the people who whine about not “politicizing a tragedy” don’t consider their own views political. As if they felt…privileged to conduct themselves in such a way. One of my Facebook friends posted a polemic about the shooting today, and somebody responded by saying “Please, let’s put the soapbox away…” and then immediately proceeded to plant himself atop it.
“Please don’t politicize” = “Please don’t challenge my (undeniably political) view on this”
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Every single week someone is getting shot in the USA
WTF is going on?
I wonder if this has any relation to the fact that gun sales have gone through the roof? or what?
Mass hysteria over SATANOBMA getting re-elected?
SC (Salty Current), OM:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I think you’re misunderstanding. He didn’t mean as a parent to the country, but as a parent to his own children.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Sorry, Mattir. One can be empathetic without embodying every shop-worn emotional cliche and burnishing the cult of parenthood as if that makes the tragedy unique. I’m not interested in platitudes but political solutions. And I’m quite confident Americans can learn to put on their big boy and big girl pants and not collapse if our elected officials don’t pander to their sentimental view of themselves.
This is irrelevant complaining on my part, I know. It’s very minor and I’d never bring it up as something that needed serious attention, but it does grate to have it constantly implied that parents have some special emotional capacities denied to us mere mortals. Really. Put yourself in the place of a non-parent. How would you read, “I reacted as anyone would. . as a parent.”
If you can’t see that, check your parent privilege.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
SC, yeah, I got that. I expressed it badly. See my 71.
TonyJ:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I thought their god was omnipotent.
That is completely disgusting. You should respond.
Mattir:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
To be clear, I don’t think that only people who are parents are allowed to speak about this. It’s just that one’s first response is to think of the children one cares about, and for a lot of people (including, probably, Obama), those are their own kids.
I agree about the damn scripture thing, though. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if biblical literature assumed its rightful place next to Gilgamesh, Homer, Dante, the Tale of Genji, the Autobiography of Frederick Douglas, and all the other canonical works of human literature?
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Not being American, I have absolutely no problem saying “Fuck second amendment”. Amendments can and should be amended (there’s a hint somewhere in the word amendment, I could swear), as well as interpreted according to the times.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
I’m sorry. . .I’m derailing and it’s shit. Promise to stop.
noastronomer:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I was at work when my wife called me to cry on the phone with me. It will be another two hours for me before I can get home.
At which point I think I will throw up.
Mike.
Moggie:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
It makes me seriously fucking angry that any Christian would use eighteen dead kids as an excuse to post that glurge. Do you imagine, do you really fucking imagine for one moment that those kids who were raised Christian weren’t fervently praying when they realised what was going down? And we’re supposed to believe that your precious omni-max god petulantly turned his back and let them die in pain and terror in order to make a point about a rule which they weren’t even responsible for? Seriously, if you think that, and you think that murdered kids are useful for advancing your agenda, you’re vermin to me.
Rey Fox:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
I prefer to think of it as a footnote. As in, “This is the ancient work that inspired, or is alluded to by, all of these other vastly better writings.”
No Light:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
I had guests here just now, saw this on the news and had a total meltdown.
A teacher said her five year olds were saying “I don’t want to die, I just want Christmas”.
And still the answer will never be gun control, will it? No matter how many fucking kids, not even started in life, how many have to bleed out on a floor in the one place they’ve supposed to be safe, terrified, before America gets a fucking clue
evilDoug:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Now is exactly the right time to talk about gun control and gun-owner control. Now while tears are still hot on cheeks and the blood of murdered children is still on the floor. Now, before limited attention spans and diversionary tactics relegate the lives of those kids and their teacher to simply being one tenth of one percent of the lives snuffed out by guns this year in the US.
“Meanwhile, CNN asks “What can be done to stop the violence?” ”
I have one suggestion CNN. Print the following in large type, and put it up in every studio and newsroom you control: “Some fucking asshole from the NRA has something to say about this. That fucking asshole will not get a voice on this network.”
An maybe do a piece where you explain that if coffins for all those killed by guns in the US last year were arranged end to end, it would take about three quarters of an hour to drive by them all at 6o miles per hour. Maybe calculate the weight of 31000 twenty-two caliber bullets.
caveatimperator:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Broboxley #66,
I have to agree with you there, also partially because of the way other weapon control laws are implemented, at least in my home state of California.
I collect knives, and when I was researching what types of knives I am allowed to carry concealed, what I am allowed to carry openly but not concealed, and what I am not allowed to carry at all, I was struck by how arbitrary the laws were compared to the gun laws of the state. You can carry a concealed handgun in Los Angeles if you have the right permit (it’s handled at the county level), but you cannot carry a butterfly, even openly. There is no such thing as a knife license in the state, even though it is a far less dangerous weapon than a gun. Brass knuckle are verboten as well.
It seems as though weapons that are associated with gang violence are routinely outlawed, but the gun rights crowd pushes for lax laws concerning guns, but not other weapons
laurentweppe:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Kittens are already well armed natural psychopathic killing machines…
On second thought you’re right: giving more firepower to psychopathic killers is probably the kind of idea a gun nut would find just peachy.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Gee, I wonder why. I wonder what demographics might be behind that. Hmmm.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Folks… my use of “guns don’t kill people” was meant to show one angle from which it is an incredibly stupid thing for people to say. Clearly unsuccessfully,and I apologize for that.
Dianne, other than the “ban handguns entirely” part, I’m with you all the way down the line. Make it exceedingly hard to get any gun at all, and make it impossible to get multiple guns and a whole line of unnecessary guns like assault rifles and sniper rifles. It has always seemed like a good rule of thumb that the more guns a person tries to buy, the more someone should be keeping an eye on them.
And no, this isn’t the time to talk about gun control, and take serious action. Right after Columbine might have been a good time. Maybe when Reagan was shot, or when Charles Whitman took to the clock tower at UT-Austin, or when JFK was assassinated, or when Charles Starkweather went on his killing spree, or when gangsters were shooting each other up with Thompson submachine guns during Prohibition, maybe THOSE would have been good fucking times to discuss it and enact/enforce stronger laws.
SQB:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Goddamn!
rolfboettger:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
It didn’t take an hour. However it was the religious nuts that stepped in. I’m sure the gun nuts are a close second.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-god-didnt-stop-ct-school-shooting-because-hes-gentleman-who-doesnt-go-where-he-not-w
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Of course, because it all feeds into angry-entitled-white-man syndrome. Gotta have guns on hand to protect yourself! And then sit around, waiting for an excuse to protect yourself. And then act all shocked when somebody creates an excuse for himself.
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Revolting, isn’t it? And I bet there will be christians coming out of the woodwork saying that the suffering of these children will teach us all compassion!!!!!! These children didn’t die in vain..no, cuz we learned all abvout compassion!
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Oh, and I wonder if MRA’s are gonna start bitching that people are paying too much attention to dead chldren, while forgetting the real victims of crime.. men!
caveatimperator:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
That can’t possibly be true, Josh! We’re in a post racial society, right?
/this message has been close-captioned for the sarcasm impaired
…sigh, it’s nearly 2013 and each day reminds me that our species still has a long way to go.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
other than the “ban handguns entirely” part
If you can tell me one use handguns have that is worth the children killed by them, I’ll change my mind.
Not immediately relevant to this shooting, since an automatic weapon was used. They should be banned too. Worldwide. Individual reloading shotguns only. Nothing small, concealable, or automatic. Just…stop.
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Crying – just feel so sick.
Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it!:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
A set of facts:
In 1963, following the assassination of President Kennedy, there were proposals to restrict the sale and ownership of military-style rifles by private citizens.
The National Rifle Association, already powerful and influential at that point…
…supported this wholeheartedly.
Funny how things change, isn’t it?
Of course, here’s what many people don’t want to admit:
What major, societal changes occurred between 1963 and the 1980s, which is when 2nd Amendment absolutism and frothing-at-the-mouth about how bans on private citizens having AK-47s are unconstitutional appeared?
Can you say “the Civil Rights Movement?”
Who ARE the 2nd Amendment absolutists, after all?
They tend to be white Christians, usually men, usually right-of-center (and not infrequently very far right), usually relatively affluent, usually who live in the suburbs or small towns. While people in rural areas care about guns, they tend to be “I want a hunting rifle so I can shoot animals” types.
This is about race. This is about class.
This is about “red-blooded Americans” protecting themselves from them.
Dalillama, Schmott Guy:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
More particularly, this type of mass shooting is basically never the work of a professional criminal, and is, in the U.S., always done with weapons that were acquired legally.
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
I’m not sure what is worse. The horrific tragedy, the terrifying reactions by the religious and gun nuts, the blatant avoidance of talking about problems by the main press and politicos or the fact that literally nothing has been done to even address what could be done since the last shooting.
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
…well, the last such shooting was two days ago.
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/clackamas_town_center_shooting.html
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
caveatimperator@ #82,
I’m with you on that. In Virginia where I just moved from, and New Mexico where I live now, I can carry a loaded handgun openly in a holster, or an unloaded rifle or shotgun of any type on a sling, without a permit and basically anywhere other than government buildings and banks. I can carry a whole collection of fixed-blade hunting and combat style knives, and two pockets-full of knives, but not my “switchblade” because the laws were apparently written by people who watched West Side Story and think that’s what the poor street thugs prefer to carry.
That, and there’s not a billion-dollar lobbying effort to keep switchblades legal and potentially pass them out to children. Fuck the NRA.
evilDoug:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
“the attempt at gun control is going to focus on limiting sales on the type of weapon”
So goddamnfuckingwhat? If that is where it starts and ends it isn’t enough, but it would at least be a start. It might get through to some of the assholes that they don’t get to own any fucking toy they want. How many 30 shot clips (and not one goddamned fucking word about “clip” versus “magazine”!) would be sold if they couldn’t be used for the basis of showing off and bragging?
And a far as “training” goes, as long as training includes how to point your gun at another person, it is being done wrong. As long as the gun range uses human torso paper targets, they are doing it wrong.
iiandyiiii:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
There’s just too many guns in America for banning them to have much of an effect, IMO. Banning stuff that’s plentiful (and in demand) has a pretty awful track record in America- I don’t see why banning guns would be any more effective then banning marijuana- in fact, I think it would be far less effective then banning drugs- drugs are used up, while well-maintained guns can last decades.
Banning high-capacity magazines might help in reducing the damage of the absolute worst shootings (like the Aurora one).
Unless we figure out how to get rid of all the guns already in America (and I think that’s fantasy-land stuff- not realistic at all), I think the focus needs to be on mental health and poverty. Everyone should have access to inexpensive mental health treatment, and no one should feel bad about referring someone they know who might be in trouble to proper care. And obviously we need to do far, far more about poverty and economic desperation.
dobbshead:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
This part: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” You can’t quote-mine to get away from it. If you want to ban guns, you are going to have to nullify the 2nd amendment. See: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
And even then, following the Pintz v. U.S. case I cited earlier, there is precedent that limits the federal government’s ability to force states to carry out background checks. Trying to make gun control happen is going to be hard, and doing it poorly will make it harder in the long run.
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
@94 yep. It’s another revival, brought about by fear of the “others” getting something resembling rights. If anyone has followed the Trayvon case still, the killer there has effectively demonized a dead teenager since he wasn’t a perfect angel of virgin whititude.
Marcus Ranum:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
I’d like to see serious firearm training as well as psych evaluations in addition to simple background checks.
Why not just make legal gun ownership a privilege of the wealthy? Unfortunately, that’s how it’s worked in France and the UK (you can still legally own guns if you are a member of an elite sporting club, hunt club, etc) It does make it easier for police, though, since any gun on the street is illegal.
It’d be better (and more egalitarian) to do away with them entirely.
Krasnaya Koshka:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
I’m completely sickened.
A friend on FB posted “This is why I have a hard time believing in ‘God’s plan’.” And was immediately countered with, “It is free will. God gives us that. Very sad what people do with that.”
Now I’m even more sickened. Seriously?! I did counter this friend’s friend, of course, but it’s “god’s will”. Nice.
Excuse me while I run off to the porcelain god, who’s actually always there for me.
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
@97 Ya, but nothing was done after the media and politicians made a huge deal about Aurora. OR Columbine or in fact any shooting in the last several decades. Always “now is not the time to politicize” and “mental health” (which is always phrased offensively as possible to anyone who actually has mental health issues) until everyone forgets about it. Then another shooting, same song and dance.
Marcus Ranum:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
As long as the gun range uses human torso paper targets, they are doing it wrong.
Teaching people how to shoot other people is a huge business in the US. :( One of my shooter buddies spent a ton of money going to some camp out in redneckistan to learn how to shoot people. Um, this passes for entertainment in some places, apparently.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
This is the relic of the southern states that feared slave uprisings.
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
And psych evals won’t work. The killers don’t have diagnosed or usually diagnosable problems. They are just products of a violent culture who gradually hit some point where they decide that violence will solve some internal turmoil. Crazy in the colloquial sense, sure, but not in the sense of diagnosable by the DSM.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
One of my shooter buddies spent a ton of money going to some camp out in redneckistan to learn how to shoot people.
Did the targets have hoodies and skittles?
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the constitution, though. If the lobby is small the rights are ignored anyways (see 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments) but holy rusted hell if anyone dares regulate the 2nd even as much as the 1st is regulated. I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater but I can pack a weapon designed solely to murder another human being in one.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
This should be the operative phrase. I have never attended a meeting of this “well regulated militia”, and I’m over 60 years old. It doesn’t exist. Therefore, anything beyond this phrase doesn’t matter.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
dianne,
I’m even sort of with you on principle on the outright ban, I just don’t know how you make that happen without first changing the culture. Remember, I spent 14 months carrying a handgun for self-defense, and it left me feeling angry and exhausted and emotionally drained and often really depressed. There’s that one “good” use for a handgun, the need for which would be eliminated if we could at least phase out ownership of most of the firearms over time.
gareth:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
In Britain we had a similar incident in 1996 in Dunblane Scotland when a lone gunman killed 16 children and one adult in a school.
In 1997 private ownership of handguns was made illegal, there have been no more school shootings in Britain.
America needs to impose tough gun control laws now, I hope to never see another incident like this, there have been far too many already.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I find it particularly interesting that everybody’s favorite armchair diagnosis to trot out in cases like this–schizophrenia–affects men and women in roughly equal numbers. If murder is a mental health problem, why is it predominantly committed by men?
We have a cultural problem and our attitude toward guns is a huge factor in it. Gun control is part of the solution, but dealing with these John Wayne fantasies that are keeping the guns out there is the far more complicated long-term solution.
briane:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
This is terribly sad. Innocent kids who never had a chance. Fuck!
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Dobbshead–I’m not quote mining. I’m fully aware of that clause. Why can’t you see that the part about a well-regulated militia modifies and qualifies the clause about “the people?” Why do you treat it as if it were transparently on its face about individual gun ownership? What do you think “well-regulated militia” was meant to mean?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
bcmystery:
I’m glad you’re okay.
Oh, yes. It’s all part of the same poisonous package. Toxic masculinity + toxic jingoism.
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
@114 and statistically people with various schizo related disorders have the exact same rate of violent crimes as everyone else. But whining about crazy people is a good distraction.
totalretard:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
No one has even mentioned gun control except for PZ. Let’s talk about it. What do you want done? Brady bill? (That really helped — not.) Confiscation of firearms as done in Australia in 1996? That really put a damper on shootings, but when they did occur, they were spectacular mass shootings of the sort we’re now facing. (Mexico also has very strict firearms control, and we know that it’s totally effective.) Getting back to to Australia, look at their homicide record before and after gun control: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html.
At least there are very few of them are shootings any more. (Curiously, class H firearms include deactivated handguns that are used for target practice.)
There’s a minimalist approach. Keep all firearms not being carried locked up. This is not being done, and those guilty of this are not being prosecuted because they’re sorry. Yes, they are sorry, and nothing is being done.
We could make the Brady bill more extreme — require single-shot weapons, leading to the ultimate NRA oxymorons, a single-shot semi-automatic and a single-shot revolver.
We could also try other approaches — require only open carry, ban handguns, ban rifles and shotguns with a barrel under 6 feet long, require all guns to have a biometric firing mechanisms (just like Mississippi’s restrictions on abortions, this would effectively make all firearms illegal), require all pistols to have at least a 2-foot barrel, require all pistols to be at least .50 magnum or larger (.60 magnum Nitro Express or .50 BMG –all these would also effectively eliminate handguns for any but the most intrepid), or some other regulation that might drive the NRA to using longbows, crossbows, and katanas.
PZ, in spite of sounding sarcastic (which I am), I’m also perfectly serious. Is your response (“gun control, gun control”) somehow qualitatively different from NRA jerks who want to arm students (which, at least, is specific)? I agree with the need for rational gun laws. What are they?
PLEASE, at least tell us what you’re asking. At least I have given this some real thought over many years, which it doesn’t appear you have. We can take this offline since you have my real name and e-mail address filed with FtB, and if you can’t get to it, I’ll send it to you if needed.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
It would be so nice if every single jingoistic idiot who clings to this like a security blanket could figure out we aren’t in the midst of the ‘merican revolution anymore.
jose:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
For the love of everything good, America…
Tethys:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
OT
slowwit 17 is sockpuppeting in the MS thread. Any mods around to request an IP ban?
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
@119 your user name is crap.
As for gun control, it would be nice to see leaders actually talk about it, debate about it or evan have the sexual organ fortitude to attempt something. PZ never claimed to have a magic button, but reducing weapon availability and especially handgun and automatic weapon availability is a step towards controlling it. Then we can actually look into what the fuck is wrong with our culture such that we all have John Wayne fantasies, as Caerie mentioned.
ivarhusa:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
I’d like to see better mental health care in this country, so that people with diagnosable illness can be treated. It would also help to have a better safety net, so that people don’t develop an “I’m screwed so bad, that I want to take other people with me.” attitude. People, all people, need some confidence in their future- and realistic expectations.
I recall a black comedian doing a bit on how it was always the “angry white guy” that was dealing with a job layoff by shooting up the place. A black man knows (so the comedian tells us) that he can get utilities installed in his daughter’s name,… etc. They are more resiliant.
Well, we all need to be more resiliant.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 14th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Surely the immediate aftermath of this horrifying massacre is the time for all Americans who are both decent and rational to start building a mass movement for gun control. Until such exists, the NRA has a complete lock on the political process.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Where is the sanity of basing modern laws about guns on a law that was made out of fears of slave uprisings. Also, the arms they had took time to load for each shot and were not very accurate.
Try to imagine how much damage the murderer could have done if he had guns from the late Eighteenth Century?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Tethys, alert sent.
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
No, you missed the point. This Christian has his loving, compassionate God saying “Since you didn’t force everyone to bow down before me in your schools; Fuck you! How about I send a plague of crazed gunmen to blow away your children! How do you like me now?”
(And to be fair, that does sound exactly like the God character we all know from the OT.)
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Ban everything except single-shot weapons with barrels longer than 63cm and an internal capacity of two rounds, then restrict ownership of those weapons to people who obtain firearms licenses which come with strictly enforced controls on where and how the weapons and ammunition for them are stored, the mental health and general character of the applicant, and any other arbitrary shit you can think of to make it as difficult as possible for people to get their hands on a gun. Also restrict the number of rounds a person can purchase in any given year, and finally mandate extremely heavy sentences for anyone caught in possession of an illegal weapon.
Once you’ve done that, go to the families of these 20 little children and explain to them why it wasn’t done twenty, or forty, or sixty years ago.
It isn’t a question of politics; that gun control prevents murders is a fact observable in every nation which restricts ownership of firearms.
This is utterly depraved and indescribably senseless. Even assuming it does precipitate a change in the US’ ridiculous gun culture it’ll be a hollow victory, and yet another damning indictment on the base inhumanity of the supposed centre of enlightenment – because if it takes 20 little kids being shot dead to affect a change in your view on firearms, you’re a fucking monster.
Rodney Nelson:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Nerd of Redhead #111
It’s called the National Guard.
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Some things which spring out:
– The first two graphs represent total number of homicides per year, rather than homicides per capita per year.
– The third graph shows that in the 7 years after said confiscation of firearms, the percentage of homicides involving firearms only fell by about a third.
Would you prefer to link something else?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Federalized, and I’ve never attended a meeting. Making the successive phrases invalid. By the way, sophistry.
nigelTheBold, just some guy on the internet:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Yeah. It drives me nuts when people pull out the old, “Guns don’t kill people,” argument. A quick analogy demonstrates exactly why guns should be heavily, heavily regulated (and perhaps personal ownership should be outright illegal):
Hammers don’t drive nails.
Trucks don’t transport large quantities of physical goods.
Knives don’t slice vegetables.
Guns are just tools. Tools designed for the sole purpose of killing. And that makes the whole argument clear. It’s not an argument about gun control. It’s an argument about how much killing we wish to occur.
Guns don’t kill people. But they make the whole process of killing a helluva lot easier, and a damned sight more convenient and efficient. And that’s their entire reason for existence.
scriabin:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
The legal changes needed to enact proper gun control are daunting and require absolutely strong leadership. Strong leadership only happens when there is a cultural shift that allows leaders to be strong without affecting their electability.
I so wish that I could see that cultural shift in the US (I’m Canadian – and despite our own idiot Conservative government – every time I head south I’m still stunned by the gun ad billboards, the anti-abortion billboards, the jingoistic stuff…). But I don’t see that shift even on the far horizon – no matter how many children are killed. It’s appalling.
Guns seem to be as culturally ingrained as religion in the States.
Tethys:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Thanks Caine.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Nathair:
Yes, it does. Goes to show how convenient xian nonsense is, because in situations like this, they never bring up Hippie Jesus and the NT. Nope, it’s right back to Psycho Dad.
psychodigger:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
@rolfboettger
I just watched that clip you linked to and it makes me want to scream and howl at my screen until my voice gives up.
What a disgustingly sick excuse of a human being. If this gentlemanly god of his cannot be bothered to save children just to prove a stupid point about prayer, he’s not worth worshipping (nor is he a gentleman).
This insane wanker should be given a few proper smacks in the head for abusing and defiling the horrible death of these children for his nauseating proselytising. I feel sick to my stomach now.
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
I just checked one of the right wing forums that I read, and they are already saying shit like this:
Notice quote #1…the SICK BASTARDS are those of us who are blaming guns’
yep
what..
uh
wtf!
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Joe, I’m partly angry because I don’t think ANYTHING is going to happen and that’s making me want to shove the Overton window open as far as possible. I apologize for snarling at you unfairly.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
And then they turn around and say that little angels are at home with God now, I presume?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Beatrice:
Of course. God loved ‘em so much he called them home, you see.
evilDoug:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
I can’t get the cows in the barn because they are spread out all over the field.
I can’t harvest the wheat because it will take a whole week.
I can’t do the laundry because it won’t all fit in the machine at once.
I can’t wash the car because I can only do one side at a time.
Every stinking time one of these events happens, there is a steady barrage of excuses for why nothing can be done, and they all amount to a variant on tl;dr.
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
@140 && 141
So by that logic wouldn’t that make the gunman…
Oh dear fuck I can’t actually finish that thought. Incoherency and shear stupidity collapsed into a singularity of how much I hate these people.
nigelTheBold, just some guy on the internet:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
bobo:
To be fair, the murderer is the first sick bastard. It’s just that those of us who point out that guns are designed strictly for killing are just as bad as the guy who uses the gun for its intended purpose.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
you think Australia’s population demographic significantly changed enough to make a per capita measure meaningful in this context?
then you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
ONLY??
fuck me, if any legislation could result in a 30% reduction in JUST 7 YEARS, that’s a fucking phenomenal success rate.
are you wholly delusional, or only on just this issue?
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
#144, yeah, I goofed with my blockqoutes and then pointed out the wrong quote
quote #2 was referencing gun control proponents as *sick bastards*
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Getting back to to Australia, look at their homicide record before and after gun control: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html.
At least there are very few of them are shootings any more.
Actually, Australia’s policy looks moderately effective. The number of murders peaked in 1999 and has decreased in absolute terms and the population of Australia has increased pretty linearly in the last couple of decades, meaning that the homicide rate has gone down pretty consistently since 1996.
Alverant:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
#119 you want more details about what kind of gun control we should have, fine.
1) Take a tip from motor vehicles, require a license you need to take a test for, require insurance, renew on a regular basis, can lose if you screw up, and different kind of licenses for different kinds of guns.
2) Take another tip from lawyers and stock brokers and require fingerprinting for all gun owners.
3) All gun owners are legally responsible for what happens with their guns. No more “accidental” shooting bullshit, they are now called criminal homiside. If your gun is stolen and you didn’t take proper care to secure it, you’ll stand right beside the criminal who killed people at their trial.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
logicpriest:
God’s li’l weapon? Yes.
What a Maroon, el papa ateo:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Fuck this is sick. I fucking hate my country sometimes.
I’ve got nothing coherent to say. Just thinking of my own 4th grader, and all the other kids out there.
Fuck this.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
The amount of hatred in the thread is incredible. As an atheist, environmentalist, union-supporting, anti-imperialist, lesbian I’ve always been a target for hate from the right wing, but at the same time I’ve never once felt comfortable with the label of “liberal” because of all the shit that gets dumped on me by the left wing for being a gun owner. Yeah, I own a gun, and it’s even a semi-automatic assault rifle. (It’s a Ruger Mini-14 if you care.)
I’ve always felt like I should get more involved in politics, but whenever I try it’s made very clear that I am not welcome because I don’t toe the liberal line on gun control. No one has ever convinced me that I’d be better off disarmed, no one has ever convinced me that the US would be better off, and quite frankly no one has ever even bothered trying to convince me without emotional appeals and straw man arguments. Instead, people lump me in with the NRA, the KKK, and any number of other groups that openly declare their hatred for people like me.
But hey, I must be a valid target since I’m a “gun nut”. (Definition: a gun nut is apparently anyone who owns even one gun.)
I’m sick of being hated from both the right and the left, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to give in to groupthink just to avoid being ostracized. So screw you people.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
@133:
All that stuff you said, plus this; the argument is absolute horse-shite because it can also be applied to bombs. Bombs don’t kill people – they remove stumps and rocks which are otherwise too large and heavy to be removed, or knock down walls/ buildings that I don’t want anymore, or help me do quarrying. They’re just tools – what’s important is ensuring they’re used responsibly, so why is it that I go to jail for centuries if I’m caught in posession of a timer-fuzed explosive device? Maybe we bomb enthusiasts just need better PR. Maybe a National Bomb Association or something.
Herp. Afucking. Derp.
What world do these people live in? Why are they not rushing to throw their shitty little “tools” into a big bonfire and abandon their supposed “right” to own a weapon capable of killing a human being from half a mile away when there’s empirical evidence that doing so will reduce the likelihood of people being shot dead in their country? I can only surmise it is because they are stupid people.
What a Maroon, el papa ateo:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
4. End gun shows, or at least don’t allow sales at gun show.
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
#149 Cain:
Yes but, the mental gymnasts won’t come right out and say it. They will come up with something similar to the argument that ‘excused’ Richard Mourdocks “rape is a gift” comments. The rapist and/or gunman acted in free will, and *not* by Gods design, BUT God did intentionaly *gift* the raped woman and/or dead children with…well you know!
p.s. the gift to the dead children is heaven of course, and the gift to us is that we learn compassion by watching children die. natch.
Beethovenfangirl: sharp, flat and natural:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
It’s not too early to discuss gun control. Hell, it’s at least 26 people too late.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Gee, you give such a logical reason to own a killing machine. So not.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Eris Caffee,
I would shed a tear or two for you, but I reserve today’s sentiments for those 20 murdered children and 7 adults.
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
It’s gun control, but not just that.
It’s mental health care. Fucking mental health care, something that should be a right, that is instead portioned out to the precious few who can afford the extra coverage. And no, I’m not saying this guy was mentally ill. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. But he most probably had problems interacting with other people, with controlling his anger, with dealing with frustration and what happens when you feel entitled to something but fail – all the things that therapy can help you deal with. But we have a system where people don’t get to have that kind of care, where even people who have access to it feel stigmatized to the point of not using it, where if you have a strong enough will you’re a good person and if you have any problems at all you’re somehow broken. Every person for themselves, that’s the pioneer spirit and rugged individualism of America. I say fuck. that.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Mexico also has very strict firearms control, and we know that it’s totally effective.
Gee, it’s almost as if having a much more powerful country on the border which is actively funneling guns into the country and deliberately undermining the government makes it hard to enforce the laws. If the US had better gun control laws, one unintended side benefit would likely be a lower homicide rate in Mexico. And possibly further south.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
It’s just as logical as as the “5 in 100,000 people are murderers so OMG BAN GUNS” argument that you people are throwing around.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Our papers say that he had also killed his father at home, his brother, and that his girlfriend and a friend are missing.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Eris, compare homicide, suicide, and accidental death rates in the US to those in any country with gun control. Not necessarily outright banning, but control. Now compare homicide rates in states with strong versus weak gun control laws. Now go to medline and look up childhood mortality in homes with and without guns. There. Several completely statistical arguments that don’t rely on any emotional appeal apart from an underlying assumption that more murders is a bad thing. If you aren’t convinced by the homicide data and numerous papers demonstrating lower childhood death rates in homes that don’t have guns, it’s because you value your delusions more than people’s lives. Because there is no controversy. Guns kill. Even sane, smart, responsible people with guns are more likely to end up dead or with their children dead than they ever are to use those guns for self defense or defense of others.
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Eris Caffee, it is important that you defend your rights. This thread is about you, not 26 dead people.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Oh, and that the Ryan guy isn’t the murdered, but his brother who had Ryan’s documents with him.
Looking at some US papers, yeah, it confirms that Ryan is alive and says that “his younger brother is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a “personality disorder.” ”
I don’t know if there was a third brother or if that info in #161 is wrong.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Because absolutely everyone here is suggesting every gun everywhere must be banned and we all 100% agree with one another. None of us have guns or are advocating control instead of a ban. We are all a bunch of straw liberals and the only way anyone can in any way be involved in progressive politics is by agreeing with our groupthink.
Right.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Eris Caffee,
Fuck you. 27 people are dead and all you can think about is how someone might possibly deny you having fun with your assault rifle.
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
The Onion reports the most truthfully on this situation: Fuck everything, nation reports. Just fuck it all to hell.
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Are you sure? Are you sure it’s not because you’re the kind of narcissistic asshole that would pull a dramatic flounce about your poor hurt fee-fees in a thread discussing a real genuine actual tragedy?
Please stick the flounce.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Let’s see what some of the good xians at RR are saying:
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Just got around to watching the Bryan Fischer video.
What a opportunistic parasite.
FYI, his twitter handle is @BryanJFischer
Let him know how you feel.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Why the fucking Jesus do you need an assault rifle? Why the fucking Jesus do you think ordinary people should be allowed to have a weapon like this?
Banning guns would drastically curtail this kind of senseless violence, but if you’re not in favour of that, think how much lower the death tolls would be in incidents like this if the shit-arses who use self-loading rifles and carbines to commit mass murder were forced to stop and rack a bolt every time they fired a shot, then change out a magazine after every two or three shots. How much more time would that give people to flee? How many more seconds would that buy the emergency services to respond?
That’s not groupthink. That’s fact.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
translation of Eris @151:
“I don’t actually look at any of the data that supports the effective use of gun control, so nobody has ever been able to convince me!”
uh, congratulations on your imperviousness? I suggest keeping your semi close at hand to protect that thought process.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Nice try, but you’r bias is showing. This thread was never about the dead people. In fact, in PZ’s post he says himself “I do know it’s past time to put rational gun control laws in place.” The thread topic has been gun control from the very beginning, but you be sure and lie to yourself to make it seem otherwise.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Incidentally, I don’t think I’ve ever respected Obama less than now. He’s got two kids. Why isn’t he calling for actual action that might decrease the risk that they’ll be the next victims of this sort of thing instead of standing there trying to avoid offending the NRA? He ought to be saying “Hell, yes, I’m coming for your guns!” And being ready to teach anyone who thinks that they constitute a well regulated militia all by themselves that their itty bitty gun doesn’t stand up well to a tank.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
+twelvety!
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Eris:
Goodness, what a river of self pitying bullshit. I have terrible news, Cupcake. This thread is not about you. Nor is the tragedy of so many dead, so many lives changed about you. There are many social ills and failures which contributed to this tragedy, however, it couldn’t have taken place without the ease of getting a weapon, which is seriously out of fucking control in this country.
Now run off and play with your gun, dear.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Eris Caffee,
Do you think people are calling for gun control just because they want to ruin your personal fun?! People are, rightfully, calling for gun control because of those dead people. Because better gun control would lead to less dead people.
Do you even give a fuck about people dying or just about playing with your fucking assault rifle?
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
nice attempt at false equivalence.
in fact, this thread IS about the people killed by easy access to guns, and how to prevent that happening in the future. this, as much as anything, is exactly about the very people that were just killed.
compare that to your complaint:
“I like my pretty little semi”
fuck.
you.
andrewtyson:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
As a skeptic who’s torn on the 2nd amendment issue and doesn’t have a strong stance on either side I just have to chime in. I see alot of emotional pleads for action. While I understand the urge to do so, I am dissappointed to see in this media. Statements about what persons on the other side of the argument should do in a room full of guns do not belong in rational discussion.
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
It has, I checked.
I wasn’t arguing that the legislation either wasn’t effective, I was pointing out that the results of said legislation don’t support tr’s “don’t blame the guns” subtext .
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Come on! Even the statistics provided by the other gun nut on this thread demonstrate that violence decreases when there are fewer guns. What more could someone want?
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I’m picking up a lot of projection here, actually. Please make sure you count to ten before deciding to shoot us all with your semi?
kthxbye
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Actually, I don’t believe guns should be banned. But I think every gun owner should be fingerprinted and have DNA on file, along the serial numbers for all their weapons. Make it clear all range safety rules have to be followed by force of law, such as the ammo and gun kept separate until just before firing the weapon. All guns and ammo must be stored in locked cabinets that can withstand small pry bars. Also, thefts of weapons must be reported to the authorities immediately, or the owner becomes liable for later misuse of said weapons. All weapons cannot have more than six bullets in at a given time unless at a certified and secure gun range and transported there and back in armored vehicles.
Either take back your “banning” screed, or shut the fuck up. Shrill screaming is for the gun nuts.
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
erm, that should be “I wasn’t arguing that the legislation either was or wasn’t effective”
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Eris Caffee, is it gun banning you are worried about, or gun control? Do you think background checks are necessary, at all? Or do you think anyone should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy as many guns as they possibly can?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
and while you’re at it, let Huckabee know too. He’s parroting Fischer.
@GovMikeHuckabee
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
andrewtyson,
And fuck you too. If you don’t get emotional when 20 kids get shot then something is wrong with you.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
I see alot of emotional pleads for action.
If the senseless killing of an entire class of kindergarteners isn’t a good reason for action in your mind, then you are a waste as a human being.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
then show me the numbers that would support your contention, because I’m not seeing it myself, and I only live just across the pond.
ah, sorry, I misinterpreted that.
yoav:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Our old friend Eric Hovind found the reason, it’s because the shooter went to a school without god, oh and evilution. Every time you think the asshole have hit rock bottom he finds a way to dig dipper.
nigelTheBold, just some guy on the internet:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Eris Caffee:
That’s not the argument, at least from me.
My argument is that guns are specifically designed for killing. They have no other purpose. Statistics indicate that owning a gun makes you more likely to become a gun-related victim, so the claim that owning a gun makes you safer doesn’t freight. Rationally, there’s no logical argument for owning a gun for most people.
I grew up in Alaska. I hunted. Many of my family and friends in Alaska still subsistence hunt. But even the question of hunting has solutions. Gun clubs that are specifically licensed to store guns, for instance, in which club members (where membership is free) are allowed to check the guns out for hunting purposes, along with enough ammunition for a reasonable hunting expedition.
Hell, even better: we could just start by regulating ammo. They regulate the fuck out of sales of decongestants, but not ammo.
Guns are designed for one thing: killing. People who own guns own them for one thing: killing. Or at least, the threat of killing (if you own one for safety). I don’t think it’s irrational to discuss the heavy regulation of something that is designed only for killing.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
I’d like to, but the information online is so heavily dominated by people on the gun-control and anti-gun control sides that it’s really hard to tell what is reliabel and what is not. If you have any links to non-biased information I’d appreciate it.
This looks like a reasonable source for the overall murder rate, at least.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state
Ah, but there we are. I’m “delusional” if I don’t think like you do.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
So, Eris Caffee, you would rather toss your lot with those who would make for easier access to more powerful weapons instead of those who are trying to figure out how to keep mass murder like this from happening?
Good to know.
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Someone earlier made the point that NRA nuts sound just like MRA’s and boy, is Eris proving that
The marc lepine thread was all about the menz
This thread is all about Eris’ right to play with an assault rifle
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
following up with what I said here:
population increase in OZ has been steady at 1.4% for many years.
so, do you really think a 10% (rounding up) increase in population size would show a significant difference if you measured something per capita?
hint: no.
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
This thread is about gun control because this thread is about the dead people, these dead people, all the previous dead people and the people who will continue to die unless a grown up gun control discussion happens. You seem to see all the hundreds of thousands of dead people as just some kind of lame excuse irrational gun haters bring up to try to take away your toys.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Eris Caffee,
How many lives is your right to play with an assault rifle worth?
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Isn’t that cute? This is exactly what I’m on about. Because I own a gun you automatically declare me to be a threat and potential murderer. Youare trying to take away part of my freedom, but somehow I am supposed to be the one who is threatening.
kristinc, now with added ventilation:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
QFMFT.
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
You know what the funniest thing is? Eris is so wedded to ‘being a victim’ that she cannot even see that many of us do not want to ban all guns. I for one have no problem with people owning guns..just get a fucking background check and anything else that is necessary to try to prevent the wrong people getting guns.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I’m betting that since you report a history of “being hated” on this issue, that you have, in fact, been given MANY MANY links to relevant information previous, and just completely ignored it because you didn’t like how it challenged your perceptions.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
bobo,
Well, I want to ban her from using a freaking assault rifle. What the fuck does she need an assault rifle for?
moarscienceplz:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
This is only tangentially on-topic, but it does highlight the “logic” of the right-wing mindset:
Texas, which is arguably ground zero for the “guns don’t kill people” song-and-dance, came up with a clever way to fight the war on drugs – they banned Erlenmeyer flasks. If you don’t know what those are, they are nothing more than fancy glass bottles that are handy for chemistry experiments. So, guns DON’T kill people, but bottles DO make illicit drugs.
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Do you think you could have the fucking decency to make it about them?
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
bait taken.
shall I get you some pearls to clutch now?
Youare trying to take away part of my freedom,
FREEZE PEACH!
you’re pathetic.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
andrewtyson:
Pharyngula 101:
Idiots who barge into the room and immediately make judgments about how others are arguing tend not to do well here. People who take a moment or three to lurk and read tend to do better.
Don’t strawvulcan, dear. It’s impolite and fuckwitted. Don’t concern troll or tone troll, either. (If you are clueless, go spend a few hours reading the Pharyngula Wiki.) No one is stopping you from arguing in any fucking manner you like. Rather than lecture others, just go about things in the manner you prefer.
Don’t barge in thinking you’re the calm, cool, collected dude. You aren’t, you’re just a garden variety asswipe who wants to derail the thread disparaging others.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking (or saying) that emotion is inappropriate. It isn’t. Especially in light of many dead people. If you are going to insist on playing strawvulcan, spare us all and go elsewhere. So, attempt to think before you post again.
Welcome to Pharyngula.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Actually, I think people are calling for gun control because they think it will lead to fewer deaths each year. I happen to think that the number of fewer deaths would not justify the loss of freedom imposed on millions of innocent people. (I also want the TSA disbanded or heavily reformed for the very same reason.)
Thank you for demonstrating again the kind of hatred that inspired me to post in the first place. You automatically assume that I’m some of gun obsessed nut job simple because I own a single gun.
Please try to see things from my perspective: a derranged person in another part of the country killed many innocent people in a horrible mass murder, and now people like you are telling me what a horrible monster I am. There’s no logic in that.
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Eris has a ginormous *martyr boner*. Tell us Eris, everytime someone mentions *gun control* do your pants get tighter? Are you in XTC right now?
Enquiring minds want 2 no!
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Going by population figures from here and homicide rates from the first graph, it looks like the per capita murder rate fell about 30% between 1996 and 2007. The graph implies less.
No problem, I think my first post was overly cryptic.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
moarscienceplz:
Er, seriously? Gods this country is fucked up.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Anybody else smell the paranoia in this statement. Nobody is calling you a monster except you. We are calling you callous, unempathetic, and uncaring about preventing another said incident.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
I’d like to, but the information online is so heavily dominated by people on the gun-control and anti-gun control sides that it’s really hard to tell what is reliabel and what is not.
Oh, yes, those crazy liberal anti-gun nuts at wikipedia Not to mention that their primary source appears to be…the UN! Probably just softening us up for the blue helmet invasion force…
The data is reliable and entirely consistent. You simply don’t want to believe it because you want to be able to kill people at your convenience.
And your very link demonstrates that the murder rate is higher in states with lax gun control laws, i.e. Louisiana which allows concealed carry, has no waiting period for purchase, and no gun bans has a homicide rate of 11.2. Relatively restrictive (for the US) New York has a homicide rate of 4.0. Even stricter Massachusetts has a homicide rate of 2.8.And so on. You’re destroying your own case. Which is not surprising since your premise is false.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Eris Caffee, what would be your solution to help prevent this kind of murder spree? Should teachers and other faculty members be armed? Should they be required to be armed?
Should access to guns be controlled or should people be armed in because of the chance that someone armed intends to do harm?
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Lack of empathy is considered a pretty serious psychological issue.
Also from The Onion: It is ok to spend the rest of the day curled up in the fetal position under your desk
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
“person who came saying stupid shit looking to reinforce her preconceptions, irrationally reinforces her preconceptions, claims “THE WORLD IS WRONG, NOT ME!!”
…details at 11.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Eris Caffee,
How many lives is your “right” to play with an assault rifle worth?
I don’t need an exact number, you can round it up.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Clearly I’m narcissistic, because I object to being lumped in with murderers and thinking that mental health care is more important than gun control. How totally self absorbed I am.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
dianne,
The snarling was mild at worst, and more than understandable under the circumstances. And maybe productive, in that the conversation and this thread as a whole gives the lie to Eris Caffee’s bullshit about liberals being unwilling and unable to have conversations with people who own firearms and don’t want them banned entirely. Lots of liberals own guns and still manage to support some form of gun control. It is the right-wing gun nuts who hold the extreme position that any and every regulation is somehow a step towards total bans.
Eris Caffee,
Can you put together a remotely rational reason why I would need to have a semi-auto pistol that holds 16+1 rounds, plus 4 extra magazines? Or why I should be able to buy a modified M4 assault rifle and as many 30-round magazines as I can afford? Name a purpose that cannot be met with something less-obviously designed for mass murder, cannot still exist even with very strict gun control laws, and that is at least as likely as winning the lottery. Because target shooting can be done better with single-shot pistols and bolt-action rifles, home- and self-defense can be done with 5-shot revolvers and shotguns, hunting can be done with all of the above or with a bow. Where is the rational need for weapons and accessories designed to kill many people very quickly, in the hands of just about anyone with a pulse and a few hundred dollars?
moarscienceplz:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Yep.
http://keyholefull.blogspot.com/2008/12/texas-outlawed-erlenmeyer-flask.html
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Yes, please let’s remember that Eris is the real victim here.
wmdon:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
So how many deaths would it take to justify this “loss of freedom”? Seriously, what’s the ratio?
You say you’ve never come across any non-emotional arguments that would convince you to relinquish your assault rifle. So what non-emotional arguments did you find convincing enough to purchase your gun in the first place?
Seriously – I’m curious because, as a Canadian, I don’t find our gun control laws to be a loss of freedom at all. I want to know why the ownership of a weapon whose sole purpose is its ability to kill other human beings (and so deprive them of all of their fundamental rights) is so central to your concept of freedom. I don’t understand the mindset.
michaeld:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
I love ma fuzzy little killing machine… http://theoatmeal.com/comics/cats_actually_kill
Oh errr you meant guns…. nvm
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Maybe I should start guessing. The number is obviously above 27.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Because in Drama Queens 101, the world revolves around you!
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Eris Caffee,
Do you have any idea how freaking unbelievable your ridiculous demands for your “right” to have an assault rifle look to an European?
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Gun nuts don’t even have a good argument for allowing citizens to own hand guns. They always point to the 2nd Amendment like it is an argument for gun possession. And they conveniently ignore ‘…well regulated militia…’.
I don’t want shit like this to keep happening. One way to achieve that is to enact stiff gun control laws.
I used to think a day at a shooting range would be fun bc I have never touched a gun. I no longer want to do so. These things are lethal weapons and have no purpose beyond killing.
So Eris, what is your argument in favor of lax gun control laws (in effect, keeping the current status quo)?
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Hmmmm indeed. The communities that routinely see children as well as adults killed and maimed by guns tend to be urban communities and tend to be disproportionately people of color. They tend to support rational gun control laws.
The communities that use guns as recreation and as a political statement tend to be rural and disproportionately white. They tend to oppose rational gun control laws.
Funny how one group’s need for safety and security is trumped by the other group’s demand for unfettered use of guns because they find it fun, or because they have irrational fears about tyrannical government thugs coming to take away their guns (if that were the case, there’s no possible amount of guns that could stop the government, they have civilians vastly outgunned, have for decades, and will continue to into the foreseeable future).
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Joe, heck, I’ll even try to meet you half way and say that I can see situations in which having a gun might be useful. If you’re going to hunt deer to thin the herd to avoid overpopulation and starvation, for example, it’s better to shoot them than to club them over the head, unnecessarily distressing the animal. (I’d prefer reintroducing wolves to do the job personally, but one step at a time.) If you live in farthest Montana or west Texas where 911 doesn’t even reach, you might want the gun to shoot rattlesnakes or even home invaders. I’m sure people can think of other situations. But in most urbanized Connecticut? The only use for guns is…exactly what they were used for here.
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Seriously? It’s okay that people get murdered, so you can have more “freedom”? WTF?
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
you know, when I was a teen, a buddy of mine went out and got the materials to make a homemade, large-bore potato cannon.
We took it down to the beach to shoot it, and saw how powerful it was. 5 minutes later, a cop came by to tell us that these homemade canons were illegal, because they were incredibly dangerous and had actually killed people.
strangely, even though our FREEDOMs were being limited, we did not try to get congress to pass an act making potato cannons legal in our area.
Odd that. I mean, shouldn’t I be horribly upset that they IMPINGED OUR FREEDOM to make cannons?
what Eris is, is an irresponsible child who wants who is upset her parents want to take away the glass shard she is using as a lolly.
adults can quickly figure out why some things, even seat belts and motorcycle helmets, are worth regulating, even if they really don’t like it.
Travis:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I can see the appeal in shooting, I enjoy sports and games that require high skill levels and precision in order to excel. I am in Canada and have done a little bit of target shooting with family in the past but have never seen someone using a human shaped target. It seems weird to me, when shooting I never thought about the target as being a person, or that learning to shoot a person was the goal. However, I am familiar with the wide array of human shaped targets that are available and I really do wonder what others are thinking about when they shoot. It scares me to think that they are shooting while daydreaming about the target actually being a person, maybe dreaming about various fantasies where they get to be a strong person and kill some scary attacker. Creepy.
eigenperson:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Eris:
How many lives (per annum) would need to be saved to make it worth giving up the right to buy a gun that allows you to shoot several people without having to pause to reload? (In this hypothetical scenario, people could still buy other kinds of guns.)
What about if people could still buy such a gun, but only for use at the shooting range (i.e. it wouldn’t be legal to take that kind of gun out of the shooting range, except by a registered courier)? How many lives would need to be saved to make that restriction worth it?
Feel free to estimate.
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
You know, we have a similar event that happened only two weeks ago for comparison.
Guy walks into a classroom, kills his parent.
Weapon: bow and arrow, knives on hand.
Total dead on scene: 2: the parent, and the assailant.
Guy walks into a classroom, kills his parent.
Weapon: a couple of guns.
Total dead on scene: 27: 20 children, the parent, 5 other adults, and the assailant.
So yeah, I’d say the presence of guns makes a fucking lot of difference.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Ummm…you do realize that keep people with mental health issues is part of gun control. It is not an either/or proposition.
cartomancer:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
As far as the rampant gun culture in the US goes, I followed PZ’s link to the CNN site, and the first update I find is discussing precisely how many guns the killer had and of what type they were. Even down to specific model numbers and barrel calibres.
Is this normal for mainstream US news reportage? Because it sounds really jarring to someone from outside the loop. Like it’s fetishising the technology and making that the focus of the story.
When there is a knife attack, do the newspapers linger on the specific type and shape and forging techniques that went into the making of the knife? In a poisoning case is there a detailed chemical breakdown of the poisons used? Does someone who has been beaten to death in a fist-fight get treated to a detailed analysis of the fighting techniques used to kill him?
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Thank you for asking politely Janine.
I want universal health care, and most importantly mental health care. I would like to see a single payer system, or even a national health service to provide this.
I would want required firearms training and mental health screenings prior to the purchase of any firearm of any kind. And this should be done across the board for every purchaser and every purchase. (Right now, for example, in Texas where I live, the only thing like this is that people diagnosed as schizphrenic, psychotic, or bipolar need to be certified as “in remission” by a doctor before they can get a concealed carry permit. Apart from the fact that “bipolar” is a very broad spectrum that covers a lot of people who are no threat, this system is easy to bypass simply by not admitting to any problems when filling out the form for the permit.)
I actually want basic firearms safety training to be taught in the high schools. Everyone should at least know the proper ways to unload a weapon, and most importantly should know what NOT to do with a weapon. (Always assume it is loaded, never point it at anything – not just anyone , etc.)
I do not think that further restrictions the possesion of semi-automatic rifles is necessary, though licensing of them is not unreasonable.
I could be persuaded that semi-automatic pistols should be restricted or heavily regulated.
Arming teachers and other faculty is a stupid idea. Not because it would or would not save lives, but because it would introduce more opportunities for accidents and would probably jsut result in more injuries and accidental deaths.
tomfrog:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“Too soon to speak out about a gun-crazy nation? No, too late”
I’m not in the habit of quoting him but Michael Moore is probably right here.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
No; you’re those things because you seem to believe that owning a self-loading firearm is some kind of basic liberty.
Honestly, what kind of mentality is required to believe that access to something so out-and-out lethal is a “right” of private citizens that should be honoured?
Single-shot, bolt action weapons with three-round internal capacities (ideally zero internal capacity) would save lives – not as many as complete prohibition, but that’s simply not feasible. Such weapons are also perfectly sufficient for game hunting, and unequivocally adequate for static target shooting. Why should ordinary people be allowed to own a military-grade firearm? Why?
dobbshead:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Because it is according to 10 USC § 311
I became a member of the militia of the United States on my 18th birthday. I had to mail in a whole registration form under penalty of law and all that. Gun ownership in the militia is a right, according to the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS also agrees with that reading and affirmed it as recently as 2008 when they struck down the D.C. gun ban. You need to nullify the 2nd amendment to ban guns.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Sorry, I didn’t word that well. I meant that I myself think that mental health care is more important than gun control, and that people arguing for gun control seem to feel otherwise.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Carlie:
Yes, yes. It would be absolutely horrible if Eris could not play “Liberal Lesbian Loves Gun!” at all times. Stupid dead people, stepping in front of innocent guns and those still breathing who are at serious risk of gun death, what are they thinking, spoiling Eris’s ability to cuddle her gun and play.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Actually, cartomancer, the make of the gun and the caliber of the bullets are part of the story. It lets you know just how much deadly force the murderer had.
Ze Madmax:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Eris @ 207:
No. A person killed many innocent people in a horrible mass murder, PZ posted about it (and added some reasonable commentary about the fact that this country needs better fucking gun control), and THEN you showed up here, and whined about much it sucks to be you because of “the shit that gets dumped on [you] by the left wing for being a gun owner.”
That’s a bad way to start, really. And your followups don’t make it any better because it clearly demonstrate that you use baseless accusations of bias to discredit any information that may threaten to undermine your position.
Furthermore:
THIS is what makes you a monster. You are putting your freedom to access a killing tool (what for, exactly?) over HUMAN FUCKING LIVES.
As far as I’m concerned, you ARE a monster.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
and hand grenade training, don’t forget that!
oh, also probably RPGs…
and howitzers, because you never know when you might have to man that old WWII relic sitting on top of the hill overlooking the bay to repel the next commie invasion.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Is there a Gun Control bingo card?
We have 18 children and several adults dead as a result of gun violence and Eris has managed to make this thread all about hir.
Newsflash cupcake, strict gun control laws =/= banning guns.
Why don’t you respond to the arguments at hand rather than strawmanning people?
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
I see. So saving the lives of a few hundred thousand dead people every single year, people like the twenty or so small children gunned down today, just doesn’t justify stricter legal controls on gun ownership.
Think the parents of those kids might question your priorities? Think they might ask you what makes unfettered and unregulated access to Hey-Look-I’m-Hannibal-Smith toys like yours more important than human lives?
Acknowledging that you have a problem is a good first step.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
That is still fucked up. What the fuck do you think gun control is?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Sally Strange:
Yes. This pretty much describes most of the state I live in.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
I kind of do, thought not strictly as such. I believe that self defense is a natural right of all living things, humans included, of course. Among humans, the people who most threaten our lives and freedoms are people who use fully automatic weapons, missles, bombs and other extremely lethal weaponry. Therefore I hold that all humans havea right to a least a grade of weapon capable of presenting a credible defense.
If we could eliminate the weapons that are used to threaten us, then we could also eliminate the weapons used to defend us. But I don’t see the first ever happening.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
So you’re saying that, under your interpretation of the Constitution and current law, women don’t have the right to legally own guns, unless they are members of the national guard.
Interesting.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Sooo. How many lives? Please, Eris Caffee do share how many lives is your “right” to play with an assault rifle worth?
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
dianne,
I know people who have depended on hunting to feed their families, or at least to ease the financial strain of the food bill in order to have money for other things. The sort of situations where if they don’t hunt successfully, they aren’t getting much or any protein until they do. There are places where self-defense isn’t really a hypothetical as much as an eventuality. So we figure out who those people are, where those places are, the minimum amount of firearm they need, and we restrict it to that much and no more.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
yup.. People like Eris make a strong argument in favor of the idea that “gun ownership” is now not just considered a “fundamental” right for americans, but an unrevokable privilege.
I wonder what Eris thought about seat belt laws?
I mean, surely we should all have the freedom to drive our cars without restrictions, right?
pah.
just another case of american exceptionalism and privilege.
I live now in a country where there is no such psychological privilege present, and strangely, nobody is clamoring for access to guns here.
eigenperson:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
I’d actually like to add one question to the ones I asked Eris in my last post:
How many lives would have to be saved (per annum) to make it worth giving up the freedom to buy and own pipe bombs?
Or, if you’d prefer to turn the question around, what is the largest number of lives we should sacrifice per year in order to gain that freedom?
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
So a certain amount of murder is to be expected as a kind of “freedom tax”? Can people who aren’t gun owners opt out?
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
To follow up on my point from before about the difference between communities, don’t you find it fascinating that it’s the people who are most at risk of actually being shot who are least interested in this whole “guns as self-defense” chimera, and are most supportive of regulating guns at least as well as we regulate cars?
What’s the actual statistics on pistols (the guns most often thought of as being used for self-defense) actually being used for self-defense? IIRC, it’s less than 1%. The argument for owning guns because you can shoot scary bad guys is based on bad math and worse ethics.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Eris Caffee:
I kind of do, thought not strictly as such. I believe that self defense is a natural right of all living things, humans included, of course. Among humans, the people who most threaten our lives and freedoms are people who use fully automatic weapons, missiles, bombs and other extremely lethal weaponry. Therefore I hold that all humans have a right to a least a grade of weapon capable of presenting a credible defense.
If we could eliminate the weapons that are used to threaten us, then we could also eliminate the weapons used to defend us. But I don’t see the first ever happening.
You’ve left reality and entered paranoid “Red Dawn” country. Here’s an idea: if you want to fight against ARMIES, join THE ARMY. Otherwise, you’re presenting a profoundly irrational position, and you might want to seriously consider indulging in the mental health care you advocate for others.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
only if you leave.
…and that’s what many GRAs (gun rights advocates) will tell you to your face, too.
…and it’s true, though when you ask them to put their money where their mouth is, and pay for those of us who want to leave, strangely they don’t believe in that kind of “tax”.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
It’s note a “freedom tax”. It’s a “humanity tax”. A certain number of murders is to be expected because humans are going to hate each other and kill each other, especially in overpopulated places. Giving up our rights doesn’t solve any problems, it only creates new ones.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Take this to the logical extreme. What weaponry can the individual weld to protect from nuclear weapons.
I am having an image of Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam whipping out ever bigger weapons against each other.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
that doesn’t even make sense.
eigenperson:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
In order to present a credible defense against the powers that threaten to oppress us, we need high-tech anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry.
Should I be allowed to own those?
I’m somewhat sympathetic to the position that The People should be allowed to… as part of a well-regulated militia (not the same as the National Guard, which is not a militia in any meaningful way). But individually? No way.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Um, why does anyone need basic training to use a lethal weapon if they aren’t in a career where said weapon will be utilized?
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Owning weapons isn’t a right.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
so, giving up your right to drive your car without a seatbelt created WHICH problems, exactly?
you’re delusional.
please, do specify EXACTLY ANY problems that would affect even your local society, should someone decide you no longer can haz your semi-automatic rifle?
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Sure it does. It reduces the actual mortality rate resulting from this phenomenon of humans trying to kill each other from time to time. High mortality rate –> rational gun control legislation –> lower mortality rate –> at least one problem partially solved.
If you were serious, you’d detail some of the problems that this would allegedly create, and why you think we’d be incapable of solving those problems.
cartomancer:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Actually, cartomancer, the make of the gun and the caliber of the bullets are part of the story. It lets you know just how much deadly force the murderer had.
I see. That still kind of supports what I was saying though, because to my (and, I would expect, to most non-US and a good number of US) eyes, those are meaningless technical details and I would have to go and find an obscure manual to look up them in if I wanted to get any kind of useful information at all out of them. “Three guns” I get, and I understand what a barrel calibre is, but what a 2.33 (inch? centimetre?) calibre actually means in terms of death-dealing capacity I haven’t the foggiest idea.
That level of knowledge about the technical specifications of guns is restricted to very small circles indeed where I come from, and is generally considered too technical for mainstream news coverage. From what I gather here, US news reporting seems to consider such details much more meaningful to the general population, and much more the sort of thing that people are keen to know – which seems to be a telling symptom of the extent to which the culture has taken guns to heart.
Ze Madmax:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Eris @ #256
I’m surprise you get Internet access all the way up that pedestal of yours.
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Obviously “gun control” is gun control for people who don’t need mental health. People who need mental health care are the real problem, because… uh… FREEDOM!
No, just look over there!
dobbshead:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
@Alverant #148
I like your answer for gun control. I think a license system that requires a test along with fingerprinting is perfectly reasonable. It will still maintain the right to obtain firearms, but put it within an appropriate regulation. It’s also the most likely to both work and pass constitutional muster.
@SallyStrange #250
I’m just citing case law and the USC’s definition of militia. I never said it would pass 18th amendment muster. And it’s not my interpretation of the constitution that matters, it’s SCOTUS’. Last time around they struck down the D.C. handgun ban. Banning guns will take a constitutional amendment and a major culture shift. Regulating who can get guns a little more tightly is easier, but we should choose the regulations that are most likely to work. Banning scary black guns, and guns with folding stocks won’t stop this kind of atrocity if hunting rifles are still available. Requiring psychiatric evaluation and training has a better shot.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Again, I have never attended a meeting of this “well-regulated” militia, which means there are no meeting, no regulations, no training, no duties, no nothing. Just having a vague law on the books doesn’t cut the reality mustard.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
I’m trying to find the “self-defense” website I went to where the person posted an article discussing the need for high-powered rifles with scopes(possibly with night vision) in case you have to shoot someone in “self-defense” from 100m or more away, possibly from inside your house. You know, because we’ve all had to hold off large gangs of armed assailants attempting to breach our perimeter, who also made their presence known from a couple of football fields away.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
ok, bored with the drama queen now.
I bet the next time another of these threads pops up, she will come back with another comment of EXACTLY the same nature as her original at 151, regardless of anything anybody has said or posted.
you’re wasting your time if you think her posting has anything to do with her changing her real attitudes or perceptions about anything.
dobbshead:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
whoops, I meant 14th amendment. Prohibition has nothing to do with equal protection.
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Sorry: “who don’t need mental health care.” Obviously.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
The anti-abortion people ascribe sentience and personhood to fetuses. This person apparently thinks people are non-sentient non-persons, just like fetuses.
It’s the only way I can rationalize their response.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Put an assault rifle or a handgun in their hand and they’ll count.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Janine @261:
Start with a slingshot, end with a Death Star?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Ze Madmax:
A benefit of being the “I Am The Most Oppressed!!1!” Queen.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
I suppose that, after you’ve been shot and killed, it’s true that you’re neither sentient nor a person.
eigenperson:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
#274 Ichthyic, I admit that I am still curious to find out how many lives should be sacrificed each year so that people can own self-loading weapons.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Having actually used self-defense to preserve my life, I’m always amazed by how people use that scenario as an excuse to have things like assault rifles.
Seriously? That wouldn’t have helped. At all. Had I for some bizarre reason been going everywhere with an assault rifle strapped to my body, I probably would have ended up dead instead of simply injured.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Actually, Joe, the US military is part of what I’m afraid of. In case you haven’t heard, they are very heavily influenced by extremist Christians. I’ve had more than one ex-soldier tell me that I don’t have the same rights as other people, and quite frankly those guys scare me. Even my own mother says I don’t have a right to be an atheist because it’s against the Constitution. So when I talk about defending myself I mean doing so while trying to flee the US, because I have very real (hopefully overblown) fears of a right-wing coup attempt in the next few years.
If my rifle sits in the closet colelcting dust, then I will be very happy, but I don’t feel safe taking that chance.
if you guys live is nice safe libreal parts of the country, then I’m glad for yo. But I dont’have that luxury. Sorry.
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning):
December 14th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
*sigh*
Fuck.
And still no gun-control laws.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
There is a huge difference, cartomancer, between carrying three six shooters, three semi-automatic pistols and hauling three automatic machine guns. Just like there are differences between your standard lead slug, dum-dum bullets and armor piercers.These are not obscure details.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
So…your claim is that because anti-abortion people say that those who put reproductive freedom and control over
human livesfetuses are monsters, this also applies to everyone who is appalled at your apparent lack of empathy?You can add ‘inability to think’ to your list of problems. That’s one hell of a persecution complex you have going there.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
right, so the reason you want to own semi automatic weapons is because of… black helicopters.
uh huh.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
cartomancer,
.223 Remington is the civilian version of the 5.56mm NATO round used in military assault rifles. That should be obscure information, and maybe it is… but America totally fetishizes its military, so maybe it is not as obscure as it should be. We also have military surplus stores where people can buy all sorts of old/fake military gear, for some ridiculous reason or another.(plus good and cheap cold-weather stuff occasionally) OH! Plus video games… people know lots about real-life guns thanks to more realistic video games.
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Why is your position getting even more delusional? You said it does solve problems:
There are fewer numbers of deaths. That’s a fucking solution to the fucking problem of people dying, you stupid fucking asshole.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Good luck keeping your rifle or getting a replacement when to move to a more reasonable country. They tend to have tighter gun control laws.
eigenperson:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
#284 Eris:
I don’t know what kind of weapon you own. But I do know that you can’t fight effectively against the US army with it, and even if you gave every liberal in the country a thousand bullets and a semiautomatic, the best we could do is force the army to gun us down en masse from armored helicopters rather than do it in person. And if you think they wouldn’t dare, look at the death toll of the Civil War.
The point is that if the US population ends up fighting against the US army, the People’s peacetime arsenal won’t help in the slightest.
PLEASE don’t sacrifice lives for the sake of arming people with small arms against a potential coup. It’s quixotic.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Eris:
Have you ever considered that your paranoia has been cultivated by the gun lobby in US culture? I cannot believe you seriously justify having a rifle bc xtian military soldiers might one day come for you.
Also, why does anyone need training in the use of guns if they are not in a career where it is relevant to know such?
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
So you owning a fucking Ruger Mini-14 is going to put up a credible fucking defense against the US fucking military?
DELUSIONAL.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Caerie:
:Raises hand: I have used self defense to save my life too and it has nothing to do with guns. All guns do is up the chance you’ll die and they attract attention like nobody’s business.
Nope. I carry a weapon which isn’t actually a weapon when I’m out and no one has the slightest idea. It’s easily accessible and tiny. And has lethal capability.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
The fuck are you going to do? Shoot drones out of the air with your Mini-14?
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I’ll pose my question for the last time:
How many lives is your “right” to play with an assault rifle worth, Eris Caffee?
This thread makes me sick. The murders are the foremost reason, but Eris Caffee as the representation of US gun nuts contributes quite a lot.
Congratulations, Eris Caffee, on making this thread about yourself and about your “right” to carry deadly weapons. Fuck you. Seriously, you are a selfish, narcissistic shit. You are everything many Europeans are going to think of when they generalize what happened into “those crazy Americans and their guns”. Having an assault rifle isn’t a fucking right. Banning you from owning one wouldn’t be a horrible curtailing of your freedoms, it would be a basic step towards a civilized nation.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I wonder if Eris would be worried about her right to own guns if she moved to a country without a gun culture to begin with, where gun homicides are extremely low, and there IS no military to speak of?
Would Eris be unconcerned about giving up her cherished firearm then?
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
“Liberal parts of the country”? You mean, like cities? Those tend to be the areas with the highest concentration of liberal and left-leaning types. Oddly, they tend to be places where being afraid of being shot is rational, unlike your completely irrational fear of being attacked by, I don’t know, rogue Christian soldiers. Also, they tend to be areas where support for gun control is high. As I mentioned before.
I have some advice for lowering your risk of being murdered by an out-of-control US soldier: don’t get married to one. Also, don’t live outside the US. I’m afraid rifle ownership is going to have a negligible impact on that risk.
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
And there it is. There it always is. Stir a “gun nut” a bit and eventually “I am afraid” comes bubbling to the surface.
Your fear is not a good enough reason to put the rest of us at real risk.
Travis:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Improbable Joe said:
How true. Get the Sportsman’s Guide catalogue because I have purchased some uniforms and jackboots from them. They are a really friendly company and I love dealing with them. They also have some great prices on cold weather gear, clothing and a lot of interesting things but at the same time they have all sorts of strange things for people that are apparently afraid of everything. The one thing I remember off the top of my head was a wall clock that swings open, allowing you to store your handgun and lots of rounds.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Sorry, but I can’t respond to everyone. I’m going to make this my last post, since obviously no one is going to change anyones minds here today, but I want to address this one question since it has been asked several times.
How many lives a year would it take to convince me that self-loading guns should be banned? I honestly don’t know.
1 death in 100? Absolutely ban the things.
1 in a 1000? Yeah, ban.
1 in 10,000? Hmmm. Some restrictions would seem reasonable.
1 in 100,000? Nope, that’s not enough.
What is the actual rate right now? The closest figures I can get with a quick Google search are from the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Those numbers don’t break down the weapons by semi-automatic or not, but even if every gun were a semi-auto then in 2010 we’d have had a death rate of 1 in 23,000 from guns. (Assuming US population of 308 million.) That is not enough to convince me to ban something that almost 90 million Americans possess without becoming criminals.
I’m tired of this perennial and futile argument again, so I’ll leave you guys to attack the wonderfulyl hand crafted straw man that Ichthyic has built for you.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
for reference, she said she owns this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
thanks for making clear you never came here to change your mind about anything.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Again, you exhibit a real problem with thinking. If you aren’t just pulling shit out of your ass in an attempt to justify your monstrous stances, it seems you don’t realize that any country you could flee to, which would be a desirable country in which to live would have extremely strict gun control. The rest of the world isn’t as demented as the U.S., you know.
So, in your little scenario, you’d have to say goodbye to your little friend.
Why do I get the sense that Eris has trouble distinguishing between bad movies and reality?
nakarti:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
The biggest problem with controls is this: We have gun controls. We have any number of controls on the kind of gun you may have. Controls on the accessories you can attach to that gun. Controls on where you can carry that gun. Controls on how you can hide that gun. Controls on what kind of lock you put on that gun.
We have One control on WHO may have a gun: if you’ve been convicted, no gun. Anybody else, buy a gun.
(Supposedly there are other checks in some states, but every maniac shooting reminds us this is not done correctly if at all.)
Marcus Ranum:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
My argument is that guns are specifically designed for killing.
Ever hear of bench-rest shooting?
Gregory Greenwood:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Unfortunately, I can see how this us going to play out. Initially, there will be expressions of horror about the tragedy, paired with statements such as that already made by Obama that ‘now is not the time to discuss gun control’*. If that doesn’t entirely silence discussion, then it will quickly escalate to accusations that gun control advocates are using the deaths in this attack to cynically play polictics.
That will probably work to minimise discussion of the need for gun control for a while, but after the initial shock fades the whole ‘it’s disrespectful to talk about gun control now’ angle will wear really thin, really fast. Once the issue of gun control is be back on the public agenda in a big way, then it won’t be long before the gun nuts come out in their true colours, and we have another NRA idiot waving a firearm in the air and declaring ‘from my cold, dead hands!’ while his (you just know it will be a wealthy, middle aged White man) equally stupid supporters cheer testerically.
It is times like this that I am glad that I live in the UK with its at least partially sane gun laws.
————————————————————————————————————————–
* Which leads me to wonder when the ‘proper’ time to discuss the issue will be. I get a sinking feeling the truthful answer would be ‘never’.
kp71:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
The Bryan Fischer video warrants a repost (and a riposte or two) for people who come to the thread later and don’t see it above: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-god-didnt-stop-ct-school-shooting-because-hes-gentleman-who-doesnt-go-where-he-not-w
What an absolute lunatic. Bryan, I hope you read this: You are the epitome of everything that is wrong with religion.
Eris Caffee:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Ah, well, one last thought. I just want to note that everyone seems to have ignored my suggestions for better mental health care, mental health screening of gun owners, licensure of powerful weapons, and better firearms safetly training. It just goes to show how an emotional issue can divide people even when they agree on more things than they disagree on.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
LIAR
geoffreybrent:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
@119:
“Confiscation of firearms as done in Australia in 1996? That really put a damper on shootings, but when they did occur, they were spectacular mass shootings of the sort we’re now facing.”
For the benefit of those who don’t follow Australian news, this is what’s technically termed a “barefaced lie”.
Between 1987 and 1996, Australia had at least seven mass shootings. The worst was the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, where Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded another 21. After the legislation that followed, outlawing semi- and pump-action longarms… um… you’ll have to refresh my memory about mass shootings since them, because I can’t remember anything remotely near that scale. The closest I can think of to a “mass shooting” since 1996 was the Monash University shooting, where two people were killed and five wounded.
“Getting back to to Australia, look at their homicide record before and after gun control: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html.
At least there are very few of them are shootings any more. (Curiously, class H firearms include deactivated handguns that are used for target practice.)”
Note the first sentence of that article, which points out that the per capita homicide rate has declined by about one-third between 1992-3 and 2006-7. That translates to approximately 120 fewer homicides each year than we’d expect at early-90s rates.
It’s doubtful that all that reduction was due to the change in gun laws. But please do us the courtesy of at least being truthful about things that are easily-checked matters of public record.
eigenperson:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
So, there we have it. According to Eris, the number of lives that should be sacrificed per year so that Americans can personally own self-loading weapons is between 3000 and 30000.
Now, I don’t have a very strong personal feeling about those numbers, myself. However, if you’re unsure why some people call you a monster, I think the fact that you think the right to own self-loading guns is worth between 3000 and 30000 lives per year is part of it.
echidna:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Eris, those “suggestions” are hardly new or controversial. The discussion with you was driven by the inconsistent positions that you hold.
evilDoug:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
So they can go to the store and buy something they can show off and brag about?
I know a kid who makes weapons – out of wood and cardboard and fiberglass and resin – to go with the amazing video game character costumes he makes. As far as I’m concerned, he earned some real bragging rights. The assault, “credible defense from bombs and missiles”, weapon owner? Well, as I am very fond of doing, I quote the final lines of Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s Salute
I raise my middle finger,
In the only proper salute.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Good to see that our liberal lesbian atheist troll still sees mental care issues as being different from gun control issues.
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
What, are you not emotional, because you’ve barely stopped to fucking think about the people who died? Are you defending fucking gun ownership on the planet Vulcan or something?
And why the fuck would matter what the number of things we disagree on is? You think people getting murdered is fine, if it means you have the “freedom” to play with your fucking toy, which you have delusions can somehow keep you safe from the fucking US military of all things. That’s a big fucking thing to disagree about.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
consciousness razor @ 294;
I know what you mean – there are few things as ridiculous as gun nuts claiming that the so called right to bear arms is some grand guarantor of personal freedom and that old lie of ‘truth, justice and the American way’.
They seem to have watched so many corny action movies that they honestly believe that they and a few of their fellow travelers packing infantry weapons would be able to hold back a military coup. That they would be capable of defeating heavy armour, helicopter gunsips, fighter-bombers, drones, naval assets and all the other panoply of hardware possessed by a modern military with what amounts to pea shooters by comparison.
I wish them luck taking on that Sherman tank with a handgun if some kind of rightwing coup ever comes to pass, because they as sure as the fictional hell-trope are going to need it…
bobo:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
QFT
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
According to the 2010 census, Newtown had 27560 residents at the time. If a whole town of Newtown could be saved, Eris might consider letting go of her toy. Half a town? Oh, fuck them.
Rey Fox:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
But does it make enough of a difference to make up for the loss of freedom to have gun? Show your math, and make sure you use the right conversion of units (human lives to units of freedom)
proterozoic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Nutjobs are already suggesting we should arm teachers. This is true. Check the replies on David Frum’s twitter:
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/statuses/279609314119909376
broboxley OT:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
which is the automatic weapon?
A. this one?
or this one?
B. this one?
have just heard on the news, that it was mom’s guns that were used.
Alethea H. "Crocoduck" Kuiper-Belt:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
For those discussing Australia – we already had gun control before the Port Arthur massacre. It was tightened after that, not introduced for the first time. And the AIC is indeed a reputable source.
We also have a different culture. Guns are not normally considered as defense against people; they are primarily for killing animals. Hunting; killing farm animals, whether for food or euthanasia; maybe the occasional snake but it’s usually better to just leave them alone. We do also have sporting target shooters, and collectors, and historical re-enactors as well, and they fully expect to have licenses and safety conditions and such. Yes, of course criminals can still get guns – but it’s not so easy.
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
…huh
Anthony K:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Here’s a pal for Eris:
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
if that’s not a word, it should be.
no, really, even though I know there ARE people like Eris that figure they can legitimately do it, I’d prefer not to see this level of rationalization in actual print, EVER.
well, ever again, anyway.
it does bring up an important point though; just how much has the rationalization of individuals as “things” instead of people contributed to this kind of nightmare, and to gun culture in general, I wonder?
evilDoug:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
While I believe there is a very real need for improved mental health care, even here in Canada where it is available with no direct cost to the patient, it is only a part of the picture. Marc Lépine had access to such care, and if he had gone to any reasonable doctor and admitted he really wanted to kill people, he probably would have be admitted to hospital within a few hours. But those who don’t seek help for themselves and don’t have anyone who will “push” them to seek it aren’t going to get it. Neither will those who consider themselves entirely mentally healthy.*
For this reason, I regard voiced promotion of mental health by the NRA-mentality set as a diversionary tactic. Same goes for words about gun safety training. Even a mass murder such as the topic here gets twisted into a diversion, so “little killings”, like the kid who was murdered over noxious music and the laws and attitudes that let such things happen get swept conveniently aside.
*Public admission of paranoia about the US military would seem like reasonable ground for denial of a permit to own a gun.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
do you actually have a point?
again… interesting, but… point?
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
As do I. I really don’t see how that ties in with… wait a minute… do I detect the words “fully automatic” marching with ill-deserved grandiosity towards this reply?
Ah yes. There they are.
So it’s “Schrodinger’s submachine gun” once more, only with a few bells and whistles. No mention of ZOG or the Roswell Conspiracy though, so you’re probably not a survivalist. That’s something, I suppose.
Self-loading rifles are of absolutely no use whatever against car bombs, gravity bombs, ICBMs, rocket artillery, regular artillery, mortars, IEDs, regardless of what warhead they’re packing. Don’t let the NRA lie to you; having access to military-grade weapons isn’t going to save you from terrorism, or VX on the subway, or ebola in the water, or creeping Sharia, or whatever.
Rifles are designed to fire projectiles with reasonable accuracy at high velocity over long distances. The only fully automatic weaponry capable of similar effective ranges would be some form of military-grade high calibre machine gun, of exactly the kind you never hear about gang members using in firefights. Honestly, who has time to set up a tripod and double-cock a 50cal when there’s a Cadillac full of Crips bearing down on you?
No; the most likely threat you’ll ever find yourself facing in fully automatic terms is some low-velocity submachine gun, or machine pistol, and unless you are in some bizarre self-defence situation where your rifle’s range becomes a factor then there’s very little odds between your self-loading rifle and his MAC10 when all is said and done – except he can empty his clip in your general direction faster than you can sneeze. Shotguns, brutish and indiscriminate as they are, would be a far wiser choice for defending your home against invasive burglars than a carbine, since accuracy isn’t an issue with buckshot at ten or twenty feet.
If you’re defending yourself on the street… well that’s not an issue for carbines, is it? As far as I’m aware not even the USA is backward enough to see the open hefting of self-loading rifles as acceptable behaviour in an urban area, nor is a concealed-carry carbine feasible in any way, least of all as a quick-draw defence against armed muggers. Who, if they have you hemmed up, are as likely as not to slot you before you can even lay hand on your concealed weapon anyway.
Unless you shoot them first. Which presents a whole new set of dilemmas.
If you’re worried about the USA being invaded somehow… well, Jesus. Holy fucking shit. No, seriously; what the fuck? Even supposing some kind of alien army capable of evading the vast intelligence and surveillance network the US has in place could be found, your country has almost two million active service personnel it can call on, not to mention several hundred thousand reservists, a few hundred thousand heavily armed Federal law enforcement agents, and a fully armed constabulary in every town and county throughout the nation. Why the fuck do they need you to have a repeater?
Get a grip.
There is no reasonable excuse, much less a valid defence, for civilian ownership of military-grade weapons. Single-shot, bolt actions rifles with three-round internal capacities and break-barrel shotguns are perfectly sufficient for any conceivable civilian activity, including defence of your home against intruders.
While I was writing this, I had it pointed out to me that sawing off a shotgun is illegal in the USA. You can carry handguns in certain states but you can’t cut the end off a fucking shotgun? Or buy fireworks? What the fuck is wrong with you people? Where do your standards come fr… oh, right. Corporate interest lobbyists.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
proterozoic @ 322;
It is always the same with gun nuts – in their minds, if there is a problem caused by guns being too readily available in society, then there is but one answer; MOAR GUNZ!!!111!!1
Then again, that is their answer to pretty much everything…
Of course, when they claim that if only some ‘good guy’ had been carrying a weapon then the massacre would never have happened, they never stop to condsider that it is no simple matter to hit a moving target amid the chaos of such an attack, doubly so if that target is shooting back at you. They assume that some righteous, chisel jawed, all American action hero* would gun the malefactor down to the reverberating thunder of a single perfect shot, framed in cinematic slow motion no doubt.
Of course, back in that little place called reality, what would actually happen is one or more wannabe gunslingers – with little to no training that would be of any use in such a scenario – would open up in pursuit of an unrealistic and deeply immature dream of heroism and would almost certainly succeed in achieving nothing more than increasing the body count.
———————————————————————————————————————-
* An extra large helping of toxic, misogynistic and homophobic patriarchic tropes is mandatory in such cases.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Right now, for example, in Texas where I live, the only thing like this is that people diagnosed as schizphrenic, psychotic, or bipolar need to be certified as “in remission” by a doctor before they can get a concealed carry permit.
What the crap does “in remission” mean in this context? A psychotic disorder that had an organic (that is, a known organic) cause might be curable, a person who takes his or her meds regularly might be well controlled and not actively psychotic, but they’ll still have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We simply don’t know how to put these conditions into anything resembling a remission.
To top it off, it’s not at all clear that limiting purchase of guns based on psychiatric history is likely to be helpful in preventing massacres. Did the shooter in this case have a psychiatric history? I don’t mean his neighbors saying he was strange or his family saying he seemed depressed, but an actual diagnosis? What about the mall shooter the other week? Or the Columbine shooters or the guy at VA Tech or the Colorado theater shooter or…any other massacre perpetrator you might care to name.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
As a thought check on the association of psychopathy with shooting rampages, Ashely Miller points out something to keep in mind when doing so:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2012/12/14/when-you-tie-shootings-to-mental-illness/
tacitus:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
It’s even dumber than that. There is one potential armed person in a school classroom. If you’re intent on a massacre, the first thing you do when you enter the classroom is shoot the teacher, and unless people are saying that every teacher needs to be on a hair trigger ready to draw and fire within seconds of any adult walking through the door at any time, then there still is nothing that teacher would have been able to do about it.
Who wants to live in a society where every teacher needs to be armed to keep your children safe?
Sounds more like Somalia to me.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
To stray away from the topic of Eris…
The murderer apparently shot his mother at home and then went to the school to shoot up kids.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
…first, kate, not ashley, and second, I see several people, including Chris, just made posts about this too :P
consciousness razor:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Well, Eris tells us that is a worthwhile thing to do, because apparently the majority of murders in the US are “massacres,” which are evidently committed by people with mental health problems. Otherwise, it doesn’t save enough lives can’t be the ridiculous fucking rationalization we’re going to use right now.
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
And it doesn’t exactly work there.
tacitus:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Just clamping down on the mentally ill owning firearms isn’t going to help much. First, there are probably millions of mentally unstable Americans who have never been formally diagnosed. No amount of surveillance of the mentally ill is going to keep guns out of these people.
Second, if you’re a gun owner going through a bad patch in your life, are you going to want to seek help if there is a threat that you might lose your right to own your guns if you do? It could end up exacerbating the problem.
John Morales:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
[meta]
— Robert A. Heinlein
(Even as a youth I laughed at that one)
— Tempe Tea Party.
— The Catholic Eye.
dianne:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Thanks, Ichthyic. People with schizophrenia are no more likely to be violent than the average person. I’m not sure about bipolar-I simply haven’t ever seen a statistic one way or another. There’s probably something wrong with the brains of people who commit mass murder-at least I hate to think that it’s the human norm to commit mass murder without provocation or justification*, but it’s not as simple as having one of the defined mental illnesses.
So, not only do we not have the medical tech available to truly put someone into remission for mental health issues, requiring that people with a history of mental health issues be “in remission” for them is a senseless form of prejudice that won’t make anyone safer.
*Highly embarrassed for my species that I have to put so many qualifications on that statement.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
consciousness razor
Yes, she completely ignores all the unnecessary killings during robberies, accidental discharges (John Morales linked to a story of a man accidentally killing his son because the idiot didn’t realize there was a bullet inside just a day or two ago), men murdering their lovers/wives in a fit of rage…
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Again, mental health service is an extremely important issue, but it is a red herring in gun violence. Most gun murders are not by anyone with any mental health issue and most mass shooters are not diagnosed or even fit the symptoms for diagnosis. The culture itself is built on violence, guns are too easily available in forms that are too deadly and an entire arms industry revolves around scaring “sane” people into buying guns and then bitching nonstop if their “right” to own 100 round drums and assault rifles is at all even talked about.
Most mental health violence issues are unarmed and short lived, and preventing people with mood disorders or schizoaffective disorders won’t magically lower gun violence.
Also I am sad I was driving home for the so called librul gun owner to nail schlerself to a cross.
barklikeadog:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Right…Yeah the gun didn’t kill them. It was just the bullets that came out of the gun…. I hate it when people say stupid shit.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Kate’s post definitely gave me pause to more carefully consider the issue, to be sure.
logicpriest:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Dammit typed too slow other people beat me to it
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Yep. This would not get people help. It would keep people from seeking help.
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
We have over 16,000 homicides in the US every year. source
Most of those are single murders, most of those are not people with mental health problems (unless you define it broadly to mean “anyone who could benefit from some therapy”, which most people who are claiming mental health don’t)
psychodigger:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Eris Caffee,
I am one of those Europeans who is absolutely stupefied why on earth you would need to own an assault rifle. All the arguments against have been spelled out above, so I am not going to repeat those, but the only reason in favour I have heard from you is your rather weird fear of your own army. Whether that is reasonable or not (I do not really think so) is a moot point but I am very curious what you expect to do against tanks, gunships, fighter planes, tactical bombers, drones, cruise missiles and tens of thousands of soldiers with one assault rifle? Even if you gang up with like minded nuts when the putsch is executed, you would not last an hour. This is not the Alamo and you are not up against people with flint lock rifles and swords, you know.
I am not just stumped by the fact that you feel the need to have an assault rifle, but just as much because of the completely insane reason why!
thisoldwoman:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Same day, same incident, one difference and one helluva different outcome. http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/china-knife-attack-22-children-1-adult-hurt-at-school
Katie Hartman:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
The Onion nails it:
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Is someone suggesting that?
neuralobserver:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
More moronic criticism from brain-challenged Pharygulites. Obama is not a parent figure nor a pseudo parent figure: he IS a parent, of two young girls.
Do you NOT think that he can relate to the insane death of these children as a parent, viewed and felt through the eyes and sensibilities AS a parent, additionally as well as THE ADULTS WHO WERE KILLED, AS HE DID WITH THE SHOOTINGS IN AURORA, COLORADO EARLIER THIS YEAR,…… ASSHOLE?
( And that goes for all who have given a thumbs up to his fuckwitted statements.)
Be a goddam leader??? What’s he supposed to do, you dumb fuck? Go on a rhetorical tirade in the face of a tragedy like this? He IS leading by expressing national words of comfort and understanding, as OTHER presidents have in similar past situations. No one despises the fucking gun-nut culture in the country more than I do, but it’s empty and lacking understanding and empathy to crash someone within hours of a major tragedy like this, who IS trying to address a severe emotional damage to a large group of victims.
I agree that the fucking gun culture in this country is out of fucking control, and we need a MASSIVE movement–or in terms of Colin Powell’s military strategy–an effort of ‘overwhelming force’ to turn back the social influence of the NRA and the large proportion of reality-challenged gun nuts, a la Ted Nugent.
The problem is that the political and social momentum is, unfortunately, with the ‘bullet brigade’, and it’s difficult to turn around. There is more support for ‘gun freedom’ on both sides of the isle in recent years, despite the regularity of the tragedies; frustrating, but unfortunately true.
Hmmmm,.. call me naive,.. but I DON’T THINK HE THINKS DEAD, INNOCENT ADULTS ARE INTRINSICALLY LESS IMPORTANT.
Maureen Brian:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
It now seems fairly certain that the 20-year-old brother was the killer.
What sort of bonkers country efficiently protects him from the evil of buying a can of beer but allows him to go about armed to commit a massacre?
tacitus:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Indeed. There is no longer any rational argument for private gun ownership being a defense against government tyranny. As long as a nation’s armed forces remain loyal to the government, it’s a fantasy to believe that armed civilians could do anything to stop them.
Plus, it’s likely that the vast majority of citizens, including the vast majority of gun owners, would prefer to stay out of any civil war or uprising, given the odds of being rolled over by a tank or blown up by heavy armament.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
No, your proposals are just the starting point for the real reforms needed. That is why nobody is agreeing with your band-aid approach. Get to the real root cause of too many guns in too many untrained and criminal hands.
tacitus:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
It’s a fairly common right-wing response — part of “if we only kept the guns out of the hands to those who can’t be trusted with them then the rest of us can carry on owning what we like.”
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Does anyone know how fast these White House petitions usually fill up? This one about gun control has hit 35k signatures in a couple of hours.
I know it won’t come to anything, but I do find that speed interesting.
nightshadequeen:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Shorter Eris:
Fewer deaths don’t justify banning guns.
Why are you guys calling me a monster?
Seriously, what do you use that gun for?
tomh:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
There is a short op-ed piece in the NYT by a father who lost a son in a school shooting 20 years ago. He makes the point that, “Children will continue to pay for a freedom their elders enjoy.” Exactly right. In the same way that children pay the price for their elders freedom to deny them medical care in the name of religion, Eris believes that some children’s deaths are justified in the name of her Constitutional right to own automatic weapons. Children don’t matter much in America when it comes to their elders so-called freedoms.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
neuralobserver:
Take your trolling and your ax and go grind it elsewhere. We have filled our quota of idiot trolls for now.
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
How about this then: “Hey Obama, be a sad parent on your own time. When you address the nation following a tragedy like this be the fucking President.”
Now kindly fuck off.
broboxley OT:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Ichthyic
the point was that automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934. Only the treasury department can issue a licence to own one after a very vigorous background check and a $200 tax. That $200 is renewed annually and the regulations are very strict. You can’t go to fredmart and buy them at the sundries counter. Many states do not allow class III weapons at all and you are facing long jail terms if one is in your possession. If you wish to travel to California from NY and want to have your automatic at the other end you must go to a dealer licensed to handle class III weapons and pay him to ship it to a class III dealer in California with a federal permit in the middle.
Not on every street corner. Not in every thug’s truck, not used in the commission of this particular crime, or the mall shooting or the movie slaughter.
lets get over the OMG! single shot rifles that look scary! to useful regulation that will have a chance of passing .
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Nathair:
This is the only reasonable response, seeing as how ‘neuralobserver’ seems to think that Reap Paden’s video was…convincing.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
*looks*
uh, where was this?
do you plan to continue erecting this strawman? I’d recommend taking it down if you want to actually make a serious point, which I still haven’t seen yet.
grumpyoldfart:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
The gun lobby lawyers are probably having an informal conference right now – and they’re probably not considering changes to gun laws.
echidna:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
This is my inclination as well, except that the Milgram and Stanford experiments suggest that it is not that clear.
John Morales:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
neuralobserver:
To expect the President to react as the President rather than as a parent when speaking as the President is hardly perverse.
Commit to ameliorate the current easy public availability of firearms (the which facilitates these events) by using his Presidential authority, rather than merely bemoan the tragedy.
Sympathy alone is hollow; here in Australia, after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 the Prime Minister immediately enacted (and forced the States to adopt) the National Firearms Agreement. (cf #312).
Paul K:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
I just got home from work, where I’m in charge of an after school childcare program with about 40 elementary school kids, many of whom I’ve known since they were babies. I heard about this just as I was leaving for work, and I could not stop crying. I’ve worked with kids since I was a kid; over thirty years now. I’m on my local school board. I have an eleven-year-old son. My best friend when I was fifteen was killed by idiots with a rifle. I’m a fifty-two year-old white man, and damned near all these killers, as well as the fucking macho gun rights crowd, are white men.
And I know that, though these events are more and more common (7, — or is it 8 now? — just this year), they also seem to be more accepted; just a part of life to get through. The same fucking pattern every time, and nothing will be done.
I am having such a hard time with this! I cannot stop crying. It’s my fucking job to take care of children, and I feel so helpless! I know the odds are small that it will ever directly effect me and those I care for, but so fucking what? 20 children are dead.
I’ve only begun to read the comments. I’ll finish when my son goes to bed. But I want to thank the regulars for your absolute refusal to tolerate the hate, injustice, and fucking foolishness of those who don’t give a fuck about anyone but themselves.
This is so fucking hard to take. I hurt so much for all those families; all those terrified kids.
azgeo:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Terrible, terrible news.
Since we’re talking gun politics, as far as I’m concerned an individual should have the right to own a gun:
1) If they pass a training course.
2) If it was designed before 1792.
Otherwise, throw in licensing, a psych exam, registration, etc. We don’t give people the power to pull teeth without a ton of training and certification. Why should we go easier when it comes to the power to kill dozens of human beings? Ideally, no one should have that power. At least muskets is democratic.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
broboxley OT:
What are you calling a “single shot rifle”?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Definitely not a Ruger 14 or an M1
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Ichthyic, re Eris
This rifle comes in an “NRA model”.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Mini14 that is
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
For some reason, the only single-shot rifle that comes to mind is a Barrett sniper rifle. Since those cost upwards of $3000 and I’ve never heard of anyone being killed domestically by one…
sambarge:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Most people are reassured by a more human, emotional response. By expressing his fears as a father, the President made himself human and put himself on the same level as the grieving parents, which is a good place to share condolences and an astute political move, if nothing else. I actually assume it was genuine but I’m an rose-coloured glasses optimist, I suppose.
I’m sure that, in the days to come, the President will act more like Harrison Ford would in a film about an action hero President facing a terrible school shooting (without actually shooting the bad guys himself, that is, which Ford would definitely do) and you’ll be satisfied by his manly leadership.
Personally, I was a bit bothered by the President’s referral to the grief belonging to parents as a concept rather than as a leadership move. I’m a parent but I flatter myself that the shooting deaths of 20 children would shock, appall and agrieve me even if I hadn’t given birth or raised a child myself.
evilDoug:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Bench rest rifles are often single shot. They can be quite expensive and the barrels are very heavy. They are intended for putting several bullets through the same hole in a paper target.
kristinc, now with added ventilation:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
“They say that ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don’t think you’d kill too many people.” – Eddie Izzard
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
If we had an award for Not Getting It you would have just earned my nomination.
neuralobserver:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
For those interested, the following was a post sent from my local atheist Meet Up organization.
The Good, the Bad, The Ugly…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mU-SLspioU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjV2AWzBQNo
rorschach:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
@207,
I’m trying to wrap my head around that sentence, but am currently failing.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Joe, Barretts have a magazine.
broboxley OT:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Joe Rev BDC single shot meaning one bullet per trigger pull, not fully automatic
Ichthyic #364 point is the same as every time this happens.
The shooter used his Mom’s legally purchased weapons. Now what law do you pass? At the end of the day all here will come up with all kinds of laws, restrictions some of which might even make sense.
Will those new laws stop this scenario from happening ever again?
The answer is no.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Former Low level celebrity and general fucking right wing nut Victoria Jackson on Facebook
sambarge:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Yeah, like I’d be in the fucking running with the moronic stuff you’ve posted. Like “parent on your own time, Obama!” Puh-leez.
Oh, but I’ll quote you:
Fuck right off.
Khantron, the alien that only loves:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
I don’t know, Australia seems to have generally stopped the scenario from happening.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
The Onion: Right to Own Handheld Device That Shoots Deadly Metal Pellets At High Speed Worth All Of This.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
…And we have people in another thread wondering how on earth a regular-type person could ever reach a point of spraying bullets into so many other peoples.
Amazing.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
So then just semi-auto?
You can put a whole shitload of lead out the business end of a semi auto, fast. I know, I’ve owned a few in the past.
Add high capacity magazines, something 100% not needed for hunting, and you have a very potent and dangerous killing, ahem, “tool”.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
387 comments.
Fuck.
You know, I don’t even feel ashamed today about wishing that every sack of shit who doesn’t care how many children die needlessly just so they can keep their “pacifier” would follow through and put it in their mouth.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Joe, Rev. BDC, do you think this is an appropriate thread for your ongoing gun porn specs discussion?
StevoR:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Poll to possibly pharyngulate here :
http://ninemsn.com.au/
VOTE : Does the US need tougher gun laws?
Yes = 37,250
No = 3,517
***
Already heading in the right direction but a bit of help couldn’t hurt surely?
Note that these ninemsn polls are only up for a day or so so get in quickly if you’re going to.
Nathair:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Alas! I am shown to be a moron by your cunning use of the “Puh-leez” stratagem. Clearly I should have known better than to match wits with you, Vizzini!
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Sorry you took my comments that way Caine but their point was counting bro’s lessening of the impact of “regular old guns”
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Countering that is
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Yes, I read the initial reasoning and response. You’re both some ways away from that now.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Not really, but I’ll just leave.
Eric R:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
I found out about this horrid event today while moving, listening to the radio and I keep cycling between rage and crying. I have no children of my own so its not possible for me to think of what it would be like to lose my kids. I do have nieces and nephews I adore and its the thought of them that makes me cry.
I’ve owned guns, still do several in fact, Shotguns and pistols, I’ve never had the need for a rifle of any sort.I also own several Bows of both compound and classic recurve design. I enjoy shooting them like most gun owners do I assume. I shoot trap and skeet with my Browning Citori .410 I also have a remington 1100 semi-auto shotgun (with the mandatory plug restricting me to 3 rounds in the gun)which ive hunted with as well as shot at ranges. I have a Beretta 9mm, A colt Python and a few others. All are stored in a gun safe. I have a sawed off 12 guage for home defense. I live alone.
All that said I find it inconceivable as a gun owner why people rail against gun control. There is nothing unreasonable about asking people to license their guns, nothing unreasonable about requiring the use of trigger locks or limiting magazine capacity, requiring training, retesting or any number of other measures one might reasonably support.
It is possible to be a responsible gun owner, it is possible to be a gun owner and be heartbroken over what happened today and has happened in the last few years, it can make you wonder if its worth it. I’ve wondered it, most recently after the aurora shooting because I have a sister who lives in aurora. She could have easily been at that theatre.
I wholeheartedly support gun controls, I have to be honest and say I wouldnt prefer a ban, I do enjoy them. But I’m all for controls, I dont think though that any of our pols are, the republicans arent for certain and dems I think just look at it as a lose lose for them so they keep their mouths shut and make pretty noises and little more, they are either too cowardly to speak about it in earnest, or dont really give a damn.
I’m gonna go visit my nieces now.
noelplum99:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
I think you have to have a fairly optimistic perspective on your fellow humans to think that allowing widespread gun ownership will somehow create a safe environment, presumably through some sort of mechanism akin to the old cold war ‘mutually assured destruction’.
I certainly can’t see it being an easy path from a society where guns are so widespread and the mentality of ‘i need a gun because you might have a gun’ prevails so strongly (not to mention the vocal assertion that it is some kind of sacrosanct human right to hold the means to blow out the back of you rneighbours skull) but i entirely agree that whilever the staus quo remains these kinds of tragedies are inevitable.
Good luck getting your constitution amended – it never seems like a particularly easy ask!
Jim.
vaiyt:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
I feel like an outsider in these discussions. In my side of the world, we have our own gun problems, but they’re so vastly different that I don’t think I have any kind of useful insight. Whenever the issue of gun control in the US comes up, I just listen.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Caine, having a serious discussion about gun control should involve actually knowing what we’re talking about. Ignorance is no virtue, and trying to play games about cosmetics the way broboxley attempted to do is both dishonest and counterproductive. It isn’t “gun porn” to make sure you know exactly what you’re talking about when you’re considering regulations and bans.
For instance, the point that I was going to make when comparing automatic to semi-automatic to true single-shot rifles is that a true single-shot rifle can take a VERY long time to reload in-between shots. For the single-shot Barrett sniper rifle I mentioned earlier, it is probably 20-30 seconds to reload, plus time to sight back in, and the damned thing costs $3000+ and weighs about $40. On the other hand, the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic is that you just “spray and pray” with full-auto unless you’re using a tripod, and a semi-automatic is MORE DANGEROUS because you can easily fire 20-25 aimed shots in a minute.
The point of all that is not “gun porn” in the slightest. The point is when I oppose the sale of semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines, I do so from a position of knowing exactly what they are capable of, rather than from a more generalized anti-gun position.
John Morales:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Improbable Joe:
Everyone here knows what guns are: deadly point-and-shoot weapons that anyone can use.
(Talking about guns more suitable for mass-slaughter being more problematic than the other kind is fine, but claiming only those merit control is ridiculous)
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
no, considering you were the only one to raise the issue, you’re still erecting a strawman.
fail.
uh, regulating weapons has just as much to do with whether an individual OR an individuals friends…family… neighbors… has access to those weapons as well.
again, your point simply moves the issue a step further back in the chain.
fail.
”
Will those new laws stop this scenario from happening ever again?”
strawman, again, since nobody ever claimed they would, but when and where they ARE applied, go figure, the number of gun homicides GOES DOWN. significantly.
so, again… fail.
3 strikes, you’re done.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
GUNS
NOT GUNS
do i get a prize?
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
just to be sure, I agree with this message, the above is actually making fun of broboxley, not you:
^^yes.
Charlie Foxtrot:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
This Modern World
…again…
Naked Bunny with a Whip:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
WOLVERIIIINES!
Back to feeling sick, like the other healthy people.
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Well… my comparisons depend on the idea of not creating a blanket ban on firearms, but creating a set of evidence-based restrictions.
Given that caveat, what we were discussing earlier is the same way I could show you a picture of a Smith & Wesson Model S&W500, which is like the Dirty Harry gun on steroids, and compare it to a compact semi-auto that looks like no big deal… except that the semi-auto might accept extended magazines that give it 5-6 times the ammo capacity, and will be able to shoot and reload MUCH faster than the big scary revolver. And I guess thank FSM that Calico’s weapons never really gained any traction, because those are frankly the scariest things I’ve ever seen sold on the civilian market.
StevoR:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
@78. Moggie – 14 December 2012 at 2:35 pm (UTC -6) :
This.
And also so much for, y’know, NOT politicising things which y’know all those nasty, nasty librulls are supposed to be doing by saying, “hey maybe tighter restrictions on firearms might just help stop these massacres happening so often” right? Whose exploiting an appalling tragedy for their own ideological ends here again?
Same applies to those RR (Rapture Rady) quotes someone upthread posted too.
StevoR:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
@407.
That’d be #169 Caine fleur du mal.
@ 148.Alverant :
Proposals there seconded by me.
@310.Eris Caffee
(Emphasis added.)
Is it just me or would at least some of those proposed measures count as, well, tighter gun control laws? So is Eris Caffee effectively contradicting herself here as I think?
John Morales:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Improbable Joe,
Reasonable evidence for non-restriction would be showing particular guns are not deadly weapons or that one has a reasonable need for it.
(I don’t consider “I like shooting my gun for fun” a reasonable need)
–
[semi-OT]
Aron Ra’s recent post here is not irrelevant: Do I have to axe?
StevoR:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
@81. evilDoug :
Impressively scary statitics there – and great suggestion for CNN. If only they – and every other station would adopt it.
The power the NRA holds over US politics is incredibly malign and destructive. Who fights it and which major politicians is going to be brave enough to stand up and cal them the assholes they are? If enough politicians did – particularly, say, the President – could they be beaten and marginalised and lose their hold over gun policies?
StevoR:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Not just printed in the studio but also stated loud and clear on air would be better yet.
mikeyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Guns don’t kill people… seriously!
Let’s legalize small nuclear weapons and vials of bubonic plague
then we can say nukes and plagues don’t kill people, people kill people…..
how utterly absurd
chigau (Chiggers):
December 15th, 2012 at 12:01 am
In the USA
which is more ‘regulated’
getting a gun
or
getting a driver’s license?
mesh:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:06 am
Guns don’t kill people – bulletholes do!
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:32 am
She’s relatively sane when she’s not stroking her fucking assault rifle.
left0ver1under:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:07 am
What sort of idiots do you mean, the famous or nobodies?
I haven’t heard anyone high profile say anything, but I’ve already seen anonymous morons say it as comments on blogs.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:36 am
Not caught up and won’t today but I really, really, really need to say this:
Fuck you sick bastard for thinking that your selfish little fun is more important than the life of even ONE other person, especially a child and that YOU are actually the person who gets to decide that and who has the right to value THEIR lives as oppoed to your fun.
You’re upset that people lump you into one category with the killer? Well, that’s because you show a similar respect for the lives of others as he did.
totalretard:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:17 am
Since my previous message (#119), there have been very few constructive comments.
#148, #153, #191, #236, #271, and #309, thanks for at least taking a stab at the problem. On #191, there is a problem with ammunition hoarders, as was proven shortly after Obama’s first election, but it’s still worth considering.
#183 and #232 exceeded even my best attempts at covertly making firearms illegal — require gun owners to only transport their guns to secure locations via armored car or registered courier. And it would create new entrepreneurial enterprises for the stubborn owners.
#151 started a real shit storm when Eris revealed that she had a mini-14. My wife worked in a large hospital in a decent-sized city which used to lead the U.S. in car-jackings. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was at least one armed robbery a week inside the hospital and sometimes several in the same day. Several of her friends at the hospital were assaulted. The hospital had a large security staff, and when she worked late, she would try to have a guard escort he to her car. Even when the security station had a guard, he was usually smart enough to refuse the request. Yes, she began carrying a Tanfoglio 9 mm, which garnered a comment at the firing range about how “unladylike” her gun was. (What. It wasn’t trimmed in anodized pink?) Eris, for the record, I think a mini-14 is also very unladylike. I could go on — like having to visit neighborhoods where there were recently shootings.
My son’s father-in-law was an arson investigator before he retired, and he not only carried a sidearm, he also wore a bullet-proof vest. There’s a good reason; people like to shoot at arson investigators. In 2000, a wacko killed his parents, set the house on fire, and waited for the fire department to show up so he could shoot them.
#257 — “The argument for owning guns because you can shoot scary bad guys is based on bad math and worse ethics.” Hell, yes. I admit it my wife and son’s in-laws are immoral and probably crazy for fearing scary bad guys. You have never had a gun pulled on you or been shot at, have you? And you would be paranoid to think that you could ever be in a situation where you would be in danger.
I don’t think that owning a gun and knowing how to use it guarantees safety, but I think it evens up the odds in a bad situation. If no one had a gun, many bad situations would never occur, which brings me back to Australia.
#312 — Thanks for correcting me. In fact, my memory is worse off than not remembering the sequence of the Port Arthur massacre and the latest legislation. I was remembering the Julian Knight mass shootings in 1987 and thinking it was post-1996. No excuses. On the other hand, those who were criticizing me for quoting the Australian government’s own homicide statistics because they didn’t prove my point, what point do you think I was trying to prove? Homicide still exists, but most of it is not gun-related. What more do you want?
#238 — “Why should ordinary people be allowed to own a military-grade firearm?”
I’m sure that most people would agree they shouldn’t, but like many people who have put in their 2 cents here and many journalists, they don’t have a clue what a military-grade weapon is. Are you implying that a mini-14 is military-grade? It’s usually classified as a carbine, or with a modified stock, a tactical rifle. It’s hard to count the times a mini-14 or AR-15 has been called an automatic weapon, which I think was the point of a later comment (#323 and #329). The difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon is the difference between the North Hollywood massacre and the FBI Miami shootout. To be military-grade, a weapon should be either extremely accurate or massively destructive like a rifle with an automatic option, armor-piercing ammo, an RPG, or a sniper rifle. Many good hunting rifles push the boundaries of a sniper rifle. Should we outlaw those?
#355 –Yes, we know that Eris’ suggestions are just the beginning. At least they give us a beginning. Do you have something to add? By the way, gun safety training was part of Eris’s package (as well as many others’ packages). I’m curious how many gun owners know the four basic rules for gun handling. The Mercer, PA man who killed his 7-year old son on 12-08-12 broke all 4 four rules immediately after buying his pistol, but it was okay because he “didn’t realize it was still loaded”. I feel nothing but remorse for the boy and nothing but contempt for the man.
I’ve ranted on long enough, so here are my suggestions. Of all the journalists talking about it, only Rachael Maddow had any useful suggestions. There are two common-sense proposals that Maddow suggested as a beginning that should be sure to pass Congress because even the NRA supports them. Immediately go to work on gun handling training and requirements. This is a part of canceled carry requirements for most states but should be required just for owning a gun. Fortunately, Alaskans know all of this through osmosis, so they need no training to carry a gun. (I understand even ex-governors are allowed to carry guns.) Oddly, training seems to be ignored by many police officers, and mayor Bloomberg gives commendations to officers who shoot far more innocent bystanders than people brandishing guns. Training is fundamental for anyone owning a gun.
Next, a firearm must be kept locked when it is not carried. This means more than a flimsy trigger lock. Locking should prevent access to the magazine, cylinder, or other means of loading a gun. There are inexpensive (less than $30) ways to do this. This simple precaution would have prevented Adam Lanza’s access to his mother’s guns.
Return to #148 and #153 for more suggestions.
Now we get to the tough part, which may never be resolved. I’m sure my wife would never have bought a sidearm if there had no immediate threat. A complete gun ban would affect only honest gun owners. Without a country-wide confiscation program, the worst problems still remain, and we are threatened with prying guns from cold dead fingers.
Okay. How far do we go (assuming the remote possibility), and where should we stop. At least now we have some options on the table. What else can we try? I would still like to hear from PZ since he started this shit-fight.
Anthony K:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:30 am
How is it that the gun-control types are described as arguing from emotion again?
No. A man who shot 27 people dead did.
strange gods before me ॐ:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:51 am
Commenter calling themself “totalretard” at 119 and 418, please change your nym
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/why-are-we-still-saying-retarded/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/wp-admin/user/profile.php
totalretard:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:04 am
#297 and #417 — Okay, I give in. Somebody tell us how many lives Eris’s gun is costing us. Someone has sported the figure of 33000 people (I think, but my memory has already been proven faulty). I’m sorry, but how does Eris get to decide which people die. Did she personally select the kids who were shot? I’m sure the logic is impeccable, but maybe you can explain it. (By the way, I’m a dumb fuck, so if you can refrain from calling me a sick bastard too, it would be appreciated.)
totalretard:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:08 am
#419 — “How is it that the gun-control types are described as arguing from emotion again?” If you’ll point out where I did that, I’ll apologize most humbly. I’ve already eaten crow today.
strange gods before me ॐ:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:11 am
Again, please, change your nym.
John Morales:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:18 am
commenter who unapologetically uses the nym ‘totalretard’:
More than none, because part of its price is a continuation of gun culture.
By her advocacy of private gun ownership and carrying, Eris promotes the culture that this is a good thing, at the cost of lives.
Impeccable it is, and simple, too: No guns — no shootings.
[meta]
You certainly aren’t a shining specimen, but your obtuseness seems wilful and your attempt to use an ironic nym doesn’t speak highly of you.
I refer you to ॐ’s comment immediately preceding yours.
totalretard:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:25 am
I know that many people find it offensive, but I have never applied the name to anyone else. On the other hand, others have used it in reference to me (as well as dumb-fuck). I know you find it pejorative, but so far, i haven’t tried to put anyone else down, and I certainly avoid the ‘R’ word anywhere but here.
Poor excuses, I know, but people who know me, recognize the name. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative that will stand out as well.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:37 am
@425:
I’m glad to see you addressing the criticisms of your nym. We strive to keep Pharyngula a safe space for all, so among other off limits terms, slurs against those with mental disabilities are strongly discouraged. Your nym-though you may not intend it to be-disparages those who suffer from mental disorders. In the interest of not offending people, please consider an alternative nym.
StevoR:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:45 am
@420. strange gods before me ॐ :
When I clicked that second link lit said after the username box with my username:
So, if that’s the same for “total-r**” doesn’t that mean xe couldn’t change it even if xe wanted too?
@421. Total r***
#320. Beatrice notes it with :
and #313 eigenperson – 14 December 2012 at 5:30 pm (UTC -6)
Provides it with :
John Morales:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:53 am
[OT]
StevoR, the
usernameis internal to the system and is the defaultdisplay name, but thedisplay namecan be varied at will via the ‘dashboard’. So, no.StevoR:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:57 am
@421.totalr*** : See also comment # 302.Eris Caffee where she gvies her calculations and reasons for that.
BTW. I notice there’s a display name as setting there but that can’t seem to be changed either. Not that I’m going to, just thought I’d see if I could add one of those longer phrases after my name. Do we need PZ’s or Chris Clarke’s permission to change nyms here or something?
StevoR:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:58 am
@428. John Morales : Okay, cheers.
Can I try it to add something after?
StevoR:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:04 am
So the nickname (required) box can be changed . Has it worked?
Will I now be ” StevoR, usually drunken & overtired”?
StevoR, usually drunken & overtired:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:08 am
Aha! Now? (Having clicked on the display name after changing tehnickname and getting the new lengthened monker up there.)
BTW. John Morales did you see I answered what I think were your main questions on the thunderdome thread?
Agent Silversmith, Honey Powered:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:18 am
Latentgenius? Bubblekopf?
Anyway, the ‘retard’ bit has to go.
strange gods before me ॐ:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:22 am
totalidiot? totalmoron? totaljackass?
I’m not trying to insult you, just going with the theme. (The historical clinical designations of “idiot” and “moron” are not in current medical use, while “mental retardation” is.
StevoR, usually drunken & overtired:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:24 am
How about totalequals? totalreads? Totalme?
Use your imagination and something that’s right for you. Surely can’t be that hard especially to come up with something better than I (or anyone here?) could for you?
strange gods before me ॐ:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:28 am
There’s another option.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:35 am
The standard definition of “single-shot” is a weapon with an internal capacity of 1+0 – that is, it can only hold the round in the chamber and has to be physically reloaded after each shot. The colloquial definition of “single-shot” in my neck of the woods is any weapon where the shooter is required to physically interact with anything other than the trigger in some way between shots, regardless of it’s internal capacity; that is, any weapon that isn’t self-loading. It’s generally not applied to pump-action weapons for some reason, but is reserved for things like bolt and Martini action weapons. Apologies for the confusion.
Since I made those comments, it has emerged the killer perpetrated this atrocity using two legally-held semi-automatic handguns. My opposition to civillian ownership of self-loading rifles is matched square for square by my opposition to civillian ownership of semi-autmoatic handguns, for exactly the same reasons – however in the case of semi-automatic handguns the ridiculous excuse of expedient hunting isn’t even available. Small-calibre rifles and shotguns are far better for small game hunting than a 9mm pistol, and if you’re worried about mice or rats buy a fucking cat – they’re cheaper, more fun, and you having the right to own one in no way abets mass murder.
Maybe not in a strictly technical sense, but who’s going to argue that a self-loading rifle isn’t a military grade weapon that civillians have no need for and should not be allowed to own?
I’m not implying that; I’m outright stating it.
A “carbine” being little more than a rifle whose overall length (and thus maximum effective range) has been reduced to facilitate easier use in certain tactical situations where the loss of effective range isn’t a huge consideration. A meaningful distinction, to be sure!
What need does a civilian shooter have for “tactical” considerations? Are you stalking deer into a complex network of caves? An urban environment? Through an Indonesian jungle?
The only people who need tactical weapons are military or paramilitary staff, thus any weapon designed with such considerations in mind is military grade.
This whole “UR USIN WORDS WRONG” argument is a common obfuscation maneuver by gun-owning sad-acts in order to try and make the issue of gun control seem far more technical than it is.
Guns kill people because they’re a tool whose entire existence revolves around propelling projectiles into targets at high velocity. The faster they can do that, the more people they can kill; and the easier they are to obtain, the more likely people are to kill with them. No technical knowledge is needed to address these issues.
If you’re completely unwilling to countenance the latter, at least be intellectually honest when dealing with the former.
And the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic is meaningless if you’re a pub-goer in Springmartin who’s just been shot dead while fleeing a car bomb by a UVF paramilitary with an AR-15, or you’re a 14 year old Labour Party activist at a summer camp on Utoya Island who has just been shot dead by a man wielding a Mini-14 rifle.
Sorry, I mean, a Mini-14 “carbine”. Or was it a “tactical rifle”? Doesn’t matter really, does it?
I daresay at that point even the distinction between .22LR rimfire and .50BMG is likewise totally irrelevant.
A friend of mine used to work in a reptile house, where handling venomous animals was part and parcel of the job. The reptile house had a sign stuck to the cabinet containing their handling gear which read; “The most dangerous snake in the world is the one that’s just bitten you”. The same goes for guns. The deadliest gun in the world is the gun someone has just shot you with. They’re all dangerous, and just like with venomous snakes there are precautions that society can take to reduce the impact such dangerous things can have on people’s lives.
Why one is uncontroversial yet the other is heatedly so is a mystery.
More bunkum.
If it can be demonstrated that doing so would save lives, then yes.
Thing is, the effective range and accuracy of a rifle is far less of a factor in mass murders such as this one than the capacity of a weapon to fire multiple rounds without the requirement to reload, or indeed intreact with the weapon in any way beyond pulling the trigger between shots.
Intellectual honesty is required to tackle political issues. Obfuscating technicality on behalf of your beloved pastime is a bad thing.
PS: I have, in fact, been shot at. Twice. Four times and hit once if we’re counting air weapons, but let’s not, eh? I’ve also been robbed at gunpoint. All of these incidents occured on Merseyside, which is a county in Merry Old England – all involved pistols, weapons illegal under British law at the time which, I’m confident, were illegally owned by criminals.
Even despite these experiences, it’s plain to me why civilian ownership of military grade weapons is an appalingly bad idea, and because of these experiences I can see quite clearly why the excuses so often given in defence of such rights of ownership are a pile of horse shit.
Jimmy_Blue:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:43 am
Apologies if this has already been said but: for all the claims to nuanced, reasoned, rational or evidence based arguments from the pro-gun advocates all I can hear from them is, “The deaths of other peoples children is a price I am willing to let them pay so I can own my outsize pellet guns. Why do the rest of you hate freedom?”
I can’t quite think of a word that sums up just how much contempt I hold them in.
shala:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:12 am
http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/b/b7/Tmwguncontrol.jpg/642px-Tmwguncontrol.jpg
It’s sad that this image is relevant. Every. Single. Time.
Been reading certain forums in the aftermath of this horrific event. Conservatives/Libertarians that I’ve seen have admitted they’d rather see this kind of event happen every day rather than have the government oppress their right to use guns.
Paranoia, delusion, and idiocy. The black helicopters and drones are apparently just outside conservative homes in their minds.
Pteryxx:
December 15th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Dana Hunter just posted a huge link roundup:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2012/12/15/enough-children-have-died/
With special attention to Avicenna’s personal story:
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Pteryxx,
Thanks for linking this. Avicenna’s post made me cry.
rq:
December 15th, 2012 at 8:51 am
Beatrice
You’re not the only one. :(
broboxley OT:
December 15th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Fred Salvador – The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope
Ah, English, figures. I also assume you were cheering the government when they arrested the stupid bastard who dared to let off a single shot shotgun at people inside his home. These people were on a bond out of jail for breaking into homes and assaulting the occupants violently at the time they broke into the shotgun owners home. The robbers were freed before the homeowner because he had the temerity to try to defend himself in his own home. I have a Brit passport, I would never want to live there because of smug colonialist people like yourself.
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Something is puzzling me. I have a fair few people arguing that they should have the right to own a gun to protect themselves, their family and their home. (Not here, but around the ‘net).
Given that any firearm in order to be stored responsibly and safely should stored in a secure cabinet. Ammunition should be stored equally securely but separately.
Given that, how do such people think they will have time to unlock their gun cabinet, assemble the gun, unlock the ammunition cabinet and load ?
broboxley OT:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:02 am
#444 Matt Penfold
why is that a given?
Many homes here in America have rifles and pistols in plain sight, the owner usually tells visitors that they are loaded, with one in the chamber and the safety is off. Once told that visitors leave them alone. Children are taught from toddler stage not to touch them as they will go off. The results of touching them are demonstrated. Many people I know have brought their children into adulthood safely doing this. In cases of self defense they simply reach out for the nearest weapon and use it.
Unless there is some other issue they are not usually incarcerated like they do in the UK when this happens.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:12 am
I’m not sure whether “visitors” is some kind of euphemism for robbers, but it would sure as hell keep a visitor like me away.
broboxley, what you are describing sounds sick and wrong. I don’t understand how people can live like that and especially raise kids into that.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:17 am
Half-Scots scouser, actually, but don’t let that stop you making assumptions about me based upon your perception of the effect some unimportant characteristic has on my views!
You mean the stupid bastard who’d had his shotgun certificate revoked several years prior to the incident you’re referring to after firing at a man he caught stealing apples? Fucking APPLES, for Christ’s sake. With a weapon he had no legal right to possess, no less (pump shotguns with an internal capacity greater than 2 rounds require a Firearms Certificate, not a Shotgun Certificate).
This being the same stupid bastard who let off an illegally held pump action shotgun (Winny 1300s don’t come in single-shot) three times at two burglars, once from the top of his stairs, and twice more from a downstairs doorway as they were trying to flee, thus presenting no clear and present danger to his life or limb and therefore making his shooting a clear case of unreasonable force?
You do realise the 16 year old scumbag he killed was shot in the back, don’t you?
In light of all that, yeah, I was quite happy when a man who murdered another man in cold blood using an illegal firearm ended up in jail for having done so. Same way I was when Dale Cregan was sent down for the shootings he committed. Quite apart from my personal feelings on the rights of a man to murder someone in defence of tables and chairs, Tony Martin deserved a five year prison sentence simply for possessing an illegal firearm, and more for discharging it with intent to endanger life. Which, if he’d been a working-class nobody, is exactly what he would’ve gotten.
See above for why you’re an ill-informed moron.
Feel free to burn it and sit in the embers, then. You’re no loss to anyone.
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Shall we pretend you never asked that ? Only is a remarkably stupid question and you are now no doubt embarrassed you asked it.
Yet clearly, given the data on accidental shootings in the US, your “system” is not working. In fact it is getting people killed.
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:19 am
And please explain this lack of honesty.
If you are going to lie, fuck off.
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:21 am
I do feel some guilt at inflicting him upon our American cousins, but enough to offset the relief he is not still the UK.
dianne:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Excuse me while I try to think of a word or concept bad enough to express my feelings about this. USians apparently WANT more gun violence. They want more dead children. Fuck it, there’s never a UN invasion around when you really need one.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:28 am
I realize that my argument is mostly emotional (“sick and wrong”), but I am honestly baffled by this kind of attitude. It’s completely incomprehensible to me how someone can have deadly weapons in their home, loaded, threaten people with them like they’re offering a second glass of vine and teach their children how to use deadly weapons since they can barely hold the thing.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:29 am
vine -> wine
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:35 am
The claim that people in the UK are imprisoned if they kill or seriously injure an intruder is not true. The law allows for a defence of self-defence, and UK courts have long given householders considerable latitude in the amount of force that it is reasonable to use. Essentially if you reasonably believe you life to be a risk, and you pick up a knife, or cricket bat or other weapon and end up killing the intruder you will NOT be sent to prison.
broboxley OT is probably referring to the case of Tony Martin, a farmer who was convicted of murdering a burglar (reduced to manslaughter on appeal). Martin shot the burglar in the back, whilst the burglar was trying to flee with an illegally held shotgun. His shotgun licence had been revoked after he made threats to shoot burglars.
bobo:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Eris’ freedom is more important than the child in Avicenna’s story
Sickening if you ask me.
She will sacrifice the lives of these people b/c HER NEEDS are more importan.
Fuck her!
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 15th, 2012 at 9:54 am
All the back and forth over why Tony Martin, a recidivist firearms offender, is a free man whilst other, less middle-class, and, dare I say, less white, recidivist firearms offenders remain at Her Maj’s Pleasure, and what is and isn’t self defence or what would and wouldn’t happen in the UK is all very stimulating.
One thing that wouldn’t happen in the UK, is a person taking two legally-held semi-automatic pistols into a school and opening fire on little children with them. Not today, anyway. That exact thing did in fact happen here 15 years ago; in the aftermath we resolved to prevent civilians having access to such dangerous weapons, because the thought of some micropenile gun enthusiasts being put out by the loss of their dangerous toys was far less abhorrent than the idea that someone else might use such weapons to kill yet more schoolchildren.
Why can’t gun enthusiasts grasp this? Your stupid hobby is not important. You, personally, are not important, and nor are your febrile concerns about ZOG or BNBG or your silly inferiority complex-assuaging desire to carry big loud HRoF weapons. Preventing tiny, defenceless, happy little schoolchildren from being murdered with firearms is important. Taking away access to firearms accomplishes this. Grow the fuck up.
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:02 am
I remember when the ban on handguns came in after Dunblane there were people complaining it might harm the chances of the UK winning a shooting medal at the next Olympics. I never did understand that concern.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Yeah, I remember that as well, and the pissing and bitching and moaning all the gun enthusiasts did about how they weren’t compensated for the full value of their small metal devices, and how this was a massive aggravation to them. My uncle, to this very day, still fucking whines about having to give up his Beretta, and all the businesses forced to close in the wake of the new regulations because they relied on pistol shooters for revenue, and blah blah blah fucking blah.
This being the uncle whose commute to work at one stage took him directly through Dunblane and Callander, past the big bank of flowers left at the primary school and the memorial. And he’s whining because someone stopped him playing with certain toys. Just… no.
broboxley OT:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:21 am
#452 Beatrice
the visitors are not threatened, they are simply told that the weapons over the mantle will go off if the trigger is pulled. Visitor, nods .
My mother in law at the age of 90 had 2 rifles, 3 shotguns and several pistols in her closet. In the culture of the yupik village they were unloaded per custom.
Some folks in America look at guns as a useful tool. Nothing more or less. Now the white male privileged of the UK middle class just love to teach us colonials why we need to emulate their superior mores, luckily we can see fit to ignore them.
Also ask some of the elderly men where you live a question.
“just out of curiosity, if someone wanted an mp40 would they know how to get one, quietly. Theoretically of course”
transliterated to local lingo. I would be interested in the answer
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:25 am
Why is Broboxley so proud of being an irresponsible wannabe killer ?
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:28 am
Because he is a gun enthusiast, the bread and butter aphid of the firearms industry ant-hill.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:32 am
Beatrice is right. There’s something deeply wrong with this being an unremarked upon part of a culture. Just because it’s as ordinary to Americans as seeing green grass doesn’t mean it’s sane, good, or justified. We’re just soaking in our own cultural mythology so deeply it seems that way.
But it’s wrong.
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Evidence that wielding a gun can increase risk.
http://www.nd.edu/~jbrockm1/WittBrockmole_inPress_JEPHPP.pdf
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:40 am
In much of the rest of the world people would nod politely, and slowly back towards to the door in the hope they do not antagonise the person giving the warning. In colloquial terms, they would be considered the local equivalent of “round the fucking bend”.
lostintime:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:47 am
This is so terrible. I’ve just read that the children were ushered into closets and told to be absolutely quiet. I can’t imagine how terrifying that would be. My heart goes out to the families.
Seriously, how do right-wingers and libertarians live with themselves when things like this happen?
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:48 am
No subtle* threat there. Nope.
*honestly, I don’t even consider it subtle, but I’m starting to think that an average gun wielding American and I have very different notions of subtle
broboxley OT:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Beatrice you didnt grow up with guns in the house stacked alongside the hammers and saw. Of course it seems strange to you. If you saw this in almost every house when you were growing up it would seem reasonable.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:57 am
If you are raised by a violent wife beating bully, you might grow up thinking that smacking a woman around is a completely normal thing, but that won’t make it reasonable. Or desirable. Or something we would like more people to grow up with.
Matt Penfold:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:57 am
I would have thought the fact she did not grow up in a house where the adults behaved so irresponsibly was obvious.
myeck waters:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Once, in certain parts of the USA, it was considered reasonable to see slaves working on someone’s property.
Pteryxx:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:04 am
More background info from MoJo’s mass shootings project:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation?page=1
Further details include the few cases where armed civilians attempted to intervene. Also, the article states mental health is a common factor, followed up in a new article which I’ll put in the other thread… sigh.
chigau (Chiggers):
December 15th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Long ago on the family farm a loaded rifle was kept by the door.
It was used to shoot predatory non-human animals.
We children knew not to touch it.
If visitors were informed of it’s location, it was so they could use it if necessary.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:10 am
In US, at least in some states, you can be arrested for sitting in your parked car drunk, correct?
And yet, there is no problem with carrying a gun into a bar and getting sloshed.
Pteryxx:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:14 am
*correction, MoJo linked to a Nov 9 article focused on Loughner, not a new one.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 15th, 2012 at 11:16 am
chigau,
Despite your qualifiers, that was still absolutely fucking stupid. (As it was for my parents to let me and my brothers stick our heads out of the car window while it was moving.)
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:19 am
The operative word being “seem”.
“Among the more striking measures: Eight states now allow firearms in bars. Law-abiding Missourians can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if “acting in self-defense.”
opposablethumbs:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Why stop at rifles and pistols, ffs? Why not have a whole arsenal on the mantelpiece?
I don’t fucking believe this. Who the fuck thinks that the way to improve a weapons-saturated society is to introduce as many weapons as possible as young as possible? Who thinks it’s actually OK to maim or kill someone instead of handing over valuables? Yes I’d be upset to lose something I haven’t got the money to replace – but that doesn’t mean I think somebody should die for stealing it.
It’s almost like a weird, bloodier version of the tragedy of the commons. Other people are grazing livestock on the green, so rather than even try to agree fare shares for all I’m going to graze twice as many head in the sure and certain knowledge that this time next year there’ll be no grass left and all the animals will be slaughtered. Other people have got weapons, so rather than even consider trying to reduce the amount of weaponry around in society as a whole, Imma go out and buy moar bigger gunz for ME.
And it doesn’t even offer the benefit of making me safer, on average – not in real life it doesn’t. Sure it feels intuitively that if someone else has got a gun then I’m better off having one too – but as others have kindly linked upthread, the reality is that on average the more guns around just means the more likely it is that someone will get shot. And that someone is just as likely to be you, no matter how much you daydream about being a shoot-em-up hero.
How many “shooting sprees” have there been in the last, say, thirty years? Compared to any other country in the world with domestic law-and-order stability?
Rutee Katreya:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:23 am
And yet, it would still be unevidenced stupidity.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Rey Fox,
Pteryxx already quoted and linked that. :)
broboxley OT:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Well, I will have to admit the errors of my ways and move back to england and learn from my betters. Until that happens I will leave this thread at this time
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:27 am
For fuck sake, I’m not British and this has nothing to do with your inferiority complex.
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Dear armchair “experts,”
Stricter gun laws would not have prevented this tragedy. It is absolutely asinine of you to presume so. It is also hypocritical given your persistent complaints against people who have suggested an armed teacher and/or principal could have stopped this shooting. No one truly knows what could have prevented this. Please stop using this horrific act to advance your personal vendettas against guns, the NRA, Fox News, or what have you. There are families that are devastated beyond what most of us can even imagine. They need to be our focus, not you.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 15th, 2012 at 11:30 am
I think that’s one of the stupidest attempts at deflection I’ve ever seen.
coldthinker:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:30 am
broboxley -
If I ever visited a home and suddenly found that my host keeps a loaded rifle on the wall, I’d certainly get the hell out of that house immediately. Probably making up a polite excuse so as to not irritate the sick fuck.
Anyone keeping a loaded gun at plain sight and readily available is expecting to shoot someone, and I am not going let myself or my loved ones be around when this happens. And I’m certainly never going to live anywhere where owning and shooting guns is a way of life. Guess my wife’s American cousins won’t be seeing us next year either.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 15th, 2012 at 11:32 am
jinxmchue,
You’re a liar. If guns were not available, it could not have happened.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:35 am
jinxmchue,
Maybe, maybe not. The murderer would have certainly had a harder time obtaining weapons. Maybe he wouldn’t have been able to obtain them at all.
As for the rest: I don’t even want to bother, you’re going to reveal yourself to be a selfish fuck who thinks playing with deadly weapons is more important than human lives and we’ve already been through that. Fuck you.
This is exactly the right time to talk about gun control. This is exactly the time for all you gun nuts to shut the hell up and feel some fucking shame.
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:37 am
This makes no sense.
And this is just stupid.
Okay. So go away and we will no longer be your focus.
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:39 am
Beatrice: GMLA. :)
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:44 am
See this is what happens when you assume. You make an “ass” out of “u” (but not “me”). I’m not a “gun nut.” I don’t own any guns. I have no desire to own any guns. Thanks for burning that straw man, though.
jen:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:45 am
First, banning all guns isn’t going to work. You’ll end up with riots, all the gun owners in the streets WITH their guns, and possibly massive amounts of people getting hurt or killed. Two, the guns that were used were owned legally by the mother of the gunman, so a background check wouldn’t have worked. What needs to happen is that along with the background check, family situations should taken into account before people get guns. That woman knew that her son had serious problems, though there’s been autism and general mental health problems talked about, so we don’t know exactly what they were. Why she kept the guns where he could get to them we don’t know either. I think that if somebody wants to own a gun, and they have somebody who lives in the house who has mental problems, they should have to have a gun safe first that the affected person has no access to, especially not knowing the combination. A locked gun cabinet wouldn’t do it, because then the person could just break the glass. There are gun safes these days that are pretty much impenetrable. A person who wants to own gun(s) needs to be willing to put out the money for that safe BEFORE they’re allowed to own the guns.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:46 am
jinxmchue,
Well then, you are a fool who defends the gun nuts. I’ll give you a cookie for not being able to accidentally shoot anyone.
You are still defending the fuckers.
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Why did you feel the need to start your comment with this?
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:47 am
Cumbria, England: June 2, 2010.
jen:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:50 am
@492, because a lot of the earlier comments were advocating the banning of all guns. There are too many out there, AND it’s in the Constitution. It wouldn’t work, because people would find ways to hide their guns, and some have become so paranoid about the government coming to take their guns that things could get violent very fast.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Because preventing a person having access to self-loading firearms somehow does not prevent them using self-loading firearms to murder people? Please think about this statement more carefully, and perhaps check you’ve understood the arguments for gun control.
Yes they do; preventing civilian access to self-loading weapons. That works to prevent mass murder with self-loading weapons in the same way that preventing civilian access to fireworks prevents people being injured by fireworks.
Please don’t use false equivalencies to silence debates. If you don’t like the arguments being made here, or feel this is an inappropriate time to be having this discussion, that’s perfectly understandable – but what you must not do is use whatever grief or anger you feel to try and silence people who are trying to discuss a critical issue, whether you agree with what they’re saying or not. Nobody is going to think any less of you if you want to take a step back until you feel sufficiently composed to contribute meaningfully, but trying to shut people up makes people think you’re a jerk.
Oh, the irreverence! I think I might cry.
Please stick the flounce; both from this thread, and from the United Kingdom. The idea I might one day pass you in the street is too much for my delicate middle-class sensibilities to bear.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 15th, 2012 at 11:50 am
jinxmchue,
You’re also a fuckwit. Clearly, guns were available in the case you mention.
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:51 am
Your rantings are bizarre and hypocritical. You are far, far nuttier than any gun owner. The way you portray things, you’d think accidental shootings happen every day in every city in America and that anyone who legally owns a gun is a mentally unhinged maniac who is either an accident or a mass-murderer waiting to happen. And people here go along with you, which is hilarious. No one has the testicular fortitude to call you out on your lunacy.
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:54 am
“Please stop using this horrific act to advance your personal vendettas against guns, the NRA, Fox News, or what have you.” = “Please stop using this clear case example to advance political views that I don’t like.”
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:56 am
You’ll have to point me to the comments calling for banning of all guns, because I haven’t seen any. Please note: Gun control =/= banning of all guns.
Your hyperbole is noted.
Your sexism is also noted.
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:56 am
It’s fascinating how you all are completely incapable of rationally responding and resort to using invective, particularly when you are backed into a corner.
Clearly, England’s more restrictive gun control laws were not able to prevent that case.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:58 am
jinxmchue,
I argued with Eris, I’m not going to go over the same damn things with you. If someone else wants to, kudos to them. Honestly, you’re not worth the effort. She was disgusting, but at least able to show some level of coherency (at least before she admitted she wants to be able to defend herself when US army comes a-knocking.).
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:59 am
Duh, boys and girls. Because no law can prevent all tragedies we should have no more gun control whatsoever because decreasing deaths isn’t good enough. It’s all or nothing.
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
I see a lot of comments from people on your side saying things like “If only the children had been armed.” Comment #4 about babies is particularly amusing. I guess hyperbole is okay when YOUR side and ONLY your side uses it. Hypocrites.
michaeld:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Exactly Josh! Seat belt laws won’t solve all tragic motor vehicle accidents, and people will die even though they were buckled in! So we shouldn’t have them.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
jinxmchue,
There are over 30,000 gun deaths per year in the USA. That’s getting on for 100 a day. You can compare the rate per 100,000 population of the USA with other countries here. Among rich countries, the USA comes top, by a considerable margin. I bet you’re proud. (It’s worth noting that the second place among rich countries is held by Switzerland, often cited by gun-nuts as refuting the connection between high gun ownership and gun deaths.)
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
It would be too much to hope that jinxmchue is able to recognize sarcasm.
Pteryxx:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
cite:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gvunintentional
but if those aren’t evenly distributed among *each day* and *every city* in America, they don’t count because
statisticshyperskepticism.chigau (Chiggers):
December 15th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Lots of interesting reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
vaiyt:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Do you even know what hypocritical means? Why in the holy fuck is it hypocritical for people who want less guns to criticize the position that more armed people would solve the problem?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
Oh joy! We have a Fox Parrot by the name of jinxmchue here. Do you also want to pull out the Huckabee argument?
vaiyt:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
AFAIK Switzerland has better gun control than the US as well. All legal gun owners are registered, regularly inspected and trained. They’re supposed to be Switzerland’s army, after all.
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
I don’t watch or even have Fox News (or anything else on the “vast wasteland” — I prefer to read) and don’t care for Huckabee, but thanks for assuming again, though. You people seem to love to do that. I guess when you have no actual legitimate arguments to make, you go with what you’re best at.
michaeld:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
@Vaiyt
Also when they sell ammunition at firing ranges every bullet must be expended at that visit to the range.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Wouldn’t it be lovely if people who barge in indignation acknowledged a couple of hundred comments made before their appearance?
jinxmchue:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
It’s hypocritical because neither side knows what would have actually prevented this tragedy.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
You raise an interesting point. If even the stringent controls placed on firearm ownership in the UK are unable to completely prevent massacres involving legally held firearms, then surely the only way to COMPLETELY prevent such massacres is to completely ban all civilian ownership of firearms!
Sounds good to me.
Derrick Bird’s rampage was the first mass shooting in the UK involving legally-held firearms since the Dunblane massacre. It took Bird a total of two hours to kill 12 members of the public whilst he was driving at random through villages in a sleepy, rural county in northern England. Had his rampage taken place in one of the big cities further south or west, like Newcastle, Manchester or Liverpool – places where violence involving illegal firearms is commonplace and thus the resources to tackle such crimes are readily available – it would’ve been over much more quickly and with far less loss of life. Not to mention the failure in licensing enforcement that came out in the aftermath of Bird’s shooting spree – turns out Bird had been seeking treatment for various mental health issues, and either nobody had bothered to tell the authorities, or the authorities hadn’t bothered to act on the information.
This is all very different to the situation in Newtown, and I don’t doubt that as more details emerge from the police investigation the differences will only become more apparent to anyone willing to see them.
It’s a pity your argument is so full of holes, because I would quite like to have used it to advocate a complete ban on firearms.
Beatrice:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Nope, I’m pretty sure that the wannabe murderer not having a bunch of loaded weapons would have prevented him from murdering 27 people with weapons he wouldn’t have.
michaeld:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Can we make an educated guess on what might or might not help in the future based on the history of such events and the research done on guns?
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Hypocrisy: You still don’t know what it means.
lostintime:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Chigau, thanks for the link at 508. This is what it says about the US:
“The United States has about five percent of the total world population but residents of the United States own about 42 percent of all the world’s civilian-owned firearms. The homicide rate by firearm is 200 to 800 percent higher in the US than in other advanced countries such as England, France, Australia, and Japan where firearms are more tightly controlled by law.”
There you have it – the statistics prove beyond doubt that gun control is effective at reducing gun related violence in the long term. I also wonder if, tragically, the mother who was murdered kept guns in the house to protect herself. The article goes on to say that studies of domestic violence have shown that gun ownership increases the risk of crimes of passion and other domestic disputes ending in a fatal injury, so the personal safety/ self-defense argument from the gun lobby is also bullshit.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
@503:
I haven’t seen the commenter @4 in the past, so I am not sure xe qualifies as ‘you people’ (someone will correct me if I’m wrong). More important, can you not see the inherent sarcasm in hir comment? It’s poking fun at the ridiculous right wing response “oh, there was a tragic shooting? Let’s arm people with guns.” Arming more people with guns to minimize a shooting spree is as nonsensical as giving a baby a gun.
How on Earth did you take that seriously?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 15th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
So what? You claimed that:
I pointed out that:
You then gave an example of another massacre carried out using guns. Which proves that you’re a fuckwit, since, clearly, guns were available.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Damn! You were blowing a pitch perfect dog whistle!
We all hear that battle cry after every time there is a mass shooting.
Now is not the time to talk about gun control!
Every fucking time!
So sorry that I confused your well reasoned retort with a well worn NRA trope.
.
opposablethumbs:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
jinxmchue, please go away and compare the frequency of firearm massacres in the USA with their frequency in any other country in the world that enjoys a comparable level of political stability and rule of law. Feel free to compare the numbers of multiple killings and the overall level of gun crime as well; feel free to correct for population size.
A situation like this has happened, afaik, once in the UK. Once is too many, obviously, and gun controls were tightened up right afterwards.
How many massacres like this have happened in the USA?
Don’t bother to come back.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
coincidentally, Huckabee is getting mentioned quite a lot today, even Zazzle has a tshirt for it:
http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/picture-42.png?w=460
here are some good responses to Huckabee’s (and Fischer’s) idiotic notion that the shooting happened because public schools aren’t promoting their god:
-You know who else public schools don’t allow on campus? Rampaging gunmen.
-So, the reason child rapes occur in the Catholic Church is because… ? God must not be allowed there either.
- So, the reason mass murders happen IN CHURCHES, is because? reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting
uh huh.
so… the same exact thing happening in China at nearly the same time, under the same circumstance, the only difference being guy has a knife instead of a gun.
tell me… how many dead in that one?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248054/China-stabbing-22-children-elderly-woman-stabbed-outside-primary-school-Chinese-knifeman.html
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 15th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
opposablethumbs,
No, it has happened more than once in the UK, and once since the gun laws were tightened – not nearly enough, in my opinion, and in the case jinxmchue referred to, the law had not been enforced.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
upthread, someone posted a link to the statistics from Australia showing a 33% decrease in gun-related homicides over the 7 year period since they toughened their gun laws.
so, while there of course is never any way to know with 100% certainty, there IS A FUCKTON OF EVIDENCE to support what PROBABLY could have limited the chances of this happening.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
get your recent news from books do you?
no?
well then, you must be reading newspapers.
…and that differs from TV media… HOW?
fuckwit.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
here in NZ, we average around 2 per MONTH.
opposablethumbs:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Nick Gotts, yes, you are right. I was thinking of Dunblane as the only time a school has been attacked but it would have been better to stick to the more general point and just compare gun killings overall.
Your link pretty much sums it up.
Ysidro:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Apparently some people think “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas ” is an instruction manual. Excuse me while I go throw up.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Me @ 308;
and then we get jinxmchue @ 482;
Sometimes I hate being right.
Nakkustoppeli:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Banning or severely restriting ammunition could be a good way to start controlling guns and gun violence. You can’t do much with an unloaded gun. Also unlike guns which may last for decades if not a century, AFAIK (not 100 % sure), ammunition (especially smokeless powder and primers) will weaken and become unreliable or unusable with time. So the ammo hoarders’ precious cartridges would become a pile of lead and brass smelling like mouse pee and behaving erratically when shot.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
mouse pee?
Rey Fox:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
I think I found a flaw in your plan.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Nakkustoppeli:
You are aware that there’s a large number of gun…fans who make their own ammo, right?
vaiyt:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Don’t we?
Do you really think allowing teachers to bring guns to classrooms full of kids would be safer than the alternative?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Gregory Greenwood, that is not a case of being right. That is a case of seeing this happen after every fucking mass shooting.
I can remember some people were making that argument back in 1999 when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Nathaniel_SmithBenjamin Smith was on his shooting spree in Illinois and Indiana, that if people were armed, they would be able to fire back. I am sure it goes back even farther but that was the first time it truly struck me as being an asinine argument.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Forgot to close the tag again.
dianne:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
From an article in the NYT about the shooting: “Officials said the killing spree began early on Friday at the house where Mr. Lanza had lived with his mother. There, he shot her in the face, making her his first victim, the authorities said. Then, leaving her dead after taking three guns that apparently belonged to her, he climbed into her car for the short drive to the school.” (Emphasis added.)
Owning guns sure didn’t make Nancy Lanza any safer.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
My father did.
It would seem that the tools for casting slugs would fall under the same scrutiny of the ammo itself.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Janine: Hallucinating Liar @ 538;
Fair point – anticipating how gun nuts will try to spin mass shootings is not exactly difficult. They are nothing if not predictable.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
good point.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Janine:
Which wouldn’t be remotely realistic. Molds and casts can be easily carved from a number of materials, etc. A large black market would emerge for both hand-made and commercial ammo, along with the stuff needed to make your own. You can get away with surprisingly little in order to make your own.
While I don’t have any real problem with restricting the amount of ammo one is allowed to horde, I think it’s still closing the gate after the horse is gone.
Litigious Bastard:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
#432 — Thanks StevoR.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Michael Moore expressed this sentiment wrt to the overall issue of gun regulation in the US, back in “Bowling for Columbine”, IIRC.
that was quite a while ago.
I often wonder if it is indeed too late now; that too many generations now take gun ownership not as just a right, but more like they seem privileged in every sense of the word; they’ve grown up with the idea that guns in the house are normal and proper, and no branch of government has really given them any cause to ever think differently.
It really will be like trying to reverse Christian religious privilege in the US.
I think we have to think about putting down the horse, instead of trying to get it back in the barn.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
…er, to poorly mix an analogy and all.
:P
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
IOW, not only has the horse left the gate wrt to gun control, but it’s run off into the crowd….
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Ichthyic:
Pretty much. It would have be part of a sweeping change which would force ‘merica to join the rest of the civilised world. I doubt I’ll be around for that one.
Nakkustoppeli:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Ichtyic,
Apparently, nitrocellulose decomposition products can smell like urine.
Rey Fox,
I’d imagine ammo failing or going off a few seconds after pulling the trigger would be somewhat less useful.
Caine,
I’m aware that reloading cartridges is done and making (at least black powder) powder is doable but what about primers?
I’m not saying my “cunning plan” is perfect but there would be some effect. The point (which I didn’t state clearly) is that after introduction of severe restrictions on gun ownership or total ban there would be a lot of illegal guns (especially if there is no gun registry), which would be technically usable for decades, however the cartridges have a shorter “shelf life”, so restrictions on them could make guns less useful as instruments of violence.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Nakkustoppeli:
People make their own ammunition all the time in this country, from the ground up. Do it yourself bullets of all kinds. You might want to read up on it, it’s really not difficult to do. I can tell you it’s a hell of a lot easier making bullets than it is forging a sword.
Nakkustoppeli:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
And of course, now that I think about it, if guns would be banned, then of course ammo would also be banned. I need to upgrade my brain.
chigau (違う):
December 15th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Litigious Bastard
The new ‘nym is an improvement.
tomh:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Ichthyic wrote
It really will be like trying to reverse Christian religious privilege in the US.
Exactly right, I’m afraid. Not until the last bible-thumper is shot with the last gun will there be a chance of reversing the current sad state of affairs.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Gee, what a lovely sentiment.
Idiot.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
I think it was supposed to be a joke?
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
^^ah, there’s my sharky!
finally, been waiting for that to work for a long time.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
heh, I’m already not.
:)
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Ichthyic:
In that sense, I wish. However, being 55, I doubt I’ll be alive to see that great of a change.
Love the shark, sniny!
bobo:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Oh man now the gun nuts on a rightwing site are saying that cares are more dangerous
gotta love the logic
cars are dangerous too, so guns for everyone!!!
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
OK, let’s look at cars.
How well regulated are cars, exactly?
ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE THAN GUNS.
yes, please, NRA fuckwits, please please go on using the analogy to cars to try and “support” your “freedoms”.
pretty please?
evilDoug:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“People make their own ammunition all the time in this country, from the ground up.”
I think you’ll find that almost no one does that, if you are talking about pistol, shotgun or rifle cartridges.
It is easy to cast bullets. Making brass cartridge casing, other than by machining them out of solid brass, is virtually impossible for someone without some very large machinery. A few people will modify cases – “necking down” is a moderately common operation. Making primers is vastly beyond the capability of just about everyone. You can buy empty brass, bullets, primers and powder off the shelf. Reloading with those materials certainly is pretty popular.
~~~
“if you grew up with …” (or words to that effect)
I did grow up with guns, lots of guns, in the house. Guns that would NEVER be loaded in the house, under any circumstances. Guns kept put carefully away, out of sight. Guns that were NEVER pointed at a person. After he retired (and I was out on my own) my dad got fairly heavily into collecting certain makes of shotguns. Most of them he never fired, but he enjoyed and was very good at gunsmithing.
A few years ago he and I were driving in Washington or Oregon, and he noticed one of the signs informing what volunteer group was doing cleanup on that section of highway. It was the NRA. I didn’t hear exactly what his comment was, but it was very clearly contemptuous. But we’re Canadian.
Even as the paranoia of dementia set in and dad had delusions of people entering his house to cause mischief, his response was not to keep a loaded gun behind the door, but to decide it was time to get rid of all his guns.
My brother, at one time, owned some handguns. Handgun laws are extremely strict in Canada, and have been for many many decades. Even transporting one in your car requires that you go directly from home to a range. Stop for a coffee and a doughnut and you could find yourself arrested. About the only way you can get a carry permit in Canada is if you are at risk of being eaten on the job. Yet, somehow, my gun nut brother managed to deal perfectly well with those laws, and never once whined about lack of freedom.
bobo:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
the rightwingers are also comparing this tragedy to the incident in china where a knife wielding man injured 22 children
and they are saying ‘look, knives are just as dangerous!!!!!!!!!!’
but they are leaving out the part , or rather, oblivious to the part where,
in china, 22 INJURED
in newtown, 26 DEAD
lostintime:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Ugh, I’ve just been on the NRA site for the first time, and my god what a bunch of paranoid psychopaths. There are stories celebrating the ‘heroes’ Oliver North and Sarah Palin, how they thwarted treaties that restrict the global arms trade, oh and many charming anecdotes about how people with concealed guns ‘protected’ their families by firing at youths that they felt threatened by. Their youth outreach program also sickens me. Fuck the NRA.
bobo:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
someone on a liberal blog made this astute observation:
John Morales:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
[meta]
re tomh @554:
This may not be in the best of taste, but it’s not idiotic &mash; it’s a topical sardonic riff on Diderot’s famous* similar sentiment (“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”).
–
* Or infamous, depending on one’s stance.
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
thanks John; that was tickling my brain and I couldn’t quite recall what it was that made it sound so familiar.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Litigious bastard:
A good improvement on the nym.
****
Ichthyic:
Is that a Jaws, Deep Blue Sea, or Megashark…er…shark?
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 15th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
I wonder how bad a creationist gun rights site would look. Or is that what the NRA site is?
myeck waters:
December 15th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
You mean there isn’t already an Answers in Gunesis site? I’m shocked.
lostintime:
December 15th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
According to wikipedia, the NRA is often criticised by even more right-leaning gun organizations and libertarians who take a stricter view of the Second Amendment. So yeah, can the libertarians now kindly fuck off out of the atheist movement, you’re embarrasing us all.
hotshoe:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
And in other minor gun-news today,:
Gunman on the fifth floor of St Vincent’s Hospital (Birmingham, AL) shot and injured three before being killed by a police officer responding.
And two people were killed in Las Vegas at the Excaliber Hotel, the female victim at the concierge desk then the shooter who killed himself.
And four people were shot and wounded in Oakland (no other details at the moment).
And for the good news, a teenager in Bartlesville did NOT manage to kill any of his fellow students as he was arrested before he was able to take his guns to school.
hotshoe:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Trigger warning – images of little children with firearms
Video
Lyrics:
Maybe it’s the movies, maybe it’s the books
Maybe it’s the bullets, maybe it’s the real crooks
Maybe it’s the drugs, maybe it’s the parents
Maybe it’s the colors everybody’s wearin
Maybe it’s the President, maybe it’s the last one
Maybe it’s the one before that, what he done
Maybe it’s the high schools, maybe it’s the teachers
Maybe it’s the tattooed children in the bleachers
Maybe it’s the Bible, maybe it’s the lack
Maybe it’s the music, maybe it’s the crack
Maybe it’s the hairdos, maybe it’s the TV
Maybe it’s the cigarettes, maybe it’s the family
Maybe it’s the fast food, maybe it’s the news
Maybe it’s divorce, maybe it’s abuse
Maybe it’s the lawyers, maybe it’s the prisons
Maybe it’s the Senators, maybe it’s the system
Maybe it’s the fathers, maybe it’s the sons
Maybe it’s the sisters, maybe it’s the moms
Maybe it’s the radio, maybe it’s road rage
Maybe El Nino, or UV rays
Maybe it’s the army, maybe it’s the liquor
Maybe it’s the papers, maybe the militia
Maybe it’s the athletes, maybe it’s the ads
Maybe it’s the sports fans, maybe it’s a fad
Maybe it’s the magazines, maybe it’s the internet
Maybe it’s the lottery, maybe it’s the immigrants
Maybe it’s taxes, big business
Maybe it’s the KKK and the skinheads
Maybe it’s the communists, maybe it’s the Catholics
Maybe it’s the hippies, maybe it’s the addicts
Maybe it’s the art, maybe it’s the sex
Maybe it’s the homeless, maybe it’s the banks
Maybe it’s the clearcut, maybe it’s the ozone
Maybe it’s the chemicals, maybe it’s the car phones
Maybe it’s the fertilizer, maybe it’s the nose rings
Maybe it’s the end, but I know one thing.
If it were up to me, I’d take away the guns.
October 1, 1997
hotshoe:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Crap.
Didn’t get the video link in there.
Should be http://realneo.us/content/if-it-were-me-id-take-away-guns-cheryl-wheeler-song-and-lyrics-violance-media-0
evilDoug:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Just saw something on Canadian news: the killer’s mother has been described as a “survivalist”. Not sure what, if any, significance there is to that, other than she probably held the “they’re not getting my …, gotta get me some gunz”.
Haven’t we run across something akin to that up-thread somewhere?
John Morales:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
[OT]
evilDoug, I’ve actually met a couple of survivalists IRL, and in both cases I got the strong feeling that they were wishing for that happy day that civilisation would collapse and they would be vindicated and come into their glory.
Pteryxx:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Names of those killed have been confirmed and released.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/NATL-Names-of-Newtown-School-Shooting-Victims-Released-183648811.html
Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it!:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
:( :(
*lights 27 candles*
makeinu:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
@joed
As a US military service member, I hope you can see this, because I’m doing it as hard as I can. *flips joed the bird*
Ichthyic:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
it’s this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ichthyic/2863577741/
Standard female Carcharadon carcharias, about 5m long.
hotshoe:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Well, maybe you can see your way clear to lighting 28 candles.
26 victims at the school, plus mom Nancy Lanza – plus the shooter Adam Lanza – certainly not another victim, but still a body snuffed out by gun violence.
Poor sad families. I was horrified to read the list and hear myself thinking “at least none of them have the same last names, so probably no families have lost two children at once”. Oh if there were any way to make the burden lighter!
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Tune into John Heage on Sunday morning any week.
Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it!:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Yes, I agree, hotshoe.
Miscounted.
I wish that I had miscounted in the other direction.
Improbable Joe:
December 15th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Survivalists? Every single gun nut forum I’ve ever seen has a hugely popular section devoted to paranoid conspiracy anti-government “Red Dawn” fantasizing about one or another “end of the world as we know it” scenario. And those fantasies are the only way to explain their desire for more and more destructive weapons, higher and higher capacity magazines, and unlimited stockpiles of ammunition.
They can say sporting and hunting and target shooting and self-defense all day and late into the night, but they are fucking lying. What they mean is that they plan on killing a whole lot of people at the very moment that they believe they can get away with it, or when they decide it is necessary, or when they think they don’t have anything left to lose. They all of them WANT to commit violence, on a massive scale. Some of them have a higher trigger threshold than others, but the desire is the same.
Whatever bullshit rationalization they give for why they need more than a basic low-tech weapon with a small amount of ammo and why they oppose reasonable government regulation, the reality is that they are dreaming of mass murder.
Paul K:
December 15th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Shit. I need to go away from the computer now. I knew it already, and I guess the age shouldn’t matter, but I work in a school with kids just this age, and it does matter to me. Seeing all those sixes and sevens. Of course, the adults, too, but fuck.
Fuck!
submoron:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:20 am
And of course… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3M3aL8fCa4
“It’s the Atheists’ fault!”
ezraresnick:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:52 am
I’m also disturbed by seemingly innocuous claims like those of a Newtown clergyman:
I’ve written more about this type of (dangerous) false consolation here.
dianne:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:58 am
I was horrified to read the list and hear myself thinking “at least none of them have the same last names, so probably no families have lost two children at once”.
The children killed were all first graders. So unless there were twins in the same class, they probably won’t be from the same family.
dianne:
December 16th, 2012 at 11:01 am
About the only way you can get a carry permit in Canada is if you are at risk of being eaten on the job.
I love Canada.
anteprepro:
December 16th, 2012 at 11:44 am
That’s quite a knee-jerk right there. You could have objected in any number of ways, including that other tragedies and atrocities don’t make other tragedies and atrocities any less tragic or atrocious. But you decided to make your objection into an issue of personal offense due to personal identity/affiliation. So, do you actually deny that the U.S. military has caused a large number of civilian casualties, including children, such that your personal offense is due to the misperception that it is false? Or do your loyalties trump such petty concerns as worrying about the “collateral damage” that the United States has caused?
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 11:53 am
I’m a gun owner. I don’t hunt, but I enjoy recreational shooting. Specifically, shooting coke / beer cans, paper targets, old fence posts, or w/e I can see a bullet hit from w/e distance I’m shooting from. I’m not violent. I don’t want to go shoot anybody. I’m not power tripping. I’m not compensating for my penis size. I don’t think I’m “more manly” b/c I have guns. It’s just fun. Shooting a gun feels the same as shooting a basketball to me. I feel a surge, a rush when I hit the target. I take pride in my ability, or at least smile at the lucky shot and try to do it twice.
When I was 14 we had a foreign exchange student live my family for a year. She was from The Netherlands. I had a paintball gun, and I’ll never forget how she wouldn’t even touch it, much less fire it. This thing hardly looked like a real gun, and only used air power to throw a ball full of non-toxic paint at people. Yet she would have nothing to do with it. That level of fear or repulsion from guns stuck with me and I see a lot of it here. I just don’t get it. I grew up with guns, everybody I know owns them, and yet I don’t feel surrounded by insanity. My roommate has a .44 mag (the “Dirty Harry” gun) and I sleep fine every night.
If, by now, anyone is wondering what the hell my point is, it is I don’t want to lose something I enjoy doing b/c of a small number of nuts. I cock a skeptical eyebrow at all the people who don’t use guns being so quick to give up that right. It’s always easy to get rid of rights (and all the messiness they bring) when one doesn’t exercise them.
I know the US has 11000 gun murders a year. That’s a HUGE number. How many are from rampages with assault rifles, though? 100? Are so many of my fellow liberals willing to take away by force the thousands of assault rifle from thousands of law abiding citizens to save 100 lives? 10,000, sure, but 100? A lot of common good would be done if we did away with the also US-Peculiar 4th amendment. You’ve nothing to hide right?
Most of the murders are from cheap hand guns used in inner city crime. This problem is largely a problem of poor black men in cities who feel they have to join gangs to protect themselves from other gangs, and to be involved in drug traffic b/c that is the only way to make money. I don’t judge them b/c they are largely right. They have been failed and written off as failures by the society around them. Canada, alternatively, does not have a massive underclass of poor people who look different, have a different culture, have a history of abject slavery, and whose very humanity is look upon with indifference by their fellow citizens. Here are the stats: http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj#view=all
1/3 of killers are black (with another 1/3 unknown) and approx. half of all murder victims are black. Blacks are approx 1/8th of the total population. If we want to stop gun murders in this country, the best way to do it is to focus on the festering societal problems our (the US) country has.
Sorry if I rambled, these are sort of all my jumbled thoughts on the issue. I look forward to what this community (one I respect deeply) has to say as I continue to read the other posts on this topic across this site.
tomh:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
cotton wrote:
Are so many of my fellow liberals willing to take away by force the thousands of assault rifle from thousands of law abiding citizens to save 100 lives? 10,000, sure, but 100?
This reminds me of the argument the mayor of Lake City, FL, made, after local faith-healing deaths. He said, “It may be necessary for some babies to die to maintain our religious freedoms. It may be the price we have to pay; everything has a price.” In the same way, you’re perfectly willing to have hundreds of children die to maintain your freedom to shoot at beer cans with an assault rifle. Children always pay the price to maintain their elders’ precious freedoms.
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Yeah, those of us freaked by people honestly weighing their “right” to play with deadly weapons as more important than the deaths those weapons cause are the weird ones. *eyeroll*
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Besides, why focus only on deaths from mass shootings?
Gun control would also lower the numbers of idiots accidentally shooting themselves or worse – others, kids getting hold of unsecured weapons, assholes shooting their wives or girlfriends in rage, etc.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
cotton: before trusting reported *crime* stats, as opposed to say cause of death stats, consider the established bias in the criminal justice system towards disproportionately investigating and charging blacks with crimes. Plenty of gun deaths aren’t considered or charged as crimes thus don’t show up in crime stats. You even alluded to this:
But not the only number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gvunintentional
bobo:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
tomh said:
A Mississippi lawmaker basically said the same thing, about women dying from lack of access to abortion.
“Women may die but eh, we are doing the *moral* thing” he said (and I paraphrase).
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Couple more articles of personal experience that may as well go here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity/2012/12/16/guntimes-at-redneck-high/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/phoenixandolivebranch/2012/12/columbine-martyrs-and-growing-up-nra-at-the-end-of-the-world/
Jimmy_Blue:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Shorter cotton:
“I like shooting, so it’s OK if 100 people a year die in mass shootings.”
Arsehole.
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/12/westboro-to-picket-sandy-hook.html
No.Fucking.Shame
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Some photos and family statements about the victims:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting-victims/story?id=17984685
vaiyt:
December 16th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Well, if several tens of thousands of people have to die each years for my fun, then so be it.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Cotton:
Please go unjumble your thoughts and return with a more ethical stance on gun ownership.
Remember these points: you are not part of a well trained militia and your right to FUN is overridden by the right to life.
****
Trying to be calm here but cotton’s load of horseshit pisses me off. How does one develop a moral core that feels it’s more important to retain a trivial ‘right’ than it is to do everything in our power to stop gun violence?
bobo:
December 16th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ind-man-47-guns-arrested-school-threat-164928349.html
good thing copycat child-killing nuts can get lots of guns, right?
FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!
Rey Fox:
December 16th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Why in fuck’s name would you need an assault rifle to shoot Coke cans?
Gregory Greenwood:
December 16th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
cotton @ 591;
Consider what you are saying here – you are placing your enjoyment of firearm based recreation above the lives of other people. You talk about the deaths of a hundred people a year in rampage shootings as if it is nothing, a minor inconvenience that cannot be allowed to stand in the way of your hobby. And that leaves aside the fact that every victim of gun crime is a victim because of the easy availability of guns in the US – the deaths of every victim in the entire 11000 figure you quoted can be traced back directly to the out of control gun culture in the US.
Can you imagine how this sounds when someone else reads it? It goes beyond being merely selfish into the realms of dehumanising the victims of gun crime, since you seem to consider their lives less important that your entertainment. That is why people are reacting so negatively toward you.
Also;
Before making such blanket statements, you really should stop to consider the epidemic levels of systemic racism within the US justice system that are certainly skewing these statistics.
bobo:
December 16th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Change ‘my right to have fun with guns’
to ‘my right to have fun with dangerous and deadly chemicals’
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
December 16th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Fuck I’m crying.
You know, I have those fotos. The pictures of my children, the oldest one being not much younger than those kids, smiling those smiles, thinking those thoughts, being excited about the holidays, and now those kids are gone.
If somebody murdered my kids, I’d probably kill myself because how can you go on after that.
But I’m glad to see that there are more rational people around than me who know that it’s well worth their desire for guns….
anteprepro:
December 16th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Because freedom.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Sorry, Giliell. *offers anklehugs*
—
What I don’t get is why would YOU (generic ‘you’) need YOUR OWN assault rifle to shoot cans. If having it as a hobby is so danged important, have thick-walled gun ranges where you can rent and shoot big-ass guns under expert supervision, like laser tag and paintball and go-kart facilities. (And if that concept seems unpalatable because MY VERY OWN GUN then it’s not the hobby that’s really your issue, is it?)
dianne:
December 16th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
If somebody murdered my kids, I’d probably kill myself because how can you go on after that.
You’d find it in you to go on for the surviving child. I don’t see how it’s possible either, but I know you would.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 16th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Pteryxx @ 609;
The way the NRA tells it, such an arrangement would lead instantly to the spontaneous combustion of the Constitution, the fall of democracy in the US*, and the commencement of the invasion of the Lizard People from Alpha Centauri who will seize control of the now defenceless planet** and promtly outlaw guns ownership and all other ‘manly pursuits’, burn all the religious texts, and make heterosexual sex punishable by death***, all while herding humanity into processing camps where we will rendered down into LizardCorp Brand Homo Sapiens ape-burgers, the latest fast food craze to hit the galatic hyperspace ways…
Sadly, the actual NRA position doesn’t make much more sense than the above.
———————————————————————————————————————-
* And thus, naturally, everywhere else in the world, because without Uncle Sam guaranteeing freedom every other nation on the planet will inevitably descend into cannabalistic murder orgies, amiright?
** Because a species technologically capable of interstellar flight naturally has no answer to weapons that throw small pieces of lead at moderate velocities…
*** Because the evil space lizards are bound to be ‘militant homosexuals’, what with being evil and all, and would rather maintain the numbers of their newly aquired bipedal meat herd with unnatural lab based cloning and *gasp* same sex parentage. Because they are evil, and as every good far right wingnut knows science = evil, and same sex parentage makes teh baby jeebus cry.
evilDoug:
December 16th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
A comment at Charles Pierce’s blog at Esquire, which I probably shouldn’t repost verbatim here without permission, but I somehow doubt either Mr. Pierce or Mr. Weldon will mind:
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
@Cotton, 593:
So, why not just play basketball then?
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
December 16th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Pteryxx
Thanks, but not your fault.
I’ve been very glad that I had a very busy weekend so I didn’t get into this too much because damn, that’s close to home (there have been two horrible school shootings in Germany in the last 15 years, so it’s not like it couldn’t happen here*)
dianne
Yes, if one of them survived, probably.
But oh hell, I want to hug, hug, hug them.
And still we’ll part for many years to come and all three of us will enter schools.
You should be safe in schools.
+++
*After the first one they changed gun laws. No more semi-automatics. After the second one they convicted the father of the shooter, too. He hadn’t followed the laws and his weapons and ammunition could be accessed by his son.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
FREEZE PEACH!!
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 16th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Is this a trick question? You’re really willing to kill 100 people so a bunch of other people can (at best) get a thrill out of shooting coke cans?
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Well I don’t actually own an assault rifle, they are a bit out of my price range. Admittedly, though, I would probably enjoy shooting one. Why? For the same reason my buddy Chuck, an amateur racer when he was younger, tends to like Camaros and Mustangs more than SUV’s.
Only one poster addressed the source of the 11,000 gun murders a year in the US and they correctly pointed out that blacks are disproportionately focused on by the police. This is true, but I don’t think that argument, true as it is, is enough to deflect the brunt of my own. If the posters here want to stop gun violence and not just pick on one of their favorite targets (older, white, often southern / rural, gun owning, commonly conservative, men) then the focus should be on inner city gun violence. Why is there so much focus on the cause of 100 deaths (nutjobs in body armor and assault rifles) and not the the other 10,900?
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
With exquisite timing, Sikivu has something we need to hear:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskeptics/2012/12/16/nice-white-boys-next-door-and-mass-murder/
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Cotton, do you go for the rebound after you shoot a gun?
Jimmy_Blue:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Shorter cotton again:
“I still like shooting, so it’s still OK 100 people a year die in mass shootings. I don’t understand why 100 deaths is a problem to you people.”
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Because the movement to decriminalize drugs is not about lowering incidents of violence.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Also, funny thing, when interviewed after shootings in the inner city, many witnesses will say the same thing; that there is too many guns.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Jimmy Blue:
More cotton-”black people areresponsible for more gun related deaths so you people should focus on them”. Nothing racist in that line of thinking.
****
Cotton: many of us condemn ALL gun violence. We also do not limit our focus to JUST gun related deaths. Or haven’t you heard of gun related injuries?
I should probably stop holding my breath waiting for you to realize how horrific it is to value owning a gun over human lives.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Another telling thing about cotton– hir first post was a defense of gun ownership in a thread where many people expressed sorrow and grief. Following a tragedy like this, the most important thing to do is defend gun ownership???
How about some damn empathy for the family and friends who lost their loved ones? How can someone care so little for the lives of others?
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Alcohol kills people. Driving kills people. Driving will texting kills 600 people. Autoerotic asphyxiation kills 600 every year. Falling out of bed? 450. Vending machines slay 13. Dogs kill 34 every year in the US. Lets ban all of them. I mean, do you think we should allow dogs just b/c we ENJOY them? but people die!!! All so you can cuddle with your pooch!
In a country of 300 million people, and with as many problems as we have, do I think 100 people a year is a highly worrying number? No.
It also isn’t racist to point out where crime is. I’m not blaming black people or saying it is a result of a “violent race.” This country has failed them. My point here is clear. The US built that 12,000 figure from its greed, inhumanity, and indifference that have created an underclass of people who have no reasonable path to a successful life and know it. It is not hard to see how that untenable situation leads to violence.
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Er, you tell me. You’re the one focusing on them.
Jimmy_Blue:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Shorter cotton:
“People die from other stuff too and every death is absolutely equivalent no matter what the circumstances are. Therefore 100 deaths every year from mass shootings alone is fine with me, as long as I get to shoot coke cans. Why are you people so worried about 100 people dying again?”
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Cars are totally like guns. Have no use but to kill. In fact, both were designed specifically for killing. Right?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Some one is a dishonest and rather stupid shit.
Rey Fox:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Because freedom.
Oh right. I forgot about that for five seconds.
cotton: None of those things you just listed are designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill. Regardless of what inanimate targets you personally use them on, guns are designed to kill. Or at least maim.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Cotton,
OK, you like shooting. I get that. Hell, my wife likes shooting. She shoots a .38 black powder muzzle loader. It takes her about 1-2 minutes between shots. She has a blast shooting that thing, and I really don’t worry much that someone will steal it and gun down a kindergarten class.
So, here’s the thing. Yes, folks get killed by drivers who are texting–so they’ve banned texting while driving in most states. Yes, folks are killed by dogs–and now, the morons have banned pitbulls in several municipalities. If you like shooting, maybe it is time to take responsibility and figure out ways where you can still have fun and we don’t have to worry quite as much every time we send our kids off to school.
Maybe we could ban assault-type rifles. Maybe we could ban high capacity clips. Maybe we could have harsher penalties for gun owners who don’t take care of their damned guns (e.g. trigger locks, gun safes…). Because ultimately, I think if you go up against the moms of America, they’re gonna kick your pasty white, redneck ass.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Cotton, I want you to find one instance of a person committing an act of autoerotic asphyxiation that ends up killing twenty children, you know, one where principals and teachers are sacrificing themselves to the man committing autoerotic asphyxiation in order to try to protect children.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Because of the NRA, the CDC cannot even do research on gun injuries and gun safety.
Because guns are all about fun and fighting off government tyranny.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
who vote for Romney?
yeah, not so much worried about you clowns any more.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Cotton, because the manufacturers of firearms would not play into playing the “man card”.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Ok, I tried the civility.
COTTON:
You are a fuckwit.
You actually equated deaths caused by vending machines to deaths caused by guns? That’s a level of stupid I’m accustomed to from creobots.
Why the hell are you so dismissive of the lives lost to gun violence? Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, friends, lovers…REAL PEOPLE have lost their lives…their families have lost loved ones…you are a callous, insensitive idiot who cares more about a fucking gun than a human life. It’s like you cannot see past the numbers to the lives that have been snuffed out or devastated by this out of control gun culture.
Rey Fox:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
@609: Word.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
indeed.
and both of those are heavily regulated.
call me when they put a speed limit on bullets.
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Janine,
The article is fine, but parts made me laugh (not the funny kind):
While research in US should be done, and I understand the intention of the author, it is not true that the question is (almost) impossible to answer. If only US would realize that there exists all this world outside of US, a large part of which takes gun control seriously, the answers would be quite obvious .
Guns can be dangerous?! No shit.
(Sorry for nitpicking.)
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
sounds like you’re one of the 47% that voted for Mittens…
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
[X-posted from the Thunderdome, since this seems like the place where that discussion is going on]
I’m just going to leave this here because I’m incoherent with disgust and rage. A conservative friend of mine on facebook, in a discussion about gun policy, explicitly states that, while uncontrolled gun ownership will lead to both mass murders like the Sandy Hook massacre and the obscene murder and suicide rate in the United States, he values the right to own guns more than the utility of banning or controlling them. He states, correctly, that conservatism and liberalism are inherently at odds because of our respective conflicting values.*
I just can’t believe that anyone would say, out loud, that repeated incidents of dead schoolchildren are an acceptable trade off for the “right” to own machines designed solely for killing people without restriction. And this is not an ignorant yokel, he’s both a life-long urbanite and one of the most rawly intelligent people I’ve ever met.
*This is a paraphrase because the friend who started the discussion by posting the “wait until they’re buried” gambit and asked for people to justify their insensitive discussing gun control cowardly deleted the post after I pointed out that silence is as useful as praying.
lostintime:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Cotton:
You have disturbingly casual disdain towards the 11,000 people who are killed each year in the United States by gun violence, and your ‘argument’ against gun control is either disingenuous or willfully ignorant. 20 children between the ages of 5 and 7 have just been murdered, and all you can fucking talk about is your ‘right’ to own guns.
Claims about the safety of owning firearms ought to be resolved by factual evidence, not irrelevant anecdotes. You and your family are more likely to be killed or injured with guns in the house, so you should feel less safe.
Again, why the fuck do you think you have a right to own guns without a system that diligently controls their use and availability? Please explain why your negative liberty to be free from gub’mint control is more important than other people’s right not to live in a society that is scarred by out of control gun violence.
Only 100 people are killed by assault rifles each year? Good grief. So unless 10,000 people are killed by assault rifles then we have no reason for wanting them banned. You’re one sick fuck.
Gun violence disproportionately affects poor black and minority communities. What’s your point? All this demonstrates is that we should control handguns as well as a matter of urgency, it does not give you carte blanche to own any kind of lethal weapons that you want to get your hand on.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Beatrice, the article is specifically about how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was defunded from studying gun violence.
And this would be funny if it were not so deadly but the NRA and the rest of the right wingers in the US actively ignore the rest of the world, about how lack of access to weapons leads to a reduction of fire arms death.
While this is a minor point, we had one gun nut make the argument that a person murdered over twenty in a school in China with a knife when in truth, they were injured. This is typical.
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Nepenthe,
Unfortunately, we got people stating opinions like that here too. Cotton being the current one. I imagine you are even more upset to hear something like that coming from a friend.
Beatrice:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Janine,
Sorry for picking on the insignificant parts of the article.
The amount of power NRA has is certainly scary.
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I’m just going to let that sink in, because my head is still hurting from the idea that having fun shooting beer cans is worth dead people.
*Citation needed.
Yes, why don’t we take away all of the guns? Finally, you have an idea a decent, sensible person would have!
Wait, no, you mean cracking down black and brown people**, not guns. Fuck, you’re still a clueless shithead.
**Simply saying “society has failed them” does not suggest you want anything other than to make them the problem and make things even worse for them.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
seems like, especially in the US, opinions have now been upgraded to “values”.
maybe first thing, we should downgrade those back to opinions, so when we see those that really have no merit whatsoever we don’t get chided for making fun of them?
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
@Ichthyic
Eh, I dunno.
He values “freedom”, which means essentially no government and unbridled capitalism. I value human beings and reducing suffering. And this leads us to logic to our opinions “Dead children okay because freedom” and “Dead children not okay because suffering bad”
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
exactly, but one opinion has merit, and the other does not.
one is easily supportable, even within a specific worldview, the other is nothing but selfish chaos.
so it actually does work.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
again, cotton’s opinion:
should we upgrade that to a “value”?
no, I think we should be perfectly comfortable laughing at it as an opinion.
Amphiox:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Alcohol is controlled and regulated.
Driving is controlled and regulated.
Driving while texting is illegal.
There are standards, controls, and regulations pertaining to the construction of beds and bed components.
There are controls and regulations pertaining to the construction of vending machines, and the manner in which they must be installed and operated, to prevent things like tipping over and injuring and killing people.
Dogs are controlled and regulated.
Thank you, Cotton, for demonstrated unequivocably, through analogy, that gun control and regulation is a GOOD IDEA.
Thank you very much.
(And if reasonable controls and regulations could reduce gun violence deaths from 10 000 to 500? I would take that.)
opposablethumbs:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
And what the fuck is wrong with allowing single-shot guns only and confining them to secure, licensed gun-clubs anyway? You can refine your exquisite target-shooting skills all you want (I’ve done this a lot, and loved it) and you can shoot all the targets and tin cans you want – just don’t wander around the streets with automatics and semi-automatics in your car or about your person.
I honestly can’t believe people would put not just their fun but a mere detail of their fun ahead of people’s lives. If you want to shoot, do it in a bloody gun club where someone with proper safety training is there to make sure idiots don’t fuck around with tools designed specifically to kill.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
You’ve made that accusation twice Icthyic. It shows you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Pointing out failings of the US society towards our fellow black citizens is not, I assure you, a key concern of most Romney demographics.
Your earlier post that said you “don’t much care for them” shows that you share one of those Romney demographic traits I can’t stand: The desire to subjugate and defeat your political opponents. They must not only lose, they must be crushed. I admit I had my schadenfreude (Nov 6th was circled on my calendar at work as “Obama reelection day” and Nov 7th as “Gloat day”, as my fellow coworkers here in rural Mississippi tended to lean politically from me quite far). Having said that, I got it out of my system in about two weeks.
Some others said my comparisons were silly. Cars are necessary but guns are not. How are pets necessary? How is alcohol? Ask some of the victims of spouse / child abuse whose parents always reeked if they think the fun of alcohol has no darker side. Why don’t we ban cars that go over 80 mph? What POSSIBLE purpose do they have except reckless fun?
Fun can sometimes be reckless. Sports from high school up to the Olympics cannot be justified outside of fun. Neither can bungee jumping or parachute diving. Theme parks with their high flying rides kill a few every year and they have NO purpose but fun. How about Big Macs and fries? Is there any justification for that many calories (over 1k w/o drink) intended for one meal and one person? Of course not.
There has to be a balance. Am I willing to have a state that forcibly strips law abiding gun owners who have never done anything wrong of their property, much of which is cherished and handed down through generations, in order to save 100 people a year? No.
I want gun murders in the US to be far lower. For this to happen, this country must focus on why such a large portion of a minority feels that violence is inescapable in their communities. This isn’t as fun or easy as saying “let’s show those old white Romney voting men who runs this country!!!” This is the harder choice. It is where most of those 12,000 (up from 11,000 as research tells me) murders are. I am not selfish, or uncaring, or indifferent for saying lets focus our efforts on gun murders where 99% (11,900/12000) of those murders are.
I can’t help but believe that those who want to focus on the 0.8% of US gun murders have a self serving agenda of crushing a common political opponent instead of genuinely improving the situation.
carlie:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Fine. Let’s control ammunition instead, then. It can be sold and used only at shooting ranges for certain types of guns. For the limited number of types of guns approved for hunting, they can be sold in limited amounts with hunting licenses, the remainder turned back in for a partial refund after hunting season, and anyone caught with their own ammo (bought or homemade) outside of those restrictions gets, oh, a 10k or so fine. That way you can keep all the guns you want.
Seen on twitter: We can carry concealed handguns, but not openly carry axes. Why?
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Sorry for dropping my anecdote here without reading the thread first; I wouldn’t have if I’d realized that assholes have been saying the same shit over and over.
Jimmy_Blue:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Shorter cotton:
“I’m not the problem, you guys are, because everything I point out is exactly like the gun violence and gun control issues you’ve been talking about. How can you not see the similarities between owning a poodle and owning an AK-47? It’s just 100 deaths, what’s the problem?”
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
no, but assuming that there is an entire underclass that has given up, is. Should I quote what you said again?
“don’t much care for them”
while I don’t, I never said that.
do you feel crushed yet?
we don’t need to. see, there’s this thing called “speed limits”…
you said that shooting a gun was like shooting a basketball. Anyone ever die from shooting a basketball?
again, I ask you: if these two things are the SAME in your mind, why not just choose to shoot a basketball?
ooops, you might recall, or hell, not… that high calorie foods have indeed been regulated (soda size in NY for example)?
so, we can talk about that, but not guns?
yeah, that makes sense.
you wanna help, cotton?
here’s a tip:
you should NOT post comments to the interwebs about this topic.
that actually would help.
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Hunting rifles should really have three shots, minimum two, before one has to reload, in order to limit the suffering of a wounded animal (deer can move surprisingly fast with, for example, a broken leg). Plus, it’s probably safer to be able to take one’s prey within range of one’s stand than to have to wander after it for a couple of miles and be in range of other hunters. But I agree with the sentiment.
chigau (違う):
December 16th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
carlie #656
That sounds like a very sensible plan.
The ‘cold, dead hands’ thing wouldn’t work as well with ‘bullets’.
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Your reckless fun is worth more than other people’s lives?
Do you literally vomit when you spew this shit, or do you manage to hold your lunch in somehow?
Like having reasonable regulations and bans on guns?
What does “law-abiding” have to do with it? Is there never a first time someone commits a crime, or is it exactly the fucking opposite because there’s always a first time?
You just said you don’t give a fuck, because you like “reckless fun” and ramble your way through tons of fucking absurd analogies.
How about where 100% of gun murders are? Do you know where that is? Places with guns. That’s where gun murders happen.
This is such a blatant fucking lie.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
this got fubared:
no, but assuming that there is an entire underclass that has given up, is. Should I quote what you said again?
“don’t much care for them”
while I don’t, I never said that.
this is referring to two separate quotes.
should look like this:
no, but assuming that there is an entire underclass that has given up, is. Should I quote what you said again?
while I don’t, I never said that (which was in reference to romneyites, and was not intended as the response to the open ended question above it) .
btw… the answer to the open ended question of what cotton actually said is this:
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Amphiox: You have me dead to rights till the end: If gun control could get the problem from 10000 to 500, then its a success. But assault rifles are not 9500. They are less than 100.
I’m all for regulations. I have zero issue with making gun ownership a bit more arduous. It should be illegal to leave guns and ammo in the open and easy to access. Owners should be responsible for what their guns do, with very few and clear exceptions. If someone who is not licensed to own a gun has access to one, their actions should fall upon the one with access who was negligent. Also, anyone who wants to own a gun should have to go through some basic checks. Do they have a criminal record? A history of violence / anger issues? Those are some basics but as a gun owner I wouldn’t mind jumping through some hoops and losing a day or two if it would save lives.
The fact is there are a LOT of people who enjoy assault rifles and the overwhelming majority never do anything to anyone. They don’t understand why they are viewed with such scorn. They aren’t hurting anybody. According to the NRA 2.5 million AR pattern rifles have been sold in the US since 1986. How many have been used to murder? Vanishingly few.
Why is there no outcry here when another black man is gunned down in New Orleans, St. Louis, or Baltimore (1,2, and 3 on the murder / non-negligent manslaughter rankings respectively)? Take Sandy Hook and multiply by over 100. This is where the murders are! . When that young man grabs an automatic pistol, this is not the beginning of a problem. The problem began LONG before he grabbed a gun and shoots someone or gets shot himself. This is the tragic end of the failure in our society to care about all the people who make it up.
Again, I think many of you just don’t like gun owners. They are everything many of ya’ll are not and don’t like. They tend to be more racist, homophobic, anti-women, and they vote red. They are often the loudest and vitriolic in their disagreements with many liberals (a group I consider myself in, if ya’ll don’t rescind my card). Many of ya’ll don’t like them, and while I don’t doubt the care and concern shown for other human beings (my rough definition of a liberal) I think many of you are too quick to lay the blame at the feet of people ya’ll just can’t stand.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
just think cotton:
if you weren’t a gun owner, you wouldn’t have to jump though those hoops.
see?
so much easier being a basketball owner.
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
People want to focus on this because it just happened. And people want to focus on it because 28 people were killed by guns.
28.
People.
Died.
There are often other threads about other gun killings here. You imply that no one disagreeing with you cares about this. You are wrong. You are using other situations to minimise what actually happened.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Why focus on the 11,000 homicides and not the 18,000 or so suicides (plus a few hundred deaths from firearm accidents)? Oh right, because homicides are *crimes* and *crimes* can be blamed on that black minority and their culture. Well, one-third of the crimes anyway. Even by the WSJ stats you cited they’re not “most of”, liar. Here’s what you said at #593:
Speaking of those 18,000:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/chart-homicide-suicide-weapons-newtown
And while you’re pontificating about how “this country” has to focus on those people’s communities, recall that I cited Sikivu above (bolds mine):
Fancy that. Those brown people, who also are part of this country, care more about changing their culture than you do.
cotton’s actual quote from #655:
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
This is a prima facie evidence of oxymoronism at work, or cognitive dissonance. Either way, one unthinking fuckwitted idjit. Such contradictory statements are telling.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Sorry, misreadthe quoted material in #668. funny how gun nuts claim they are for more regulations, like you can’t buy a gun unless you behave with proper range safety controls at all times…OOPS, that’s correct, concealed carry is their RIGHT….So they can carry weapons with ammo in it in public, against all safety protocols…
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
This is of no fucking importance to the parents of dead children.
Their children are dead. Dead is forever. They do not get to see them grow up. They will live the rest of their lives as parents who children died. Every birthday, every christmas they will wonder what could have been. They will not “get over” this, and your casual reference to people being negligent over their murders is fucking insulting.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Icythic: Yes we have speed limits. We also have laws against shooting people. The entire point of control point is that those laws are not enough, we need to ban the guns before they are used to break said law. So…why not ban cars that go over 80 mph? You need a new argument.
Am I crushed yet? No, but not for want of trying.
Do any die from basketball? No, not w/o an underlying condition. Football though…lot of concussions I’m hearing about. We should probably ban it.
Lastly, I’ve never said nor implied that black people in this country have just given up. They haven’t. Many of them realize that the best way to make money given their situation is to sell drugs (a dangerous and violent industry). The fact that this is true is our failing as a country. I don’t blame them anymore than I blame poor women who resort to prostitution. They are all choosing the best of the shitty options they have.
consciousness razor: I get my 100, admittedly, from my ass. Fair enough. So to statistics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/us-mass-shootings-2012/
I count 86. I was close. Of those, I count 43 that involved rifles (assault or otherwise).
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
The consequence of someone playing football is not going end up with 20 murdered children.
You are a horrible person.
Let’s hope.
chigau (違う):
December 16th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
What if we just controlled the ammunition?
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Pterryx: I admit, I care more about homicide than suicide. Again, a young person putting their hands on a gun and pointing at their own head is the end of a problem, not the beginning. I also would be in favor of gun control keeping guns far away from young people who are prone to emotional swings. I don’t agree with guns just being “loose”. My dad did, and I played with guns as a kid. I’m lucky as hell I didn’t blow my head off or the heads of my friends. Lastly, the gun control many proposed here (lever / bolt guns, low capacity mags, etc etc) would do no good b/c at point blank range, even the most “nerfed” gun is still just as lethal.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
The fuckwit still doesn’t understand that gun violence is the problem, not just gun deaths.
Nor has he shown an ounce of empathy for the families devastated by this tragedy.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Chigau: Well assault rifles are really just rifles with accessories. Take a hunting rifle, add a bigger magazine and a pistol grip (faster target acquisition) and you have an assault rifle. They fire the same bullets.
http://molot.biz/product-e/vepr223-pioner.jpg
The difference between that and an AR15 (beyond cosmetics) is a pistol grip.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Tony: If it matters, I teared up reading the story as the news broke. I have a great deal of empathy, and I’m very sorry it happened. It pains me greatly as I process the unthinkably tragic effects of that day. However, as the owner of this blog said, saying that “now is not the time to talk about it” is bullshit. Well, OK lets talk about it.
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
More evidence you are a horrible person.
chigau (違う):
December 16th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
What if getting bullets was much more difficult?
Would that spoil the gun-owning fun?
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
No we don’t. We could ban cars that go over 80 mph. I don’t give a shit. The fact that we don’t right now says nothing at all. Like all of your stupid bullshit, cars are completely fucking irrelevant.
Those teachers and kids who just died? They didn’t get concussions, asshole.
Besides, sports are fucking regulated in all sorts of ways, and the whole fucking point of football isn’t killing shit, for fuck’s fucking sake.
I don’t give a fuck. Every fucking gun in the fucking country, no matter which fucking person owns it, should be regulated much more heavily. Some kinds of guns should be banned outright. That would be a start.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Says somebody who didn’t grow up without a father because of a young person’s momentary desperation while having a gun close at hand.
Thanks. Glad to know that was the end of my family’s problems.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Right… those poor, poor urban black people. *looks at stats* *looks at OP* Oh wait.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
To Caerie: That isn’t what I meant. I do not think that a problem was tidily wrapped up after your father (I presume) killed himself. It was the tragic finale of his problems, problems that had clearly been mounting long before that day. It was also the beginning of other problems, including the effects on those close to him. Your father should have had access to help, maybe even someone to bring it to him. I’m sorry he didn’t. Also, as a decent person, I wouldn’t go seeking those whose lives have been marked by gun violence to argue with. I don’t argue my pro-drugs / alcohol stance around those who have had their own lives marked by drug abuse for the same reason. I might be wrong, I might be right, but I would definitely be an asshole. The internet makes that exercise more difficult, and I’m sorry for any pain my words have caused you.
I’ve tried to approach this the “right way” but limited that to trying not to be a smart ass. I really hope I didn’t write something flippant or uncaring that mocks the pain you’ve encountered.
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
I really like how you’re wielding the menace of scary Black and Hispanic men with as a political talking point, as if Black and Hispanic communities were monolithic masses of human garbage just waiting for you to come in and save them from themselves, conveniently allowing you to ignore the myriad “accidental shootings” and murders committed by White people.
And by “like” I mean “am nauseated by”.
When I lived on the South Side of Chicago, this is what I looked at while waiting for the bus. It’s hard to keep one’s children safe when there’s no way to stem the flow of legally obtained weapons used in murders.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
and we have laws about running people over with cars.
so the fuck what?
I give up, you’re just an idiot.
I can haz bunny videos plz?
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
no, you didn’t imply you, you OUTRIGHT SAID IT, which is why I quoted you.
you’re pathetic.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
ROFLMAO
don’t be a parent.
ever.
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Well then, you have two options.
1. Stay inside and unplug your internet and try not to talk to anyone you don’t know really well already.
2. Shut the fuck up.
I have no strong opinions on which you choose.
myeck waters:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Although they didn’t use guns, and they weren’t all that young, I have lost two brothers-in-law to suicide in the past year.
So you can go fuck yourself. That was a horrible thing to say.
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Ichthyic, bunny videos aren’t really my style, but here is a baby penguin being tickled.
Ogvorbis: Exhausted and broken:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Wife and I feel much safer without a gun in the house. Always have.
If we had had a handgun, or any firearm, in the house when I decided to end my life about fifteen years ago, I’d be dead. Luckily, I got my stomach pumped and spent two weeks in a hospital. And survived. And have learned to live.
So, am I a problem that would have been over? Or am I alive because Wife and I do not want a gun in the house?
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
You clearly have.
I dont understand how you can claim to be a “decent” person with “a great deal of empathy” and manage to write such hurtful things yet appear to be unaware that you did.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Ichthyic:
Confusing the bloggers you are. PZs thread this is. He does banhammer. Chris does bunninnation.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
And once they’re dead, no more problem? Gah… Leaving aside what a horribly callous and shit thing you just said *cough* more of those troubled young people stay alive when guns aren’t around. Basically, guns contribute roughly as much to the suicide rate as *actually being suicidal* does.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
(pardon the attempted formatting here:)
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
I’ll make this as simple as I can. A disproportionate number of black people commit a large number of gun murders. This is as much an opinion as 2+2=4. Yes, it is very commonly used by racists to argue that black people are just violent by nature. While this is a VERY bad conclusion, it does not erase the need for an explanation that is NOT really really bad. I think its is something along the lines of: Being poor in the US sucks. Being black in the US sucks. Being poor and black in the US really sucks. What is yours? Whatever it is, solve that and you solve a LOT of gun murders.
In regards to cars: We have laws that say people cannot speed. Yet they do, and they die and kill others. A lot. Every day. We have laws that say people cannot shoot others. Yet they do, every day. If your argument is that we should ban guns b/c the laws are not helping, you have to also ban fast cars for the same reason or at least justify why not. Otherwise your argument has a hole.
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Well that’s too fucking bad, since you did.
Being poor and Black in the UK or Canada really sucks too, so I think your conclusion is slightly suspect.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Cotton:
Please stop talking. That hole gets deeper. You’re talking to some people who are poor and/or POCs. Take your pity and shove it.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Pteryx, read my above post to Caerie. I did not mean that.
Instead of talking about the true center of my argument, that assault rifles kill VERY few people, there seems to be a lot of effort to stick “racist” or “callous” to me. That would have the unintended (I’m sure) consequence of making my opinions easy to dismiss or even have banned. I must be a villainous evil cretin. It is simply impossible to NOT be and simply disagree on gun control.
Brass tacks, 12000 people are killed by guns every year. Approx 1% are rampage shootings. Half of those involve assault rifles. Tell me, why the focus on assault weapons? You would have to show that non-rampage shootings have a lot of assault rifles involved. I don’t think they do. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Well Sparky, you’re the one who rolled in molasses and then started saying callous, racist shit. You’re the one who’s made virtually all of the effort.
carlie:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
I’m sure the parents staring at wrapped Christmas presents they’ll never be able to give their children now are greatly comforted by hearing of your tears.
I will grant you a little more charity in interpretation and assume that what you meant was that a young person using a gun is the culmination of a lifetime of bad things happening to them, not that you meant the problem is over once they commit suicide. And yes, from that vantage point we have to do more to help people through their lifetimes, which is what a lot of us are talking about in other ways on other threads. But it ALSO helps to eliminate the proximal issue, which is access to easy ways to express anger violently against self and others.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
For the last time: we are concerned with firearms period. Gun (more accurately ‘firearm’) violence across the country. It is rampant. In the inner city. In the suburbs. Black. White. Hispanic. Gun violence affects all races. You keep trying to twist the conversation in your preferred direction.
Would I be happy with a ban on all guns (for civilians)? Yes.
Realistically, I will have to settle for stricter gun laws.
FFS it is easier to get a gun in some areas of the US than it is for a woman to get an abortion!!
Ogvorbis: Exhausted and broken:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
cotton:
Are assault rifles hunting rifles? Are they made for target shooting? Or are assault rifles designed to kill people? What do you suppose the ‘assault’ means in the term assault rifle if not to be used in a military assault to kill, or otherwise remove from the field, other human beings.
Ichthyic:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
damn, that is one happy penguin.
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Complete fucking dishonesty.
This is concealing the point that most gun murders are not committed by black people. Meanwhile, most murders are committed with guns. So when you have a problem with murder, especially those which involve guns and not especially those which involve black people, then DO NOT FUCKING TREAT BLACK PEOPLE AS IF THEY WERE THE PROBLEM.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Tony, that’s a bit fair. A lot of people focus on assault weapons, so I did too. You don’t and so I can see the apparent dodge.
If there were no guns (or super low numbers) then yah, that would put a big dent in gun murders. But how do you do actually implement that? Civil liberties take a hit. If you say it is worth it, at least you are willing to bite the bullet (so to speak) and I can’t even accuse you of being inconsistent, much less wrong. A lot of people enjoy owning guns, it is a way of life for them, and they were handed down through generations, but that’s just too damn bad. Ok.
BTW, would you also be in favor of a national public register of all who had AIDS? With forced testing every few years for all citizens? In the time it takes to put on a condom a quick click on an app and you could see if your potential partner had AIDS and when they were last tested. There would be a HUGE increase in the number of people that knew their HIV status, and we would save lives as well as a lot of money on AIDS treatment. Helluva bullet to bite though.
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
What the fuck?
You are an arsehole.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
cotton, your guns – excuse me, your HOBBY – is not your bodily autonomy.
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Fuck you. Just shut the fuck up and leave. Do not come back, unless someone finds a cure for chronic shitheadedness.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
What the fuck? I don’t even have words.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
I do not consider owning a gun to be a fundamental right of all humans. It is not essential. Food. Water. Shelter. Those are essential. The costs of gun ownership FAR exceeds any pleasure they grant people. Yes, I believe with the situation as it is in this country, I have no problem making them illegal. If things were different…if people didn’t commit suicide with guns…if homicides weren’t so frequent…if tragedies like 18 dead children and 9 adults didn’t occur, then sure let every person who wants a gun be able to have one. But gun possession is a luxury that is killing people.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Cotton:
There is a huge difference between violating personal autonomy by forcing people to register their status and eliminating a non essential luxury.
That comment was the last straw. I have nothing left to say to you. I am disgusted that you would make such a comparison.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
…It really is a penis substitute. Damn, and here I thought that was just a stereotype.
carlie:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Obviously you’re ignoring my suggestion about ammunition control. Ok.
You know what there is a national register for? People who use schedule IV controlled substances. Because that shit is heavily regulated. Why? Because those chemicals are so dangerous to people who use them. Do you favor eliminating all laws and regulations for everything that can cause damage to people? If not, why do you personally draw the line at guns?
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Facts not in evidence.
Please don’t fuck off; it would make me sad for you to experience pleasure right now. Just go away.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Worst fucking analogy / comparison ever.
Please go lock yourself in a closet and think about what you’ve said.
chigau (違う):
December 16th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
I am over-tired but that AIDS remark makes me want to send an alert.
Opinions?
carlie:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
chigau – I can’t tell yet if that was malice or just abject stupidity. A few more comments ought to clear it up. So, cotton, let’s play a quick game of “one of these things is not like the others”. Do you have any comprehension as to why the analogies you’re using are inappropriate?
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
I went to play Set, myself.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
The people who have been telling me to fuck off for the last few hours have suddenly have fainted. This precludes them from presenting a consistent view on saving human lives vs. the rights of citizens and where they “draw the line”. Damn.
Well, to Carlie: What specifically do you have in mind? The devil is in the details.
Also I do NOT think there should be a registry for users of Schedule IV drugs. The drug war is one of the worst examples of government legislation ever. I do think the government should offer help to those who are trapped in drug abuse while leaving alone those that use it w/o suffering addiction. The specifics of that assistance should be planned with compassion as the guiding principle, not disgust.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
Chigau
No
Ogvorbis: Exhausted and broken:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
chigau:
Well, cotton has hit the trifecta: US blacks, those suffering with mental illness, and those who have AIDs. Impressive. And (in my useless opinion) worthy of an alert.
Rodney Nelson:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Thanks, Cotton, for showing that no argument is too vile for a gun nut to use. Now go cuddle your penis substitutes and feel you’ve done your bit to make murdering children easier to commit.
Rey Fox:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Well, in the meantime, why don’t we put some real control on all the guns flowing through these underserved communities and at least make sure that fewer people die in gun violence while we address the bigger problems in the system? Maybe make it so that there aren’t so many suicides and accidental gun deaths and domestic shootings as well? (note how I haven’t even mentioned spree shootings outside these parentheses) Oh right, because then you wouldn’t be able to empty a cartridge into a Coke can.
carlie:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
It’s right up there, #656.
chigau (違う):
December 16th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Just to make it easier:
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Well the racism accusations won’t go away so lets talk about it.
I don’t blame any of those groups for anything. I pointed out that they are in terrible positions, relative to the mainstream. Maybe I’m wrong, though. Please, in all seriousness, tell me what the explanation is? Maybe you don’t know and you think I don’t either, fair enough.
I live in the south and I see every day the effects of indifference (the son of outright racism) in the populace around me. Whites send their children to the private schools, that way they don’t have to care about the failing public ones. Whites flee from the inner cities so they don’t have to care about those that can’t afford to flee with them. Whites go to churches that are full of other white people so they don’t have to feel uncomfortable at how their problems are petty when seen in relief compared the problems of their fellow black citizens. They don’t make black friends and they tell their children to avoid befriending them lest they be forced to socialize or be ostracized by white society. I didn’t read about this, it is how I was raised in rural Mississippi and the world I grew up in. I think, to sum up, this has REALLY bad effects on people. It corrodes the souls of whites, and it impoverishes blacks. One leads to callous indifference, the other a trapped life.
I’ve been trying to undo that legacy in my own heart since I became an older teenager and first saw beyond the bubble that I grew up in. I have worked and continue to work on this. The same is true for homophobia and women. I thought, to put it charitably, less than progressive for many years of my life. Fixing these things is difficult and dealing with regrets is hard. If you were raised more progressively, I hope you appreciate it. It has been as painful as it was necessary for my development as a human being and I take accusations of victim-blaming and hatred very seriously.
I wrote this a bit more emotionally than everything else, sorry if it rambles / doesn’t read easy.
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Last time I checked, most people don’t go to the AIDS Show™ to buy their AIDS without needing to get a background check, you stupid fucking asshole. You know why? Because you’ve completely lost touch with fucking reality.
Nepenthe:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
[OT]
Pteryxx, you play Set!? Ever want to have a match via interwebs? No one I know will play Set with me and it is sadness-making.
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Yes, tell us more about the poor soulless blacks. But do that after you learn how to do math and stop lying about what the statistics are.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
The poor soulless blacks with their culture of violence, who overwhelmingly support gun control.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
chigau: he is an insensitive, unthinking, callous, self absorbed asshole. I don’t think that is quite alert worthy, but I wouldn’t shed a tear if he were kicked out either. Oh and he is dense to think people have no argument when we’ve been arguing that gun ownership never trumps human life. Shoot, I forgot he’s also fuckwitted enough to compare violating personal autonomy (an actual fundamental human right) with taking away his toys (not a fundamental right).
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
You should write an an autobiography.
And maybe someone could make a movie out of it.
cotton:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Well I do have to go. I’ll come back tomorrow to see if I got banned or if there is anything left to say. I’ll answer Carlie before I do.
There is a LOT of ammo out there right now. Still, I guess it would eventually run out / corrode after 50 years.
You also realize that would financially crush people (like bankrupt them) if they kept a 10 round magazine that they forgot about. They’d have to prove it was an accident, I guess. Still, eventually you’d get your wish. Its VERY restrictive though (the only way to do it successfully) and so my response is the same as the one to Tony. You basically really piss a lot of people off and take away something very important to them for the good of all.
chigau (違う):
December 16th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
I read cotton’s #726 as sincere.
But that is so far outside my personal experience, I cannot grok it.
I won’t alert at this time (despite that AIDS stupidity).
[I just know I will run afoul of cross-posting and late-refresh]
carlie:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
I don’t mind pissing a lot of people off, and how is ammunition “very important to them”? Just for a little perspective, here’s another story out of Newton: Six year old was the sole survivor of her class because she played dead.
Let me be very clear: I am more than happy to piss off every single person in this country by telling them no, they can’t have every dangerous toy they want to have, if it would keep one child from having to play dead in a classroom, covered with her classmates’ blood, and then live with that for the rest of her life.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
chigau:
I read it as sincere too. Not sure why. I may pop back in tomorrow to try talking with him again. Still pissed at most of the shit he said.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Me?
I second EVERYTHING carlie said @735.
Alethea H. "Crocoduck" Kuiper-Belt:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
While “my fun is more important than dead children” is indeed disgusting, it’s also not even relevant. Sensible gun control does not actually stop people having “fun with guns”.
Not long ago I went to a local gun range and fired a muzzle loading flintlock, in company with a bunch of re-enactors in hand-made 18th century uniforms. It was fun. I think the other people there from the various gun clubs – safely practicing target shooting, whether in costume or not – were also having fun. Gun control means that guns are registered, and background checks are required, and there are safety regulations, and not every possible type of gun is available to everyone.
consciousness razor:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
But you see, it’s like football. That six year old signed up for it at the beginning of the season. She and all the other victims knew they were putting themselves at risk by deciding to be alive in this fucking country with shitheads like cotton. Yet they take that risk, because it’s “fun.”
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
From carlie’s link
Divine intervention however failed every other dead child and their family.
Sorry for the derail but this shit makes me burn with rage.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
carlie:
From your link:
God’s grace?
I cannot say fuck you to this pastor enough.
chigau (違う):
December 16th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Now I am over-tired and tipsy and I actually want to damage everyone who says that this one person survived by the grace™ of god™.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Regarding the news story that carlie linked to at #735.
God could not stop the murder of children but took the effort to save one. Of course, the pastor is not going to stop to figure out the flaw in his thinking.
I guess it is too mysterious.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
I am afraid we atheists are too touchy.
Koshka:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Of course the dead children get to flitter off to heaven where they can hang out with their dead grandmother they never met in their short life.
carlie:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Yeah, that part really bothered me too.
First off, anyone who has ammo lying around they don’t know about isn’t responsible enough to have guns in the first place.
Second, there’s no way we’d ever have enough law enforcement to make it a primary offense with house by house searches, nor would that be very effective – what it would do is remove the majority of ammunition from circulation, and would help create a cultural shift whereby people stockpiling guns and ammo and shooting it off in the woods for fun are thought of as dangerous lawbreaking assholes rather than thinking of them as Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Seriously, under religious teachings, do humans get any credit for the things we do?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
A simple answer, Tony.
No.
Pteryxx:
December 16th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Another thoughtful essay from Phoenix and Olive Branch: Guns are said to be an equalizer, but are they really?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/phoenixandolivebranch/2012/12/guns-an-equalizer/
John Morales:
December 17th, 2012 at 4:57 am
In Australian news, via the national broadcaster: Obama flags gun law reform at Newtown vigil.
PZ Myers:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:31 am
I’m trying very hard to imagine a situation in which I would have a “10 round magazine” for a deadly weapon lying around so casually that I would forget that I had it. I can’t quite do it.
But then, our problem is that we’ve got a lot of assholes like cotton living in this country who have that little respect for dangerous weapons.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:39 am
My privilege as a chemist might come across here, but I think this is silly. I made thermite and explosive powders when I was 10-11 range. I’ve made smokeless powder of a quality reasonable enough to reload ammunition and I’ve reloaded ammunition. Machining a brass casing is relatively easy. I’ve never made primer though, so I don’t know how difficult that is, but I doubt it is much more complicate than lead styphnate. While more complicated than smokeless powders, anybody smart enough to moonshine could probably figure it out. Basic point: ammunition is not that hard to make. Trying to control ammunition begs analogy to trying to control opiates.
So if you try and control ammunition, how much control? No person can have more than 30 rounds? That’s still enough to cause a massacre. No person can have more than 5 rounds? That’s crazy restrictive, especially in the more rural regions where hunting is important and the law is actually far away. Are you going to require people in rural Montana to pay to using shooting ranges to practice their aim rather than plinking on their own land? Do you make people return their casings? What if somebody went hunting and lost a casing, what do you charge them with?
Guns are easier to control because they are big and complicated. I have relatively good machining skills and it would probably be a major project for me to machine a revolver, much less a self-loading receiver. I’d need specialized tools and specialized stock metal. The tools necessary to machine a firearm are also relatively easy to regulate because they are big and expensive. So while ammunition control sounds like a nice idea, and it makes a damn good comedy routine, it doesn’t seem like functional policy to me.
Marcus Hill (mysterious and nefarious):
December 17th, 2012 at 7:43 am
The most cogent response to the unspeakable pieces of shit who think the proper response to firearms murders is to arm more people is the one seen in the Daily Mash.
Ichthyic:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
yup, most definitely.
repacking casings is easy; you can buy the kits. making your OWN powder and stuff?
no.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
…but I did that when I was like 14! The components can be bought at a combination of the hardware store, grocery store, and home and garden store! You don’t even need beakers and flasks. Hell, it was easier to make smokeless powder than it was to properly distill ethanol… which I never did outside the lab because that would be illegal.
Ichthyic:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
YOU did that.
…and then got into chemistry, right?
hell man, I was doing research on fish when I was a teenager too, and then became a marine biologist.
strangely, I don’t expect to find most of the general populace keen on know what the difference between euryhaline and stenohaline is.
I’ve met a lot of people who repack cartridges, and even then they consider it going “above and beyond” for their “hobby”, but I can only recall ONE person who ever even attempted to make their own, and they never did it again.
I think you overestimate how many would bother, frankly, even if it WAS hard to get ammo.
vaiyt:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
This, I believe, is very important.
If someone already has a gun pointed at you, your chances of drawing your own weapon and shooting back before you’re shot yourself are vanishingly small. Who is more likely to draw first? The criminals, the violent and the paranoid. If Colt made men equal, then the more murderous among us are more equal than the rest.
In a case where two people have guns, they are likely to escalate conflict, rather than defuse it. It’s simple: one person waves a gun to show they can defend themselves. The other person, imbued with the same mentality, does the same because they’re getting a gun waved at them. Then it goes down to who feels more justified to respond with lethal force to a threat of lethal force.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
There are people who distill moonshine rather than pay liquor tax, and that’s pretty tough to do correctly. A lot of people do it poorly two, and then they go blind which is funny in a morbid kind of way (hint: discard the first fraction, it’s methanol). And that’s to avoid paying a few percent tax.
In order to make ammunition restrictions worthwhile in terms of preventing massacres they’d need to be fairly draconian. As in nobody can have more than 5-10 rounds of ammo. With this country’s spirit and that kind of restriction, homebrew ammo would become a thing. And if you let people have more rounds than that, like 20-100 rounds the restriction becomes pointless. A lot of death is contained in 20 rounds.
I’m still a bigger fan of restricting who can have firearms than restricting what kind of firearm they can have. And besides which SCOTUS has said that while the government has an interest and power to regulate firearms, it is beyond the power of the government to regulate handguns out of existence (See the D.C. handgun case). Hell, they decided on 10th amendment grounds that forcing the states to require background checks to purchase firearms is beyond the power of the federal government. Unless the 2nd amendment is amended away or this supreme court flat out reverses their record, firearm ownership is a explicitly protected right.
I still think the best thing we can do is require a training program, like for motor vehicles, in order to own firearms that includes a psychiatric analysis and background check. Along with that, require periodic updates to maintain the license just like with motor vehicles. As a compromise the government should be compelled to grant licenses to any and all persons who pass the requirements, just like with motor vehicles. That way the law as written is a clear regulation of the militia and could be argued to fall well within the powers granted to the federal government by the second amendment, thus avoiding the 10th amendment challenge.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
And I can’t believe I made the two-too-to typo. I feel like a 4-year old… scratch that 4-year olds are smarter.
chigau (違う):
December 17th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
dobbshead has a point, though.
If ammo was heavily restricted, a black market would be inevitable.
lostintime:
December 17th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
I’m still so angry about what’s happened, and now the news that one six-year-old survived by pretending to be dead is too horrible for words. I also think the fact that Penn Jillette (rabid libertarian) is being given pride of place on Richard Dawkin’s website at the moment is disgraceful. For anyone who’s still not clear on the issue, Think Progress has posted some excellent articles about gun control in the last few days.
cotton:
December 17th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Well it sucks to be a fan of someone for years and be called an asshole. It must be really nice to be able to surround ones self with those that agree within the 95% range, instead of the mere 90%. Then again I’m not a liberal b/c I like to be patted on the head.
To respond to PZ: I know exactly where every one of my bullets are. A lot of people don’t b/c they don’t view guns with repulsion. They grew up with them. The idea of using them violently and with murderous intent doesn’t cross their minds. To them, shocking though it may be, misplacing bullets would be like misplacing tennis balls. Dumb, naive, and dangerous? Sure, but do you really want to bankrupt what would inevitably be hundreds of families b/c of a dumb mistake?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Cotton, your love of guns makes you such an iconoclast.
consciousness razor:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
I have no idea why bankruptcy is supposed to enter the picture. Is it because there would be a fine if people broke the law?
Ichthyic:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Most people would take that as a sign they might want to critically examine what they’ve been saying.
…but NOT ICONOCLAST COTTON!
no sirree bob!
Cotton’s literally gonna stick to his guns!
Phhht.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
The dump mistake is thinking that gun “protect”. They are offensive weapons that kill people, mostly those they don’t intend to kill. Think about that before your next bout of ignorant sloganism….
cotton:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Meh, I don’t see much point posting when I agree with everyone. Who here likes universal healthcare and wished for a single payer system?
I argue b/c it’s one of the best ways I know to promote growth. I have ideas but if I don’t test them out beyond my own head, then it will get quite stagnant up there. Often I just find people around me to argue with but this is one of the rarer cases where most of the people around me agree with me. Maybe I should spend more time here agreeing with all the stuff I agree with in order to build up some cred.
It is a bit weak to spend so much time trying to psychoanalyze me. I never meant that a suicide (gun or otherwise) “tidies” up the messy problem of a depressed human being, but I was accused of it. I never blamed ANY group for the problems and (unfair) challenges they face, yet I was accused of racism and homophobia. Now I’m some pathetic egotist who needs to be admired as an iconoclast. I, brave thinker, am the only one who can fight against the tide of groupthink!
Also, don’t think I’m not critically examining what I’ve said. I honestly can’t justify high capacity magazines. I’m skeptical if making them illegal would actually work, but morally I can’t back them. They are the one firearms “upgrade” that makes mass killings so much easier and they have such little value beyond their purpose. If that last bit is confusing, many people (including myself) see art, history, and science in fire arms. Nobody views magazines beyond their practical purpose of holding bullets.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Cotton, the few posts I’ve read of yours are reasonably written. I don’t think you deserve the scorn people are heaping on you. I actually agree with you about the art of firearm design. I see something elegant and beautiful int the simplicity with which many of the technical problems facing firearms were solved. The self loading design of the M1911, early as it was in the history of firearms, is really cool. I kind of want one. I’d also like a Ruger Mini 14 and an Springfield for their historic roles and target practice. But I live in NYC, so firearm ownership is impractical.
There are even strong historical arguments that firearms had a strong role in democratization in European cultures, and it definitely had a strong role in many revolutions. There is some merit in the concern that remove the power to control lethal force from the people will enable those same people to be more easily oppressed should the tide of power shift to the more fascist among us. But this is an argument that the current context will change for the worse in the future and that we will be better off if we are armed. While I have some sympathy for this argument, I’ve never seen it really well fleshed out and it wouldn’t be too hard to address in a rational gun control scheme.
That all being said, gun control in the modern context has a really strong argument: lots of people die using firearms and we don’t seem to get much by having them right now. I get frustrated by the lack of knowledge display in some gun control legislation. For example, the assault weapon ban did a lot to ban scary looking black guns, but repackage the same receiver and magazine in a wood finish and bam it’s legal! Things like the Brady act are better in concept, if not execution (by this I mean that the fed can’t force states to do background checks ::facepalm::).
I want 1) background checks, 2) psychiatric evaluation, 3) firearm training required for firearm ownership. Permits should then be given without arbitrary withholding (like they do in New York). A national gun registry would also be nice, but baby steps. Also, we should increase civil and criminal penalties for negligent discharges and mandate immediate reporting of all lost and stolen firearms (but don’t penalize losing a firearm unless clear black-market trading is happening, reporting is more important). If you need to be trained to to own a firearm there should be consequences for screwing it up.
Pteryxx:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
am I the only one that read most of cotton’s post in the voice of the Skeksis chamberlain?
JAL: Snark, Sarcasm & Bitterness:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Asshole, read the whole thread. This has been discussed already and IT ISN’T ENOUGH. It wouldn’t do a fucking thing to help.
This specifically was brought up when the fact the shooter got the guns from his mother came up.
Fucking A.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Oh, hello there. Nice to meet you too! Did it ever occur to you that I did read the thread? You may have noticed, that when I have had time to post, that the other proposals are so well and beyond constitutional that there is no way they are anything more than grandstanding. Gun bans are just that, granstanding.
I’d rather have real reforms that take real steps, even if they are small. There is a culture shift that needs to happen. That starts with licensing and a gun registry.
But no, I’m an asshole. Fuck you.
Ichthyic:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
and genocides.
and imperialism.
Ichthyic:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
not based on your post.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Gee, not one citation to the academic literature to back up anything you said. Prima facie evidence for lack of critical examination. You avoid anything that might show your slogans are wrong…
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
You’re almost there. Once you acknowledge your position has no basis in reality versus slogans/presuppositions, then you might show lack of asshole posting.
Koshka:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
And they made the trains run on time.
Koshka:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
You come to a thread about a school shooting massacre and mentally masturbate about guns.
You are an asshole.
atcggcta:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
The debate over gun control laws will be irrelevant in the near future when kids can download CAD files and make a gun at home on a 3D printer while their parents are at work.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
And I went on to make a case for gun control. It’s nice to cherry pick. A person can both find beauty in an object and be horrified by its use.
The only position you can possibly mean is that banning guns in unconstitutional, otherwise you’d be talking about either a personal opinion (guns have aesthetic qualities) or an idea that mostly matches the culture here (gun control is good and this tragedy should be used to advance gun control). If I missed something, please be specific.
The supreme court has found that the 2nd amendment contains within it a right to firearm ownership (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). This also made it beyond the power of government to force firearms to be kept disassembled and locked. This is the current supreme court, not the supreme court a few hundred years ago. Attempting to do similar bans in the United States is an exercise in futility.
Furthermore, the section of the Brady act that requires states to run background checks was also struck down by the supreme court of the US (Mack and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). This means any regulation that is passed on firearms cannot compel the states in the same manner as the Brady act and expect to survive.
I’m horrified by this insane massacre and I want to see some sort of gun control legislation happen, but I don’t want it to be some showboat legislation that just gets struck down. With nearly half of the US population owning firearms, I don’t expect a second amendment alteration to pass either senate or house. Or even if it is, I doubt the states would ratify it.
And I also remember the sheer number of people who are killed by firearms here each year. Even if we say that the 60% or so that use firearms to commit suicide would have managed anyway, that still leaves roughly 15,000 people killed (source earlier in this thread, find it yourself). Many of those deaths are opportunistic crimes of passion and, although I have no data, I’d be willing to bet that many firearm owners are casual owners. If a small barrier were put before them, like a firearm safety course and a licensing exam, would not bother owning a firearm. If that is true, even a small barrier would reduce the rate of gun ownership.
Maybe the sick fuck who killed all those kids would not have had easy access to a gun because his mother wouldn’t have bothered to get one. Maybe he’d have done like Breivik and killed a bunch of people anyway.
But what do I know? I find guns aesthetically pleasing so I must be a horrible person.
vaiyt:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
What an iconoclast you are, defending guns in America. Go you, I guess.
If they hate guns – WHY DON’T FUCKING GET RID OF THEM? Misplaced bullet problem solved! POOF!
…
Hey, you fucking heartless piece of shit asshole, point your sexual organs away from us when masturbating over guns. This is a thread about people who were shot. Don’t you have a shred of shame?
vaiyt:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Please lecture us on the beauty of racial eugenics.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Nice strawman and Godwin, two for one.
Koshka:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Cherry picking? I will quote your entire paragraph I was referring to.
This is not you qualifying that you are interested in guns. This is you gushing over them. If you cannot see how this can be considered inappropriate in a post specifically about children getting murdered with guns then you are an asshole.
2 paragraphs telling us how wonderful guns are and 2 paragraphs about gun control. Tell me how misunderstood you are.
The post suggests that some idiot will propose arming all 7 year olds.
You win – You suggest that if there was more gun control this guy could have killed more people. Again – you are an asshole.
Please refer to where someone has called you a horrible person for finding guns aesthetically pleasing.
Asshole.
cotton:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Hey Dobbs, I long ago decided not to answer some of the wild crap here. I’m sure Koshka’s low bar for assholism means its pretty tough for him to get out of the bed in the morning and face a daily commute. In a thread specifically about gun control we are raving assholes for talking about gun control.
I agree with a lot of what you said. I don’t mind a very high bar to owning a gun in the first place, and a very high level of responsibility in keeping one. There is no point to having the first part if after a person is trusted with firearm ownership they allow access to those that have not cleared that bar.
A ban on the manufacture (or even ownership) of 30 round mags might help in the future. There are so many of them out there, though, I don’t see that taking effect for a while.
A key problem bugging me is that gun owners and liberals are, generally speaking, VERY different groups that have little in common. So, its pretty easy to dismiss their points of view. It’s not like they will be burning bridges they care about. There are a LOT of good people out there who just enjoy owning guns and shooting them who do not have some fundamental flaw.
Anthony K:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
From a public health standpoint, if at that point regulations have already reduced the appeal of guns and their prevalence in, say American culture, then that eventuality is moot.
Consider smoking bans in public places. They have myriad intents, but they correlate with reductions of smoking uptake in younger generations. Of course, they operated in conjunction with advertising bans and increased prices (at least here in Canada). Behaviors are interrelated. Access and interest both influence.
There aren’t ‘magic bullet’ interventions: there are a variety of interventions that target various components of the population. To insist on complete efficacy from any one intervention displays a poor understanding of the forces that influence populations and absolutist thinking at its worst.
Pteryxx:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
There are a lot of good people out there who also happen to be Christian, or Catholic, and some of them are so enamored of their religion that they’re blinded to the abuses it propagates. However, nobody picks up their religiosity and blows holes in another person with it.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Your critical reading skills could use some work, asshat. I was suggesting that crazy fucktards will do crazy fucktard shit, gun control be damned. That’s not an argument against gun control.
That has to be true, given the stats in this thread alone. There are a lot of guns in the US, most of them aren’t used badly. This tragedy is a perfect opportunity to get those gun owners to embrace gun control. What reasonable person thinks their right to own guns is worth thousands of people getting shot? (Well a few, apparently But this this shit? I mean, those and god damn children!)
The regulations on gun ownership are coming. I just want them to 1) work and 2) survive the inevitable court challenges. The reflexive hatred of anybody to expresses a minutia interest in guns is silly. The call to ban firearms is worse: it won’t survive the courts and will waste the mandate to fix the problem. It’s stupid.
consciousness razor:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Fixed.
Koshka:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
cotton,
Yes people everywhere are acting like assholes. I try to call them out when I can. Pharyngula has encouraged me to do this. I act like an asshole sometimes and people should feel free to call me out. It has happened here and it gave me the shits at first but then I stopped and though about it. Then I apologised.
Tell me, do you think it is appropriate to gush all over guns like dobbshead did on a post about people being murdered by guns? Here it is again. Please excuse my ‘cherry picking’.
You will notice that this wank was instigated by your
I did not take exception to your comment. Dobbshead however is way over the top on a post about PEOPLE BEING MURDERED WITH GUNS.
I can understand people finding guns interesting but how hard is to understand that this post is about PEOPLE BEING MURDERED WITH GUNS.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:31 pm
You’re an asshole.
Koshka:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:36 pm
What you said was
Why mention Breivik? If you wanted to suggest that “crazy fucktards will do crazy fucktard shit, gun control be damned” then maybe you should have said that. Your critical writing skills could use some work.
Also I not the mental health slur and call you an asshole once again. There is another thread dealing with assholes targeting people with mental health problems with regards to this tragedy. This is probably where you should post this garbage.
Koshka:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
You are an asshole because you masturbated over your guns on a thread about people getting murdered by guns.
I am an asshole because …..(please fill in)
You see how it works?
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I mentioned Breivik because he went out of his way to obtain firearms through legal channels in countries that are otherwise relatively restrictive of firearms, and then used them to kill a lot of people. The point is that the best policies can’t stop every catastrophic event, but they can alter frequency.
“Crazy fucktards”Mental health slur doesn’t cover that subtlety which is necessary when trying to discus appropriate policy. If you weren’t in such a rush to show me what an asshole I am you might have realized that.Asshole.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Cotton:
You and dobbs are assholes because you are both talking about your appreciation and/or love of guns in the face of this tragedy.
Imagine if one of the parents of the slain children were in this thread. Think of how they-not YOU-would feel hearing talk about how lovely guns are. That’s massively insensitive at best. I prefer asshole.
As for the comments you are avoiding/ignoring–
Your reactions have been based-understandably-on your personal bias. That doesn’t change the fact that attempting to deflect focus from firearm violence to gunfights in the inner cities with their primarily black and brown people is a racist perspective. Think outside your privilege. Gun violence is very real. It is very out of control. And it is not restricted to any particular race.
dobbshead:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Fixed
You’re an asshole because of shit like that.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Dobbshead:
Please don’t use ableist terms like fucktards. They are slurs against the mentally disabled and are not welcome here. Note the use of insults such as:
Asshat
Fuckwit
Douchebag
None of those is a slur against any group and are acceptable here.
Asshole.
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:06 am
I’d hope they’d read a little better than many of the people in this thread. I was putting forward a reason why somebody who likes guns should support gun control. There is nothing disrespectful about that in the least.
You see, that’s why I actually started talking to Cotton because he did the opposite of that and then got himself stuck in a rhetorical hole. Well, he said it really poorly, but he was trying! And he got jumped on for it.
So what, do you want people to try and rhetorically work out their thinking, maybe come around to your perspective? Do you want people who like guns to feel comfortable vocally supporting gun control? Or do you want to yell at people?
I understand the yelling, it’s hard to make sense of shooting 20 children.
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:09 am
You’re right, I hadn’t thought of that about that term. I won’t use it anymore.
Semi-off-topic, why is fuckwit ok?
consciousness razor:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:30 am
dobbshead:
With new gun control laws, there’d be new laws for the Supreme Court to interpret — which is what they do, because laws can change and they do not write those laws. Old decisions about what is or isn’t “Constitutional” could thus be overturned. So there’s no reason to assume everything deemed “Constitutional” now will just have to stay that way. Right now, it would be very hard to ban guns for political reasons (because we have dumbasses like you and cotton); but that is not a legal or Constitutional issue, just a cultural one.
It’s never been a medical diagnosis. “Retardation” was, and people still associate the term with anyone who has cognitive or learning disabilities.
Being irrational or spewing ignorant, bigoted nonsense is not at all the same thing and should be discouraged (in the same way it would make no sense to discourage someone from having a disability).
Jimmy_Blue:
December 18th, 2012 at 1:18 am
No matter how much has passed, no matter what (s)he’s said since, no matter how much (s)he tries to dress up their opinion, cotton still supported his right to own a gun with, and I paraphrase for brevity:
“I like shooting and want to keep doing it, so what if 100 people a year die in mass shootings so I have the right to this hobby.”
It’s all there in their first post, just said in a more rambling wordy way intended to sound reasonable and clever. Cut through everything else and that is still the central premise of their argument.
That’s what makes them an arsehole, everything that came after was just polishing a turd with more shit.
John Morales:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:07 am
[meta]
So, is one allowed to walk down the street in America carrying a loaded crossbow?
cotton:
December 18th, 2012 at 6:28 am
Quick replies before work:
Koshka: First I was the worst person here, and now you appeal to my reason so that I may see dobbs is truly an asshole.
Tony: I would not say things like that to someone who had been in this tragedy. So…what? Just b/c I would be polite and not do something purposefully insensitive doesn’t mean my opinions are wrong. When I visited my aging grandfather in the nursing home I never went around tearing down old people’s religion b/c it would be a dick move. That doesn’t mean my atheistic standpoint was/is wrong. I’m also not writing this under some general reading area like facebook or a personal blog. This has all been written on a thread about gun control, on a blog known to be unwelcome to the faint of heart.
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:02 am
To some degree what you are saying is true. The supreme court reversed its position on separate, but equal being constitutional (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)). It took over 50 years for the supreme court to overturn that decision. I think it is important to note that these were different courts, as in there were totally different judges on the bench.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) pretty much just happened. If laws are written that raise the same constitutional issues as that case, they’ll get struck down and not move through appellate court because the jurisprudence is against them. I also doubt that this court would be willing to revisit their arguments. It would be like passing a law that requires school prayer: it’d just get struck down and ignored by the courts.
I’m not saying that it is a good thing, I’m just saying that is how it works.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 18th, 2012 at 8:55 am
Cotton:
This blog may be many things, but it is not a place that is insensitive to tragedy. As I’ve said, you are so focused on guns=good that your insensitivity permeates almost everything you write. I have seen precious little empathy from you. You seem to hold firearms to be more important than human life. For a second I thought I had the wrong opinion of you, but until such time as you realize that guns are an unimportant “right”, and should never even be compared the value of human life, I don’t think my opinion of you is wrong.
Pteryxx:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:01 am
The heck with your gaslighting. HAVING a heart isn’t being ‘faint of heart’, though I’m not surprised you conflate them after going on about how much gun owners appreciate and care about their guns. People appreciated and cared about the children that died in Newtown, too, along with the 32,000 other actual living people that died by gun this past year. It’s entirely reasonable to value lives above inanimate objects. But you only mentioned *victims* to try and demonstrate how concerned and empathetic (and non-racist) you want us to think you are. Looks like your sympathies lie with the poor unloved little killing tools.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 18th, 2012 at 9:17 am
How do you think you know that? We have no way of knowing how many are used to shoot animals simply for fun, to shoot them in ways that risk injury resulting in prolonged suffering, as explicit or implicit threats against people, andor to bolster toxic masculinities. That’s not even counting the ones exported to kill people abroad (where do you think the Mexican drug gangs get their guns?), the ones stored in unsafe ways, or the general effect of gun-worship on American culture.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 18th, 2012 at 9:20 am
[citation needed]
Ogvorbis: Exhausted and broken:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:21 am
You were accused of writing that because you wrote it.
Pteryxx:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:22 am
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/
cite: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full
dianne:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:29 am
There are a LOT of good people out there who just enjoy owning guns and shooting them
Ok, so let’s take it as a given for the moment that one can enjoy shooting guns without being completely antisocial. Why do you have to own the gun? And if you must own the gun, for whatever reason, why do you have to keep it on your person or in your dwelling? If the gun is for sport, why not keep it at a registered gun club* where you will have access to it any time you want to go shoot a target or go hunting or whatever it is you want to do? Why keep the guns at home where a person intent on mass murder can get them, shoot you, and take off for a school shooting with them?
*Current regulations on gun clubs and how they store guns are almost certainly ridiculously weak, but that could be fixed relatively easily. Maybe require the guns to be stored in a double locked cabinet where only an employee has the combination to one lock and only the owner of the particular gun has the other or something.
Matt Penfold:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:47 am
If one wants to engage in target shooting, why not use an air rifle ? Both air rifle and air pistol are Olympic disciplines. and there is far less hassle with transporting your weapons for competitions.
Pteryxx:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:57 am
from Amanda Marcotte: why not restrict gun *advertising* ?
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/its_not_the_guns_its_the_culture/
Ogvorbis: Exhausted and broken:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Dick’s Sporting goods has suspended all gun and ammunition sales near Newtown, CT and suspended the sale of ‘modern sporting rifles’ nationwide. It is unclear if the national part will be permanent or not. They specify, the press release, that it is ‘during this time of national mourning.’
From USA Today:
Additionally,
From The Pittsburgh Post Gazette:
Ogvorbis: Exhausted and broken:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:31 am
By the by, if anyone sees an extra ‘in’ roaming around, can you point it my #813 in this thread? Kthx.
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:52 am
Using the numbers in this thread for ballpark math: there are about 300 million guns in the U.S., about half of all households have guns. So lets say about 150 million people in the US have access to guns. There are about 30,000 deaths due to firearms, some 50,000 accidental injuries. Lets round it to an even 100,000 cases of people screwing up with guns. In a given year, less than 0.1% of all people with access to firearms in the United States screw up using them by these metrics. Even if we assume that there are an order of magnitude more close calls, that still leaves 99% of owners in the clear.
This is NOT an argument against gun control, nor against the problem the gun culture poses. It is a statement of the magnitude of the problem as has been given in this thread.
Ogvorbis: Silly:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:10 am
dobbshead:
What about the guy threatening his neighbor with a gun? Or guns used to terrorize a rape victim? Or guns used in crimes in which none were injured? Or someone shooting a neighbor’s dog because it won’t shut up? Or all the other crimes and misdemeanors in which firearms are used in which no one is killed or injured by the firearm?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 18th, 2012 at 11:11 am
dobbshead@815,
Typical gun-nut dishonesty. According to this source, there are over 200,000 non-fatal gun injuries per year in the USA – not a difficult figure to find. Moreover, you can “screw up” with a gun without killing or injuring someone – you can use it to rob someone, or to intimidate an innocent person, you can behave in a way that risks killing or injuring someone, you can cause unnecessary death or suffering to non-human animals, you can behave in a way that could allow someone else to get hold of your gun and misuse it.
Matt Penfold:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Or you can leave your guns lying around the house (as a commentator here proudly admitted he does) and have it stolen. In which case it is hard to see how you then do not bare some responsibility for what then is done with the gun.
Pteryxx:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Since most gun owners keep their guns for many decades or even grow up with them for a lifetime, I doubt that the *annual* statistics are all that useful when claiming a percentage of gun *owners* are the good and responsible kind. Say 100,000 screw-ups per year, over say ten years? That’s a million. Thirty years? 3 million, and now we’re up to 1% of all gun owners, using vastly oversimplified statistics.
Matt Penfold:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:28 am
I recall reading that since about 1968 over one million Americans have lost their lives as the result of accidental or intentional firearm use.
Can you imagine the outcry if the number of deaths on American roads was that high ?
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Matt:
Apparently many people think owning a gun is an inalienable right following “…the pursuit of happiness.”. When you have the right to own your own personal killing machine, why settle for anything less? Blecch!
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Not counted, not because they don’t count but because they weren’t mentioned in the sources in this thread. They are also really hard to count. If you have a good source, I’d be interested.
Except not: if anything those numbers are a call to action as Pteryxx (#819) points out correctly. Gun deaths roughly equal motor vehicle death, and a gun has no purpose other than killing. I was not attempting to be dishonest, I was even rounding in all cases to make guns a larger problem than the numbers say. I even pointed out what the number would be if we assume an order of magnitude under-reporting. In terms of injuries, I was using this source:
“But the number who are reported with non-fatal injuries from firearms through hospital emergency departments in 2009 was about 58,000 people.”
NPR: Guns 101
It’s not peer reviewed, but I have no reason to distrust the numbers given in the interview. I said 50k + 30k –> 100k ‘screw ups’, again rounding in favor of under-reporting.
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
I’d also like to point out, according to the sources quoted so far, that there has been a 70% reduction in annual reported injuries due to firearms from 1994 to 2009. That’s more than a little significant.
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I like this source you posted, Pteryxx. Do you know of an more general studies though? It would be ‘nice’ to have numbers for how many people are threatened by firearms each year that doesn’t vary by an order of magnitude.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 18th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
More gun-nut dishonesty. First, injuries that do not result in emergency hospital admissions are still injuries. Second, there are all the other categories of “screw-ups” I identified, which you again ignore completely.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
December 18th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I’d be happy with that, in the form of fitting a governor to every vehicle that will not permit it to exceed the speed limit. Should be technically feasible soon, if it’s not now.
Pteryxx:
December 18th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Where ‘like’ means ‘cherry-pick a limitation while ignoring the rest of the discussion’.
Supporting research from the same core:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html
for instance:
If you want better research I suggest you start by telling the NRA to quit suppressing it:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
dobbshead:
December 18th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
No, where like means I like the study and think the discussion is interesting. I think the number of of people threatened by guns, but not injured, is an important number to know and I’d like to have a study done on a sample size large enough to be representative. This study warrants further research, and I was just wondering if you happened to know of any follow-up studies.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 18th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Pteryxx:
Also of interest in this discussion:
cotton:
December 18th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Hey Tony, you inquire as to my empathy.
Maybe you’re right, I should show that. If I really believe in my skeptical gun control position I shouldn’t be afraid that empathy would reflect poorly upon on.
I needed to say something about this as it was happening, as I read about it on the internet. So I texted my Mom. I said what was obvious: it was unthinkable. Of course it was unthinkable, no shit, right? But I had to say something b/c it was just too awful to READ about and sit there doing my job.
I can’t imagine how devastated those people are. For the rest of their lives will they be able to even look at each other w/o immediately going back to that day? Immediately to that first phone call that told them something was wrong. Then they get it. The tone of voice or the facial twitch of the police officer. His eyes just a little too unblinking and wide.
I think about the first responders who had to go into a school room filled with dead children. An absolute nightmare beyond any horror movie scene. I would have to leave, and I guess many will. They will leave and tell noone or almost noone in order to reduce the burden of every day having to be “one of those poor parents” looked upon by their neighbors with pity and guilty thanks that it “wasn’t my kid”.
So yeah, I agree with everyone here, it was unthinkably awful. It is beyond the most awful things I can imagine.
Jimmy_Blue:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
So awful you put your right to shoot shit ahead of their lives.
Empathy – you’re doing it wrong.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Then why are you defending a cause of the problem? That isn’t empathy, it is the problem.
cotton:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Option 1: Debate gun control. Response: You showed no empathy for the victims!
Option 2: Show empathy for victims. Response: And yet you still put your little guns ahead that suffering!
That is literally not caring to talk about it. It’s one thing to have an opinion or agenda, another to simply dismiss the very value of talking about something. If you are “past” this debate or “so over it” well…bye.
Also, I don’t think guns are the root of the problem. I think that a young boy / man desiring to shoot up a school is a problem. That’s the problem to solve. This should not be solved, at least knee jerk, by liberals trading in other people’s rights in order to ensure the crazy can’t exercise them either.
I think a perfect analogy would be fast cars. Assault rifles are the least practical and most lethal of guns. Fast cars are the least practical and most lethal of autos. Shouldn’t we then, by the same logic many want to ban assault rifles, ban fast cars? They serve no purpose except fun. A 400+ horsepower Mustang GT that goes twice the legal speed limit anywhere in this country is CLEARLY superfluous. If I told you I really like fast cars, how many of you would view me as a reckless, penis compensating, selfish, asshole? Probably not as many as do for the very similar desire to shoot guns.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Gee, without the guns, wounds but no deaths in China. With the guns in the US, many children dead. Where is your brain? It isn’t working beyond spouting slogans. We know that. Why can’t you acknowledge that?
consciousness razor:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Would you like to start debating gun control? If so, unplug your ears, stop whining and don’t change the subject. Gun control actually has to be on the table in order to debate it, not just whatever fucking bullshit you want to ramble about.
Anthony K:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Are you doing so in yet another thread about large numbers of people being mowed down by a Porsche driver, because that’s a thing that happens with some regularity?
I would.
Ichthyic:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
an acquaintance on Facebook showed me this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
interesting things to try:
sort it by country, and compare the US to China.
sort it by weapon, and figure the average deaths associated
sort it by weapon, and check out the “additional notes” field.
consciousness razor:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Sort it by the number killed or injured, and firearms also get sorted to the top of the list.
What an odd coincidence that most of those using firearms also committed suicide, instead of being arrested or shot. It’s almost as if they could efficiently kill however many they wanted, before any law enforcement could arrive to stop them.
Explain how that is acceptable, cotton. Because FREEDOM or BIG MACS or whatever you have left.
consciousness razor:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Whoops, I misread this
Didn’t mean to be redundant. But for people like cotton, maybe we do have to say it twice.
vaiyt:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Is it? Here’s an analogy without any possible Nazi connotations so you don’t have the Godwin gag reflex.
I come into a thread about the victims of the Chinese knife guy and start waxing poetic about makes and models of knives, the sharpness of their edges, how their serrated sides are elegantly machine-tooled to cut through bones with ease, how comfortable are their grips for quick swiping action etc.
At the very least, I’ll be a giant asshole. Which is, coincidentally, exactly what I think you are.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 19th, 2012 at 12:01 am
Cotton:
It’s nice to see some empathy. Given how you’ve been so pro gun throughout the thread-vigorously-it doesn’t come across as genuine as you may have intended. If you’d only posted two “guns are fun” comments and then displayed some sorrow or grief, it might be different. Likewise, if you had not made massively stupid comparisons between firearms and vending machines/sports cars/beds things might be dfferent. But not only did you make the latter comparisons, you expressed your joy of guns repeatedly and it wasn’t til recently that you showed any empathy. Can you see how empty it is…especially when you are STILL making stupid comparisons?
If you’re going to compare guns with anything please use something that WAS CREATED TO KILL PEOPLE WITH. Cars were not created to murder. Guns were.
Pteryxx:
December 19th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Slate article about gun safety technologies, such as smart triggers that only respond to the owner, and visible indicators that show whether a gun is loaded or not; also, the reason none of these have been implemented for consumers:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/12/smart_guns_we_have_the_technology_to_make_safer_guns_too_bad_gunmakers_don.single.html
dobbshead:
December 19th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
I disagree, I think that’s a poor analogy because even a fast car has the primary legitimate use of getting from one point to another. A better analogy would be owning a predator species. For example, a lot of people like to own dogs. Dogs are predators, especially the larger working breeds, and can be really vicious: certain breeds are clearly meant to kill and intimidate. In the modern context there isn’t much use for these dogs beyond people enjoy having them.
The most important thing about this analogy is how dogs differ from firearms: they don’t kill 30,000 people in this country a year. If they did then people’s right to own what property they please would be limited. Some jurisdictions already try and limit ownership of certain breeds of dogs because of the perceived danger, why are guns different (other than that they are in the constitution, that’s a different argument)?
On the flip side, if guns were only used in a few cases per year to hurt or kill people then recreational ownership would be sufficient to maintain the right to gun ownership. But that’s not the world we live in, we live in a world where roughly 100 people are shot every day on average and mass shootings are not rare. Increased gun responsibility is completely reasonable and you should vocally advocate for it.
I did that and I’m an asshole!
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 19th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
dobbshead:
I think you are being obtuse. At comment 794, I stated that you and cotton were assholes for talking about your love of guns in the face of this tragedy.
The comments I made about lacking empath were 804 & 831. Both were explicitly directed at cotton. Not you.
drbunsen, le savant fous:
December 19th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Which is precisely what every murderer does (bar the actually, provably legally insane ones).
(emphasis mine)