The 294th mass shooting this year in the U.S.

[the_mother_thing]

I am glad to hear that your religious beliefs are not entwined in in what you wrote. I need have no compunction in telling you that my beliefs differ from yours, therefore, without fear that I am discussing that forbidden topic: religion, which you have so assiduously avoided.

Unlike you, I do not believe that when an egg and sperm are first introduced that they are "a child". I do not believe that they are "a human being". I believe that in the first few hours, even days, after an egg and a sperm meet they are a couple of cells. They do not feel or think as humans do. They certainly do not go to school the way the children did in Newtown, Connecticut.

AGBF

I avoided the topic of religion because: 1) it is against forum rules, and I am not trying to be banned, but to have a thoughtful discussion on the purported merits of more gun control; and, 2) because it truly is NOT the basis for my opinion.

Again, please do not assume to know my opinions on when life begins. If you want to be technical about it, we are all lumps of cells. But I actually share a similar opinion as you about the "cells/life" timeline, but when those cells do begin to form a heart, brain, body, etc., I do feel they warrant protection ... so they may one day have the opportunity to go to school the way the children did in Newtown, but hopefully with a far better outcome.

 

[JaneSmith]

To conflate an abortion with shooting a child is one of the grossest failures of logic I've seen in a long time. This shows a complete lack of critical thinking. Even if an abortion was 'murdering a child' how does that in any way diminish the murder of another child with a gun? The tu quoque fallacy you're committing is only deployed when someone wants attention shifted from the topic at hand.
"Mass shootings are bad, but here's this other bad thing! There are other bad things in the world, so don't talk about the mass shooting!" No. Do not derail with your crappy logic. Stick to the topic.


The reasons and motivations for someone to pick up a gun and go shoot a bunch of kids or adults are myriad. I think that people need to realize that shooting another human being does not mean that shooter has a mental illness. It is our attempts to cast every shooter as a crazy lone gunman that obfuscates the fact that it could be the normal guy next door. It is too scary to think that. Look at the domestic violence stats.
"Here’s the reality: more than half of the women killed with guns in the U.S. are murdered by their partners. Every month, 48 women are shot and killed in the U.S. by a current or former boyfriend or spouse. We researched mass shootings between January 2009 and January 2013 and found that 57 percent of mass shootings involved the murder of a partner or other close family member."
http://everytown.org/issue/domestic-violence/
"Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002."
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
Are all these men crazy? No. They live in a culture that has lots of guns and lots of violence and lots of ways of telling them that men are top dogs and entitled to power and women.

The U.S. has a culture that nurtures the proliferation of guns. Look at this picture, gun mags down the bottom, where little kids can see, lots of preschooler books up top where little kids can't see.

Small things like this are what add up to an overall culture. The concept of alpha and beta males adds up to an overall culture. Feeling entitled to status and a girlfriend and having these feelings validated by online buddies adds up to the overall culture. Freely available high powered firearms adds up to the overall culture. The second amendment enshrining the rights of everyone to have a gun, adds up to the overall culture.


When a shooting like this happens, a lot of gun owners get scared that the government is going to take away all their guns. What rubbish. People need guns for many legitimate reasons, like hunting and livestock protection from animal predation.
A lot of gun owners get scared that the criminals will still have plenty of guns no matter what. A crap argument. Should we give up making laws because there will always be baddies? No. We have laws precisely because we need to curb these activities, and there needs to be some legislation that decreases the amount of guns in the U.S. and keeps them off the streets, not removing all guns from everyone, everywhere.

 

[the_mother_thing]

You are being intentionally obtuse. YOU brought up abortion, and YOU are the one that made this discussion what it is. A fetus is not a person. It is cells that rely on a mother to bring it to term. It cannot survive to be a human person without the mother. THAT is the difference between abortion and a school child being slaughtered at school by a guntoting mass murdered. THAT is the difference. And you brought religion into it, and then panicked and tried to backpeddle by stating your opinion was based not on religion but on "logic and reason," of which I beg to differ.

And you keep spinning in circles trying to convince us that your beliefs, again rooted in your faith (because frankly, those beliefs on abortion can truly only come from a belief in such things), are somehow logical. Not possible.

You have since (again) edited your comments to - I assume - correct your mistatement that I brought religion into this discussion, but to be clear, you brought religion into this discussion (see below). I simply asked a question about the comparison between protecting lives in one scenario to protecting lives in another, and have answered the questions (or addressed the belligerent allegations) in response since.

This tweet says it all for me.

I wonder how that same person feels about abortion, which preceded Sandy Hook.

I am pro-choice, and have no issue with a woman's right to choose. You have no idea what is going on in that person's life or why that pregnancy is being terminated nor is it your business. But it is your business that her procedure is done safely by a licensed and well trained doctor who won't get blown up on their way to and from work by someone who somehow believes that bombing people somehow makes them better than a doctor that performs abortions.

But someone walking into a school with a gun they purchased with the express intention of knowingly mowing down a room full of kids is a completely different story. Mental illness or not. And let's be real: that is some form of illness.

Everyone thinks they're somehow some better religious person than the next.

Still, I have no answer to my question. Just a bunch of false allegations that quite frankly are quite rude and offensive, and are not helping the discussion at all. And it's a shame because my intentions are NOT to be obtuse, but to genuinely understand other perspectives to the gun control debate. Just wish it was possible without so much argumentative context.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Yes let us all hope that wanted or not and regardless of the health and socioeconomic status of the person ushering life into the world, all have the right to grow and hopefully not die in a mass shooting.

 

[ericad]

I'm going to completely ignore the irrelevant red herring topic of abortion, because it will simply get the thread shut down, or serve its purpose of derailing a mature discussion of the topic at hand.

Whenever this subject arises after a (far too often) tragedy, we jump to opposite extremes - everyone should concealed carry ALL THE GUNS ALL THE TIME EVERYWHERE versus WE MUST BAN ALL GUNS! As a country we need to compromise on both sides and meet in the middle, with the objective to be a massive reduction in gun violence. But how can we control the violence if we refuse to take a long hard look at WHO is committing these crimes? The WHO will dictate the HOW. For those who think the problem is with illegally obtained weapons, please for the love of all that is holy, pull your heads out of the sand!

Let's take an honest look at who is committing these mass shootings and how they obtained their weapons. These are not black market criminal ring drug lord terrorist street guns that are being used in these mass shootings. Pointing out that criminals will still obtain guns illegally is another red herring that is not relevant to the conversation about mass shootings. Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Charleston, etc. - more than 3/4 of the guns used in these types of shootings were legally obtained. What I don't know, but want to know, is whether those guns were legally owned by the shooter versus owned by someone known to them. I suspect that it's mainly the latter, but that's just speculation.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Can we reduce gun violence without banning guns? YES of course we can. I don't know many people who honestly wish to "take your guns" - let's apply common sense here - controlling, regulating and limiting access to guns, especially certain types of guns, is reasonable given that guns are weapons of destruction. We require a test of skill and knowledge to drive a car, yet to own a gun one must simply do what...fill out a form? That's absurdly loose and irresponsible.

If it were up to me, the requirements to own a gun would be simple: Require a minimum number of training hours, which must be re-upped with a refresher course/re-certification every certain number of years. One would have to pass an exam on safety AND actual shooting proficiency in order to obtain the license. One would have to pass a criminal background check. There would be a waiting period. There would be a registry of what guns a person owns, and gun ownership would be regulated and limited to certain types of guns, with a maximum number of guns per person/license - any exceptions would have to require some kind of special approval or class of license (like driving a car versus a semi). There would be no gun show or private sale loopholes. And most importantly, I would make it a prosecutable offense if a crime was committed with your gun by another person unless you had reported the gun stolen - gun owners need to be held accountable - YOU WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CRIMES COMMITTED WITH YOUR GUN. It's utter BS that someone can mow down a school using his mom's gun, or take out guns from his uncle's stockpile and use them to commit a mass shooting, or for someone's little kid to accidentally kill himself with your gun, yet there are no charges brought against the legal gun owner. If you want the responsibility (and privilege, because it really should be treated as such) of owning a gun, you better damn well make sure that no one but you can get their hands on it. Period.

Would my gun "control" result in some people losing some of their guns? Yeah, but there's still a legal path to gun ownership. Would a ton of people simply be too lazy to jump through hoops to get a gun? You bet'cha - but the people not willing to do the work do not get the gun. Will there be people who still buy guns illegally? Of course - just like there are people who drive without a license, or drink before turning 21, or break any number of laws we have in place to control dangerous things. Should we just stop licensing drivers? Of course not - it's still a sensible system that works. The question of illegal guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang bangers and burglars and such is also a relevant problem that merits addressing, but they're not part of the same conversation.

And I am a person who DOES own a gun. My husband is an armed guard at a school district, actually (former PD). I would never hesitate to submit to requirements like the above, nor would he. Why should we? I would question anyone who has some kind of objection to basic common sense gun laws.

 

[the_mother_thing]

To conflate an abortion with shooting a child is one of the grossest failures of logic I've seen in a long time. This shows a complete lack of critical thinking. Even if an abortion was 'murdering a child' how does that in any way diminish the murder of another child with a gun? The tu quoque fallacy you're committing is only deployed when someone wants attention shifted from the topic at hand.
"Mass shootings are bad, but here's this other bad thing! There are other bad things in the world, so don't talk about the mass shooting!" No. Do not derail with your crappy logic. Stick to the topic.


The reasons and motivations for someone to pick up a gun and go shoot a bunch of kids or adults are myriad. I think that people need to realize that shooting another human being does not mean that shooter has a mental illness. It is our attempts to cast every shooter as a crazy lone gunman that obfuscates the fact that it could be the normal guy next door. It is too scary to think that. Look at the domestic violence stats.
"Here’s the reality: more than half of the women killed with guns in the U.S. are murdered by their partners. Every month, 48 women are shot and killed in the U.S. by a current or former boyfriend or spouse. We researched mass shootings between January 2009 and January 2013 and found that 57 percent of mass shootings involved the murder of a partner or other close family member."
http://everytown.org/issue/domestic-violence/
"Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002."
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
Are all these men crazy? No. They live in a culture that has lots of guns and lots of violence and lots of ways of telling them that men are top dogs and entitled to power and women.

The U.S. has a culture that nurtures the proliferation of guns. Look at this picture, gun mags down the bottom, where little kids can see, lots of preschooler books up top where little kids can't see.

Small things like this are what add up to an overall culture. The concept of alpha and beta males adds up to an overall culture. Feeling entitled to status and a girlfriend and having these feelings validated by online buddies adds up to the overall culture. Freely available high powered firearms adds up to the overall culture. The second amendment enshrining the rights of everyone to have a gun, adds up to the overall culture.


When a shooting like this happens, a lot of gun owners get scared that the government is going to take away all their guns. What rubbish. People need guns for many legitimate reasons, like hunting and livestock protection from animal predation.
A lot of gun owners get scared that the criminals will still have plenty of guns no matter what. A crap argument. Should we give up making laws because there will always be baddies? No. We have laws precisely because we need to curb these activities, and there needs to be some legislation that decreases the amount of guns in the U.S. and keeps them off the streets, not removing all guns from everyone, everywhere.

I don't appreciate your statements as a whole which clearly target my comments. I didn't realize I had to obey your rules to how, why and what I think. But I digress from commenting further on that because it's nonproductive and rude to hurl insults.

All of the rest of your post is further boiled down to the very point I was making - a lack of respect & value for human life - whether it's a spouse, significant other, parent, child, a stranger with an axe to grind, because a magazine is on low shelf or a high shelf ... if people are not encouraged to value human life, they will use any means possible to eradicate it if they deliberately choose to do so. Those means can be a gun, a baseball bat, a knife, a car, a fire, a bomb, etc.

Can we not agree that this is at least PART of the underlying problem our country faces? If people valued others' lives more, I can't imagine we wouldn't see a decrease in crime across the board - gun, non-gun, drugs, robberies, arsonists, etc.

 

[Matata]

Still, I have no answer to my question. Just a bunch of false allegations that quite frankly are quite rude and offensive, and are not helping the discussion at all. And it's a shame because my intentions are NOT to be obtuse, but to genuinely understand other perspectives to the gun control debate. Just wish it was possible without so much argumentative context.

Here's my answer to your question: I do not believe that a life in the womb has equal or more rights than one outside it. I judge, through my pro-choice belief, which life has more importance over another. It's my personal belief that a person who is already able to contribute to society, regardless of whether that person reaches full potential, is more important than an unknown quantity, which in this case would be the fetus/embryo. That does not keep me from wishing that not one more abortion would occur on this planet. Because every time I watch an abortion video, I am fully aware that there is unmet potential in that organism. And I do see a potential human being in those torn body parts. It sickens me to see it. I do not hold judgment against a woman raped, a woman who for whatever reason, believes she is not capable of carrying a baby to term. I do not believe a woman has an obligation to carry an unwanted baby to term because there may be adoptive parents who would be happy to raise it. I do judge women who use abortion as a form of birth control (and I've met quite a few) or who are just too damn lazy/irresponsible to use birth control as *******s who are a pox upon all other women who act responsibly toward their bodies. It is a conflict that pro-life people may never be able to reconcile in the pro-choice movement and I fully understand that.

What does the pro-anti choice debate have to do with mass murder? The only causality between the two that I can see is that those who aren't born will never be a mass murderer; those who are born have the potential to become one. The key word is "potential." What makes a person become a murderer and what can we do as a society/culture to ensure that the factors which contribute to the evolution of a murderer are addressed and controlled to best of our ability.

 

[ksinger]

'Mercuh - home of toxic masculinity and aggrieved entitlement.

If this was truly about mental health, which it is not, there would be a much more even distribution of these mass shootings among genders and ethnic groups. There is not, mass shooters in the US are overwhelmingly white and male. What is more interesting to me is how little discussion there typically is of this 900-lb gorilla that is ever in the room. Even in this thread, very little acknowledgment of this glaring fact. Only Jane touches it. (Jane is the only reason I even came in here, honestly. Love reading her posts.)

Since these threads pop up with depressing regularity, I'm sure I've posted this link before. But once more....I would highly suggest reading "Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era" by Michael Kimmel.
http://www.amazon.com/Angry-White-Men-American-Masculinity/dp/1568585136

More all-encompassing than just mass shooters, Kimmel covers the whole spectrum of male rage and violence and what fuels it. Many interviews with scared and scary men who are trying desperately to hang on to a status they were subtly trained that they deserved and feel they've been cheated of, any way they can, usually involving violent scapegoating of people of color, immigrants, intellectuals, government, and above all, women, as the hated agents of that change. A worthwhile read.

I personally feel that it is extremely unlikely that we will soon un-saturate our culture and our young men, from the pervasive glorification of violence as a means to getting what you want/deserve, and think that shootings like this will simply continue.

 

[ame]

Still, I have no answer to my question. Just a bunch of false allegations that quite frankly are quite rude and offensive, and are not helping the discussion at all. And it's a shame because my intentions are NOT to be obtuse, but to genuinely understand other perspectives to the gun control debate. Just wish it was possible without so much argumentative context.

Here's my answer to your question: I do not believe that a life in the womb has equal or more rights than one outside it. I judge, through my pro-choice belief, which life has more importance over another. It's my personal belief that a person who is already able to contribute to society, regardless of whether that person reaches full potential, is more important than an unknown quantity, which in this case would be the fetus/embryo. That does not keep me from wishing that not one more abortion would occur on this planet. Because every time I watch an abortion video, I am fully aware that there is unmet potential in that organism. And I do see a potential human being in those torn body parts. It sickens me to see it. I do not hold judgment against a woman raped, a woman who for whatever reason, believes she is not capable of carrying a baby to term. I do not believe a woman has an obligation to carry an unwanted baby to term because there may be adoptive parents who would be happy to raise it. I do judge women who use abortion as a form of birth control (and I've met quite a few) or who are just too damn lazy/irresponsible to use birth control as *******s who are a pox upon all other women who act responsibly toward their bodies. It is a conflict that pro-life people may never be able to reconcile in the pro-choice movement and I fully understand that.

What does the pro-anti choice debate have to do with mass murder? The only causality between the two that I can see is that those who aren't born will never be a mass murderer; those who are born have the potential to become one. The key word is "potential." What makes a person become a murderer and what can we do as a society/culture to ensure that the factors which contribute to the evolution of a murderer are addressed and controlled to best of our ability.

She's going to ignore this logical and fantastic response, just as well as anyone else's explanation, because again, intentionally obtuse to reason and taking anyone calling her out to that fact as attacking her beliefs and calling out any potential grammatical corrections as "edits to correct attacks." She's looking for a divine answer, not a logical one. And it's really hard to take it seriously at this point.

 

[House Cat]

Can someone please show me the point in time in history where automobiles were intentionally used on a regular basis for mass killings? Again, I would like to be shown the point in time where knives were intentionally used by one individual against many innocents and those innocents were slaughtered...and where this was done at least 50x per year for many years running.


Does anyone have that kind of data? Anyone??? No?


Then stop using that lazy rhetoric in this debate. The victims of these shootings deserve better. Don't act like you don't understand the problem. If you don't understand the problem then you REALLY shouldn't be carrying a deadly weapon. Which, btw, I really DO believe that half of the hillbilly, backwoods, idiot population that IS carrying guns in this country really SHOULDN'T be carrying a weapon anyway because they AREN'T responsible enough, careful enough, TRAINED enough to have their killing machine on their hip!

The problem is that these weapons are INTENTIONALLY being used to slaughter MASS NUMBERS of our INNOCENTS and NOTHING is being done to CHANGE or STOP the problem because gun owners WILL NOT BUDGE and do anything REASONABLE to help change the problem. Instead, they throw out thoughtless rhetoric and scream and yell about their RIGHTS while innocents die.


Nothing has been done because of all of the screaming gun owners...period. Because of the gun lobbyists, thank you NRA! What about the cold dead hands of the children of Sandy Hook? Who really cares, huh? As long as all of the gun owners get to clean their guns at night while dreaming of defending their families.

It.is.sick.

BTW...if a person can't come up with an INTELLIGENT reason why these guns should be on the streets without background checks, without a database, without limits, and all they can do is throw out NRA and FOX NEWS based rhetoric, then really, they don't possess the kind of resourcefulness needed to operate a firearm in an emergency situation anyway. This is how I see it.

I have seen many an idiot with a gun. They scream about privacy and then they post photos of their new guns on Facebook.. uhh, yeah. Or they post photos of themselves hunting on Facebook, photos of them at the gun range, learning to shoot, etc..but then they are so tied up in privacy and they are against a national database. Newsflash!!!! You just put yourself on the biggest database there is when it comes to information about yourself...BIG DADDY DATA FACEBOOK! Again, not thinking...not resourceful enough to REALLY be armed.

So this is how I see it. A majority of gun owners are just big kids. They lack real thought for what they are doing and that is the reason for the mass shootings, the accidental shootings, the lack of real soul searching behind buying the guns in the first place (I know I really want a gun, but SHOULD I really own a gun?) I know there are truly responsible gun owners out there. I know a HUGE group of them, but they aren't the majority by a long shot...sorry to say. If they were, we wouldn't have so many gun deaths, suicides, etc.

Like I said, this is how I see it, because let's face it, a majority of PEOPLE in our nation are not all that responsible when it comes to most anything, especially the vices (drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling)... why would guns be any different?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I particularly liked one police spokesman's response to the crime. He said, " I refuse to name the shooter because I do not wish to give him any recognition. So, whenever I speak about this, I will never use his name." Good response, however small, I thought.


Annette

 

[the_mother_thing]

She's going to ignore this logical and fantastic response, just as well as anyone else's explanation, because again, intentionally obtuse to reason and taking anyone calling her out to that fact as attacking her beliefs and calling out any potential grammatical corrections as "edits to correct attacks." She's looking for a divine answer, not a logical one. And it's really hard to take it seriously at this point.

Actually, I was working, but these are precisely the types of comments that don't benefit the discussion at all and clearly only serve to incite more negativity. I noted you edited your comment to remove the assertion that I brought religion into the topic which was false; you did.

Sorry Matata - my question wasn't so much about when is life a "life" (nor was it to debate the sides thereof); rather, how we don't equate the taking of life in all occurrences, but single it out depending on the circumstances. To me - and my point by bringing up the abortion comparison - is in trying to get to the root cause of like outcomes (taking ones life) when they all result in the same outcome - loss of life.

Your last sentence sums up very well what I feel is the central issue to solve, and if we do, I believe we will see a decline in all violent crimes using all tools available. When I try to think about how someone reaches the point of taking another's life, I try to think what factors molded that person to arrive at a point when they feel that whatever issue they feel drives them toward the act, how that issue whatever it may be is somehow so much more worthy than the life they are taking/threatening with their act. The common thread I find when I think about it is simply the selfish lack of value for life ... selfish because that person feels their need to commit the act takes a higher priority than the future life of the victim and the value they bring to society and their loved ones.

 

[ame]

Done with your obvious lack of logic.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Can someone please show me the point in time in history where automobiles were intentionally used on a regular basis for mass killings? Again, I would like to be shown the point in time where knives were intentionally used by one individual against many innocents and those innocents were slaughtered...and where this was done at least 50x per year for many years running.


Does anyone have that kind of data? Anyone??? No?


Then stop using that lazy rhetoric in this debate. The victims of these shootings deserve better. Don't act like you don't understand the problem. If you don't understand the problem then you REALLY shouldn't be carrying a deadly weapon. Which, btw, I really DO believe that half of the hillbilly, backwoods, idiot population that IS carrying guns in this country really SHOULDN'T be carrying a weapon anyway because they AREN'T responsible enough, careful enough, TRAINED enough to have their killing machine on their hip!

The problem is that these weapons are INTENTIONALLY being used to slaughter MASS NUMBERS of our INNOCENTS and NOTHING is being done to CHANGE or STOP the problem because gun owners WILL NOT BUDGE and do anything REASONABLE to help change the problem. Instead, they throw out thoughtless rhetoric and scream and yell about their RIGHTS while innocents die.


Nothing has been done because of all of the screaming gun owners...period. Because of the gun lobbyists, thank you NRA! What about the cold dead hands of the children of Sandy Hook? Who really cares, huh? As long as all of the gun owners get to clean their guns at night while dreaming of defending their families.

It.is.sick.

BTW...if a person can't come up with an INTELLIGENT reason why these guns should be on the streets without background checks, without a database, without limits, and all they can do is throw out NRA and FOX NEWS based rhetoric, then really, they don't possess the kind of resourcefulness needed to operate a firearm in an emergency situation anyway. This is how I see it.

I have seen many an idiot with a gun. They scream about privacy and then they post photos of their new guns on Facebook.. uhh, yeah. Or they post photos of themselves hunting on Facebook, photos of them at the gun range, learning to shoot, etc..but then they are so tied up in privacy and they are against a national database. Newsflash!!!! You just put yourself on the biggest database there is when it comes to information about yourself...BIG DADDY DATA FACEBOOK! Again, not thinking...not resourceful enough to REALLY be armed.

So this is how I see it. A majority of gun owners are just big kids. They lack real thought for what they are doing and that is the reason for the mass shootings, the accidental shootings, the lack of real soul searching behind buying the guns in the first place (I know I really want a gun, but SHOULD I really own a gun?) I know there are truly responsible gun owners out there. I know a HUGE group of them, but they aren't the majority by a long shot...sorry to say. If they were, we wouldn't have so many gun deaths, suicides, etc.

Like I said, this is how I see it, because let's face it, a majority of PEOPLE in our nation are not all that responsible when it comes to most anything, especially the vices (drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling)... why would guns be any different?

There is so much judgment and meritless assumptions about people and responsible gun owners in your post, it's hard to not be offended by 99% of it. If someone was slinging these same slurs and accusations about same sex couples or trying to shut down PP, the anti-gunners would take up arms to split them in half! Please leave your offensive,stereotypical ignorant comments out of the discussion. You have no idea the training I have been through, continue to do, the background checks I have had, amount of registration my firearms have undergone, etc., so please don't assume that you do, or that everyone is as carefree in their responsibilities as you assert. Maybe you live in an area where all people fit your description, but I am certainly not part of it.

No one has said (that I have read) that there shouldn't be background checks, gun registration, or measures taken to get the guns out of the hands of those who are not responsible enough to own them. I am trying to get to the root cause of WHY someone takes the life of another, because without a person to pull the trigger, a gun/car/knife/whatever is an inanimate object. It takes a person who is either negligent with their firearms in not securing them, a thief who steals them, or a person who intends to cause harm to another for the firearm to be effective in its purpose - protection. (FYI - The 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting.)

I am breaking the discussion down to try to understand WHY; now how, because there are a million ways to harm someone, but they all start with a person and intent/motive. What IS that driver? Lack of value for human life (e.g., in a rage, for religious extremism, whatever) and mental instability are the only two "causes" I can boil it down to. What are we - as a society - doing to improve those issues? What can we do to teach people to value life, and respect that while you might be butt hurt over a cheating spouse, a different viewpoint, whatever, that your intended victim's life is more valuable above ground vs below it regardless of how you feel they might have wronged you. On the issue of mental health, are there better screenings that can be put in place to detect violent personalities, can there be laws that require an evaluation by a mental health professional before buying a firearm, etc. If gun owners privacy and rights are to be considered open/fair game, then so should the other groups who largely play a role in this entire situation, and that includes those with drug history, mental health issues, etc. If we are to be an equal nation, then we must treat each other equally when we address problems facing society ... no matter how unwarm & unfuzzy that might make one group feel ... if we are to better society as a whole. But to unfairly target one demographic while leaving the others unturned is unfair and unjust.

 

[Gypsy]

I too am going to ignore the red herring.

Here's what it comes down to, for me.

1. Yes, the person who committed the crimes is responsible. And no, we cannot predict or control individuals that think this is okay.

2. But we as a society cannot ignore our responsibility either. And that is the half of the equation we CAN control.

3. We do not need to ban guns.

4. But we do need better gun control laws.

5. And fewer lobbyists.

6. If both sides would stop demonizing the other, accepting money from lobbyists, and just get together to draft common sense regulations that limit access to guns, require training and stricter licensing and require more personal responsibility from gun owners then we would all be better off.

To me, what seems to be the biggest problem is our political system where the two parties couldn't find a way to collaborate together to produce common sense legislation. What we really need to ban isn't guns. It's the lobbyists and the special interest groups. If we kept the money out of politics I am sure we would have more compromises and more common sense legislation on all issues.

And that's the biggest difference between our country and the others. They don't have the extent corruption we do with money and politics.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Hi,

I particularly liked one police spokesman's response to the crime. He said, " I refuse to name the shooter because I do not wish to give him any recognition. So, whenever I speak about this, I will never use his name." Good response, however small, I thought.


Annette

Agreed! My heart went out to him and the president of the college when I saw the press conference last night. There is so much pain coursing through the veins of that community that it's heartbreaking.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I too am going to ignore the red herring.

Here's what it comes down to, for me.

1. Yes, the person who committed the crimes is responsible. And no, we cannot predict or control individuals that think this is okay.

2. But we as a society cannot ignore our responsibility either. And that is the half of the equation we CAN control.

3. We do not need to ban guns.

4. But we do need better gun control laws.

5. And fewer lobbyists.

6. If both sides would stop demonizing the other, accepting money from lobbyists, and just get together to draft common sense regulations that limit access to guns, require training and stricter licensing and require more personal responsibility from gun owners then we would all be better off.

To me, what seems to be the biggest problem is our political system where the two parties couldn't find a way to collaborate together to produce common sense legislation. What we really need to ban isn't guns. It's the lobbyists and the special interest groups. If we kept the money out of politics I am sure we would have more compromises and more common sense legislation on all issues.

And that's the biggest difference between our country and the others. They don't have the extent corruption we do with money and politics.

I agree with what you state here (especially around politicians and lobbyists, and not just those in the gun department). My only question is around #4 - how do we effectively put more laws in place, force criminals to follow them, and force our judges to punish the criminals to the fullest extent when they don't, when they don't follow/enforce the laws in place already and punish those who break laws with penalties that are meaningful? We are so soft on crimes of all types that I think criminals almost see them as a challenge to try and break them anymore.They know they will either get off, get probation, or a light sentence because that's what judges have handed down to them in the past.

 

[Matata]

Sorry Matata - my question wasn't so much about when is life a "life" (nor was it to debate the sides thereof); rather, how we don't equate the taking of life in all occurrences, but single it out depending on the circumstances. To me - and my point by bringing up the abortion comparison - is in trying to get to the root cause of like outcomes (taking ones life) when they all result in the same outcome - loss of life.

This is copied/pasted from your post #873. Bold added by me.: My position simply is this - if you are against guns in an attempt to protect innocent lives, then it's reasonable to assume you should also be against other means that take innocent lives. If you are not, then I deduce the position is not about protecting innocent lives, but selectively championing a cause to suit ones personal preference or perhaps what suits their lives best. If there is another reason to only be a champion for innocent lives where guns are involved, and not other "causes" such as abortion, alcohol, drugs, etc, then I would honestly love to understand (NOT argue) it.

I did not address when life begins. I said I judge which life is more important. It is a concept that you find unreasonable because you value all life equally. I can only speak for myself, no others, so I don't presume to represent anyone else's views. I believe all life matters. I do not believe all lives matter equally. Brutal isn't it? As I said in my original answer to you, I judge which life takes precedence. Those judgments are shaped by my life experiences. If I held the power of life and death in my hands, I would, for example, choose the non child abuser over the child abuser, the non animal abuser over the animal abuser, a person who worked for freedom over one who worked toward tyranny. That is my answer to your question about how one can selectively champion one cause over another -- because I do not believe all lives matter equally.

 

[Gypsy]

I agree with what you state here (especially around politicians and lobbyists, and not just those in the gun department). My only question is around #4 - how do we effectively put more laws in place, force criminals to follow them, and force our judges to punish the criminals to the fullest extent when they don't, when they don't follow/enforce the laws in place already and punish those who break laws with penalties that are meaningful? We are so soft on crimes of all types that I think criminals almost see them as a challenge to try and break them anymore.They know they will either get off, get probation, or a light sentence because that's what judges have handed down to them in the past.

Jenn, it is simple. Read here: http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-myth-2-0-how-criminals-respond-to-gun-control/


Very easy to find answers to these propaganda type "arguments". They are simply false. Takes a minute on google to find out the facts.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Sorry Matata - my question wasn't so much about when is life a "life" (nor was it to debate the sides thereof); rather, how we don't equate the taking of life in all occurrences, but single it out depending on the circumstances. To me - and my point by bringing up the abortion comparison - is in trying to get to the root cause of like outcomes (taking ones life) when they all result in the same outcome - loss of life.

This is copied/pasted from your post #873. Bold added by me.: My position simply is this - if you are against guns in an attempt to protect innocent lives, then it's reasonable to assume you should also be against other means that take innocent lives. If you are not, then I deduce the position is not about protecting innocent lives, but selectively championing a cause to suit ones personal preference or perhaps what suits their lives best. If there is another reason to only be a champion for innocent lives where guns are involved, and not other "causes" such as abortion, alcohol, drugs, etc, then I would honestly love to understand (NOT argue) it.

I did not address when life begins. I said I judge which life is more important. It is a concept that you find unreasonable because you value all life equally. I can only speak for myself, no others, so I don't presume to represent anyone else's views. I believe all life matters. I do not believe all lives matter equally. Brutal isn't it? As I said in my original answer to you, I judge which life takes precedence. Those judgments are shaped by my life experiences. If I held the power of life and death in my hands, I would, for example, choose the non child abuser over the child abuser, the non animal abuser over the animal abuser, a person who worked for freedom over one who worked toward tyranny. That is my answer to your question about how one can selectively champion one cause over another -- because I do not believe all lives matter equally.

Thank you! I don't think I would disagree with that in anyway. I probably could have stated my question about "valuing all life" a little better.

 

[Matata]

How would all those good people who are going to protect us from the bad people cook their bacon if we implemented tighter gun control? This video is appalling to me on so many levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

 

[kenny]

How would all those good people who are going to protect us from the bad people cook their bacon if we implemented tighter gun control? This video is appalling to me on so many levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

Hahaha!
Love it!
BOY! Do people vary!

I don't eat bacon but can those machine guns cook tofu?
Plus I can use it for hunting soy bean plants.

 

[chemgirl]

A bit of a different perspective because I'm in Canada.

The first thing that sticks out to me is this pervasive idea that the "criminals" have guns so the law abiding public need them as well. I mean sure, criminals do have guns. However, most mass shootings are committed by people who were not criminals. It's generally not someone associated with organized crime or gang violence. These people wouldn't have easy access to guns if there were stricter gun laws.

This is key. Canadian gun laws were overhauled after a man with a semi automatic weapon swept through an engineering school picking off female students. This was back in the 80's. Very simplified, but he applied to attend the school twice and was rejected. He decided to take out his anger on the "feminists" who were somehow to blame. 14 deaths and more injuries.

We have had other shootings since, but luckily not to the same scale. I think this has a lot to do with our gun laws. You can still have registered and licensed weapons, but you are restricted as to the type of gun. They are very hard to conceal and cumbersome to load. As far as storage, you have to keep your guns locked in a case or cabinet with trigger locks and amunition has to be stored separately. It's very difficult for someone to just take your gun.

There was a shooting at our parliament last year and a soldier was tragically killed. The shooter was extremely limited in the number of shots they could fire due to the type of gun they had. Parliament was in session, school children were taking tours, there could have been a massive loss of life if the shooter had automatic weapons.

Just my attempt to explain why things are different north of the border.

 

[kenny]

A new revelation ... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34424713

CNN is reporting the gunman targeted Christians.
SNIP
"Earlier, Stacy Boylan, whose daughter survived the shooting, told US television network CNN that his daughter described to him how the gunman asked his victims to state their religion before shooting them.
"'Are you a Christian?' he would ask them, 'and if you are a Christian stand up,'" the father recalled.
Mr Boylan said the gunman told the victims: "because you're a Christian you're going to see God in just about one second".


I'm horrified, but then on a bit more reflection, not.
Murdering anyone for any reason is equally wrong.
But I expect that group will have a field day with this one.

I've always had a problem with the idea of greater punishment when a violent crime is classified as a hate crime ... even when the victim is a member of my tribe, gay folks.
I say you can't control/legislate/punish thoughts, only actions.

After all, isn't EVERY murder a hate crime?

 

[lulu]

I didn't realize this until today but there is a comprehensive report on the Sandy Hook shootings. It's a long read but interesting. This article gives you the link.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Sandy-Hook-Commission-to-Release-Final-Report-Friday-295053551.html

 

[Laila619]

A bit of a different perspective because I'm in Canada.

The first thing that sticks out to me is this pervasive idea that the "criminals" have guns so the law abiding public need them as well. I mean sure, criminals do have guns. However, most mass shootings are committed by people who were not criminals. It's generally not someone associated with organized crime or gang violence. These people wouldn't have easy access to guns if there were stricter gun laws.

This is key. Canadian gun laws were overhauled after a man with a semi automatic weapon swept through an engineering school picking off female students. This was back in the 80's. Very simplified, but he applied to attend the school twice and was rejected. He decided to take out his anger on the "feminists" who were somehow to blame. 14 deaths and more injuries.

We have had other shootings since, but luckily not to the same scale. I think this has a lot to do with our gun laws. You can still have registered and licensed weapons, but you are restricted as to the type of gun. They are very hard to conceal and cumbersome to load. As far as storage, you have to keep your guns locked in a case or cabinet with trigger locks and amunition has to be stored separately. It's very difficult for someone to just take your gun.

There was a shooting at our parliament last year and a soldier was tragically killed. The shooter was extremely limited in the number of shots they could fire due to the type of gun they had. Parliament was in session, school children were taking tours, there could have been a massive loss of life if the shooter had automatic weapons.

Just my attempt to explain why things are different north of the border.

It all sounds so logical and, well, like common sense. I'm sure a gun person will come along and explain all the ways that it won't work in the U.S. or that it's encroaching on their 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Niel]

A bit of a different perspective because I'm in Canada.

The first thing that sticks out to me is this pervasive idea that the "criminals" have guns so the law abiding public need them as well. I mean sure, criminals do have guns. However, most mass shootings are committed by people who were not criminals. It's generally not someone associated with organized crime or gang violence. These people wouldn't have easy access to guns if there were stricter gun laws.

This is key. Canadian gun laws were overhauled after a man with a semi automatic weapon swept through an engineering school picking off female students. This was back in the 80's. Very simplified, but he applied to attend the school twice and was rejected. He decided to take out his anger on the "feminists" who were somehow to blame. 14 deaths and more injuries.

We have had other shootings since, but luckily not to the same scale. I think this has a lot to do with our gun laws. You can still have registered and licensed weapons, but you are restricted as to the type of gun. They are very hard to conceal and cumbersome to load. As far as storage, you have to keep your guns locked in a case or cabinet with trigger locks and amunition has to be stored separately. It's very difficult for someone to just take your gun.

There was a shooting at our parliament last year and a soldier was tragically killed. The shooter was extremely limited in the number of shots they could fire due to the type of gun they had. Parliament was in session, school children were taking tours, there could have been a massive loss of life if the shooter had automatic weapons.

Just my attempt to explain why things are different north of the border.

In my mind I find this type of gun control logical. I have always felt the same re: criminals having guns isn't the problem.

I find gun reform akin to not being able to shout "fire " in a theatre. Is that encroaching on your freedom of speech?

 

[the_mother_thing]

It all sounds so logical and, well, like common sense. I'm sure a gun person will come along and explain all the ways that it won't work in the U.S. or that it's encroaching on their 2nd amendment rights.

Not this "gun person". I am done trying to discuss issues on here that matter to me when it turns into a name-calling, childish, one-sided gang fest. I have shared my opinions with the utmost sincerity in an effort to share my perspective and better understand others' views, only to have my comments twisted around into things I did not say and terms like "red herring" tossed out for simply offering a differing viewpoint that supports my belief about the source of a problem.

I find it sad that this forum is more tolerant and respectful of people's choices in bling than their individual beliefs, especially when non- religious in nature. So, going forward, I will stick to bling on here only, and leave discussions about things that really matter to other places that offer more respect, acceptance and tolerance for differing views.

 

[AGBF]

Not this "gun person". I am done trying to discuss issues on here that matter to me when it turns into a name-calling, childish, one-sided gang fest. I have shared my opinions with the utmost sincerity in an effort to share my perspective and better understand others' views, only to have my comments twisted around into things I did not say and terms like "red herring" tossed out for simply offering a differing viewpoint that supports my belief about the source of a problem.


I find it sad that this forum is more tolerant and respectful of people's choices in bling than their individual beliefs, especially when non- religious in nature. So, going forward, I will stick to bling on here only, and leave discussions about things that really matter to other places that offer more respect, acceptance and tolerance for differing views.

That is your perspective. Is it not possible that your viewpoint is so illogical that almost everyone who reads it finds it so?

If I were to write an article and find it criticized by everyone who read it, I would at least examine the possibility that my article was less than stellar.

AGBF

 

[packrat]

The laws will never be made. I've said it eleventy twenty twelve times-we have righted ourselves into a corner. We think and like to act like we're this tough ass country but really-we're a nation of pansies when it comes to certain things. Nobody wants to suck it up and say you know what, enough is effing enough, stop this shit already, if you want to break the law, you're going to pay the consequences. We can't have that b/c well golly gee wilikers even pedophiles have rights yanno, and there are people willing to fight for those people to walk the streets. There are people willing to roll over and say meh, let him go, who cares anyway? when it comes to some of the most heinous crimes. So really...what is there to stop anyone from doing what they want? Besides a conscious of course, but hell, nowadays you don't have to have one of those. Money buys anything and anyone, in our country. So as far as those who make the laws..why would they make them harder on people? They're all getting paid, from both sides of every issue, to make things harder *and* to make things easier. So sure, why not give each side a teeny bit, just enough to get them to STFU and think it's going the way they want it to? They make out like bandits and we're the ones left to suffer, while they're all pointing their fingers elsewhere to divert attention.