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

[lulu]

People, especially those outside the US, speak about gun control in very simplistic terms. Gun issues are typically legislated by individual states and we have 52 of them. Each state is quite intent on maintaining control on this issue.

 

[ame]

... I watched a comedy sketch about America's gun culture and at the end the comedian (can't remember his name) tells people who fight for their second amendment rights to just own it and admit that they have guns because they like them.

LOVE this 3.5 minute skit!
This guy nails it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk

yea Jim Jeffries is the bomb. He so nails it.

 

[kenny]

78% of PSers lean to the left...

You are right.

 

[AGBF]

... I watched a comedy sketch about America's gun culture and at the end the comedian (can't remember his name) tells people who fight for their second amendment rights to just own it and admit that they have guns because they like them.

LOVE this 3.5 minute skit!
This guy nails it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk

yea Jim Jeffries is the bomb. He so nails it.

That was wonderful! I never heard of Jim Jeffries before.

AGBF

 

[ame]

... I watched a comedy sketch about America's gun culture and at the end the comedian (can't remember his name) tells people who fight for their second amendment rights to just own it and admit that they have guns because they like them.

LOVE this 3.5 minute skit!
This guy nails it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk

yea Jim Jeffries is the bomb. He so nails it.

That was wonderful! I never heard of Jim Jeffries before.

AGBF

He is HILARIOUS. Though for a lot of people very vulgar. He's one of my personal favorites though and that specific special was probably his best to date.

 

[AGBF]

... I watched a comedy sketch about America's gun culture and at the end the comedian (can't remember his name) tells people who fight for their second amendment rights to just own it and admit that they have guns because they like them.

LOVE this 3.5 minute skit!
This guy nails it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk

yea Jim Jeffries is the bomb. He so nails it.

That was wonderful! I never heard of Jim Jeffries before.

He is HILARIOUS. Though for a lot of people very vulgar. He's one of my personal favorites though and that specific special was probably his best to date.

My husband is up from Virginia for the weekend, because we are celebrating my father's 95th birthday. He (my husband) is very conservative politically and also does not like foul words. After he made a mistake and had me work on some insane type of crossword puzzle thinking that it was a regular crossword puzzle, I made him watch the Jim Jeffries video. He and our daughter (who is 23) both really laughed hard at it, although I had to explain to her what a gun safe was and what dilemma Mr. Jeffries supposedly faced when he had young children in the house and, therefore, wanted to use one!

Deb/AGBF

 

[kenny]

He is HILARIOUS. Though for a lot of people very vulgar. He's one of my personal favorites though and that specific special was probably his best to date.

The irony's not lost on me that it took a non-American to point out how absurd some Americans can be about their guns.

Louis CK puts even Jim Jeffries to shame in the vulgar department ... yet LCK has to be the most successful comedian alive today.
I think LCK is brilliant and I love his work, non-PC and all.

I love comedians like this who hold up a mirror to what we don't like to see about ourselves.
George Carlin, RIP, was another such genius whom I greatly admire.

 

[jordyonbass]

I absolutely LOVE Jim Jeffries piece on gun control, it's literally correct in every single way as far as the mindset of Aussies on gun control. Many people will disagree with him but he raises points that are hard to refute; you're welcome to have a gun for sport or hunting and most people would be happy to go through the regulations if it means less gun violence, but protecting one's family and being able to safely store a gun is basically not possible and those are the people who need to consider if they need a gun.

What ends up happening is sales get limited to specialist stores that have to go through stringent procedures, checks and other scans in order to be able to sell a firearm. This is how availability goes down.

 

[House Cat]

A place where all the liberal agenda gun laws are in effect:
http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings
There where over 50 shootings just this last weekend.

No thanks I will keep mine.

Per capita numbers?


Let's not use one of the most densely populated areas of the nation as an example to push a pro-gun agenda. Once we go per capita, we see that liberal gun laws DO work. Hawaii, California, etc have the fewest gun deaths per capita.

But if it worked then Chicago should be the safest place on earth.

By that logic, if liberal gun laws didn't work, Hawaii and California would have the highest murder rates in the nation.

Flawed logic will get us nowhere, but it sure can be fun to throw around.

How would you explain Oakland CA and Stockton, Ca two of the very most dangerous cities in the US?
Or East Palo Alto, CA?
Or Compton, CA?

Karl,

This question has nothing to do with gun safety laws and I DO hope that you know it and are trying to be clever.

In the 80's, these areas were rendered completely desolate by Reaganomics. People were actually starving due to lack of jobs and lack of public programs to help the poor. Enter in Contra funded (and Regan administration linked) cocaine and these people had a means for feeding themselves--drug dealing or they had a means for numbing out because their situation was so dire--drug addiction. Crack cocaine was invented because they realized it was super addictive and made even more money--by this time cocaine had been literally unleashed on these areas without consequence. There are recorded phone conversations of the Contras saying that the government doesn't care about these areas and they are huge money makers. Enter the guns...Contra funded too. Another means for these poor people to make money, now they are armed with dangerous weapons, selling huge amounts of drugs, with little police presence. Gun laws? We allowed a situation to be created where people were starving and unleashed drugs and guns onto them as a means for making money and we want to say this is about gun laws? This is about a lot of things, a lot of sick and twisted things, but this isn't about gun laws.

And what did we do about the problem? We made MOVIES about gang violence and listened to NWA and other rap groups but we did nothing and we still do nothing.

In 1989 I went to a high school in the bay area that took in the overflow of students from Oakland. My school was 60% African American, the other 40% was largely Mexican and Asian. That high school was tough. The overall mentality was such that it was cool to get into continuation school because then you would only have to go to school for half days and they watched a lot of movies! People strived for continuation school by getting into fights. There were no honors classes or AP classes in my high school. There was no need. We had open campus lunch, which was used by most to go and get drunk or high for the later half of the day. Most of the kids were taking care of themselves with very little parental presence or living on their own. My best friend had a liking for gang members. She ran with some of the most dangerous people I had ever known. They beat another friend of mine almost to death with a crowbar and shot up his house. They stole her parents truck. Guns? Yeah! White kids notoriously had issues at my school, but not me because of my best friend's friends. My main point is that NONE of these kids cared about their future. Future? No, they only had their eye on adulthood, which meant that they could LEGALLY go out and buy alcohol and cigarettes. Adulthood meant you could do whatever you wanted. But a future? No...no one cared about that.

What I am saying is that there is no hope. In places like this, the children lose hope real fast. I don't know the age that it happens, but believe me, it is long before their freshman year in high school and it is for the majority of them. When people have no hope and they grow up in such sad and deplorable conditions, hungry, needing, wanting, I think the have less regard for human life because they have less regard for their OWN life.


This isn't about gun laws at all for these cities. It is far more political and sad.

It has been shown that in order to reduce violence in areas such as these, money and programs must be pumped into them in order to give people hope and a future. Here is my favorite example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-florida.html?_r=0


But back to the gun discussion, even with these most dangerous cities in tow, California still ranks as one of the lowest for gun deaths per capita in the nation, why do you think that is? Meanwhile, the states with the most relaxed gun laws are coming in with the highest rates of death.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...0-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths

 

[GliderPoss]

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.

Agreed, similar perspective from an Aussie. I simply cannot understand WHY everyone in the US seems to feel the need to carry a weapon for "protection"? Against what? From whom specifically? We have bad people here too but as they find it extremely difficult to actually get hold of a gun of any kind, let alone an automatic weapon - I don't feel the crazy need to carry a gun to "protect myself/family". Our theory here in Australia is if NO ONE has guns - no one can shoot each other. More guns are CLEARLY not the answer...

I am deeply sadden by yet another mass shooting yet it seems nothing will ever change unless the broader culture changes and the US government are able to actually pass sensible gun laws.

 

[GliderPoss]

I absolutely LOVE Jim Jeffries piece on gun control, it's literally correct in every single way as far as the mindset of Aussies on gun control. Many people will disagree with him but he raises points that are hard to refute; you're welcome to have a gun for sport or hunting and most people would be happy to go through the regulations if it means less gun violence, but protecting one's family and being able to safely store a gun is basically not possible and those are the people who need to consider if they need a gun.

What ends up happening is sales get limited to specialist stores that have to go through stringent procedures, checks and other scans in order to be able to sell a firearm. This is how availability goes down.

Cannot agree with this more! Jim Jeffries completely nails how Aussie's feel about this whole gun issue... and why we find it so frustrating that laws WILL NOT be changed for the better despite obvious evidence that they should.

 

[ksinger]

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.

Agreed, similar perspective from an Aussie. I simply cannot understand WHY everyone in the US seems to feel the need to carry a weapon for "protection"? Against what? From whom specifically? We have bad people here too but as they find it extremely difficult to actually get hold of a gun of any kind, let alone an automatic weapon - I don't feel the crazy need to carry a gun to "protect myself/family". Our theory here in Australia is if NO ONE has guns - no one can shoot each other. More guns are CLEARLY not the answer...

I am deeply sadden by yet another mass shooting yet it seems nothing will ever change unless the broader culture changes and the US government are able to actually pass sensible gun laws.

"Everyone" in the US isn't feeling the need to carry a weapon for protection. This is the case even in very gun-friendly states. The ones who are very pro-gun, are, however, very loud and very well-funded, so perhaps it's understandable that you might go there. But I assure you, the people in this country are VERY divided on this issue, so lumping us all together as fear-drenched gun-toting nutters, is not really fair, and not correct.

 

[jordyonbass]

I absolutely LOVE Jim Jeffries piece on gun control, it's literally correct in every single way as far as the mindset of Aussies on gun control. Many people will disagree with him but he raises points that are hard to refute; you're welcome to have a gun for sport or hunting and most people would be happy to go through the regulations if it means less gun violence, but protecting one's family and being able to safely store a gun is basically not possible and those are the people who need to consider if they need a gun.

What ends up happening is sales get limited to specialist stores that have to go through stringent procedures, checks and other scans in order to be able to sell a firearm. This is how availability goes down.

Cannot agree with this more! Jim Jeffries completely nails how Aussie's feel about this whole gun issue... and why we find it so frustrating that laws WILL NOT be changed for the better despite obvious evidence that they should.

Absolutely! I actually spoke with an old hunter friend of mine about this who has guns AND had a home invasion a number of years ago. He said that not once during the whole ordeal did he think about his gun and realised that your shoes in your closet are going to be of more assistance in that kind of situation.

US citizens opposing progression with archaic, outdated and superfluous pro-gun excuses don't understand what gun regulation and gun control means for them and their hobbies that involve firearms, nor are they willing to educate themselves. When the gun ban happened here after Port Arthur, most people weren't phased as the types of weapons being banned were not hunting or sporting firearms. Those other guns were still available, there was just miles of red-tape procedure added to the acquisition process so those who weren't sure if they needed it ended up not wanting it and those who did need it were more than happy to navigate the red tape due to their requirements and the implications of said legislation.

If you're still opposed to gun regulation then think of it like this: we have to be licensed, trained and pass tests to be able to drive a motorized vehicle, operate certain types of heavy machinery and do other activities that may be deemed as dangerous or life threatening. This has helped mortality rates in each respected field, yet guns are still behind everything else that has progressed while dragging it's chain.

C'mon folks, this isn't the Wild Wild West anymore. Nobody is trying to make guns an extinct item.

 

[kenny]

I simply cannot understand WHY everyone in the US seems to feel the need to carry a weapon for "protection"?

Please.
Not everyone.

I'm an American living in America, and to my knowledge nobody I know owns a gun.
Guns creep me out.
No thanks.

I'd never get a gun.
No reason to.
I'm not afraid.

I wish we could get rid of them as other countries have.

 

[stracci2000]

My father was an avid hunter, and a gun collector. We always had guns in the home.
Dad is up in years and no longer hunts deer, but feeds them instead. Maybe he is sub-consciously trying to redeem himself...?
No one in my family, nor any of my friends, has ever had to defend themselves with a firearm. I don't really see the need to have one, either.
I don't think that defending yourself with a gun is as common or glamorous as Hollywood would like us to think. Would it really be that awesome to shoot the guy who's trying to car-jack you?

 

[jordyonbass]

My father was an avid hunter, and a gun collector. We always had guns in the home.
Dad is up in years and no longer hunts deer, but feeds them instead. Maybe he is sub-consciously trying to redeem himself...?
No one in my family, nor any of my friends, has ever had to defend themselves with a firearm. I don't really see the need to have one, either.
I don't think that defending yourself with a gun is as common or glamorous as Hollywood would like us to think. Would it really be that awesome to shoot the guy who's trying to car-jack you?

Exactly.

You're rolling the dice with EVERY life directly involved in that situation. Yours, your family's, the assailant - ANYONE within firing range of your weapon. Citizens in the US have an irrational fear of people breaking into their homes to hurt them and their family when the item you're trying to defend yourself with has the potential to do more damage than what said-intruder could probably do. And if you lose control of the weapon to the assailant - that's an even bigger problem than the one you started with.

Much like your father Stracci I also hunt, my rifle lives in it's safe and comes out roughly once every 2 months for hunting trips. But we don't hunt with our rifles, we use dogs and the rifles are our last defence against giant boars, packs of wild dogs, massive crocs and other animals where we may happen to cross their paths and the situation turns tense/dangerous. I feel I have more of a need for a gun in those situations than any situation I could have with a person.

I'm hoping the fact that I am both a gun and a regulation advocate gives a ray of light to the gun control folk, there are people who use guns out there that do support the cause. We're probably the fence-sitters who have the best ideas to appease both sides of this argument and reach an agreeable end. Easier said than done of course...

America's current gun culture is what their roads would look like if there were no licensing or safety requirements, background and history checks or regulation requirements. It's now getting to the point in the US where you're almost more likely to get killed by getting shot than by a car accident (which makes sense since more people drive each day than use a gun). Gun control doesn't mean the eradication of such items, it's simply the regulation to ensure maximum safety. As to why people feel one of the deadliest domestic items ever created doesn't need regulation is beyond any kind of comprehension for me...

 

[Karl_K]

A place where all the liberal agenda gun laws are in effect:
http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings
There where over 50 shootings just this last weekend.

No thanks I will keep mine.

Per capita numbers?


Let's not use one of the most densely populated areas of the nation as an example to push a pro-gun agenda. Once we go per capita, we see that liberal gun laws DO work. Hawaii, California, etc have the fewest gun deaths per capita.

But if it worked then Chicago should be the safest place on earth.

By that logic, if liberal gun laws didn't work, Hawaii and California would have the highest murder rates in the nation.

Flawed logic will get us nowhere, but it sure can be fun to throw around.

How would you explain Oakland CA and Stockton, Ca two of the very most dangerous cities in the US?
Or East Palo Alto, CA?
Or Compton, CA?

Karl,

This question has nothing to do with gun safety laws and I DO hope that you know it and are trying to be clever.

In the 80's, these areas were rendered completely desolate by Reaganomics. People were actually starving due to lack of jobs and lack of public programs to help the poor. Enter in Contra funded (and Regan administration linked) cocaine and these people had a means for feeding themselves--drug dealing or they had a means for numbing out because their situation was so dire--drug addiction. Crack cocaine was invented because they realized it was super addictive and made even more money--by this time cocaine had been literally unleashed on these areas without consequence. There are recorded phone conversations of the Contras saying that the government doesn't care about these areas and they are huge money makers. Enter the guns...Contra funded too. Another means for these poor people to make money, now they are armed with dangerous weapons, selling huge amounts of drugs, with little police presence. Gun laws? We allowed a situation to be created where people were starving and unleashed drugs and guns onto them as a means for making money and we want to say this is about gun laws? This is about a lot of things, a lot of sick and twisted things, but this isn't about gun laws.

And what did we do about the problem? We made MOVIES about gang violence and listened to NWA and other rap groups but we did nothing and we still do nothing.

In 1989 I went to a high school in the bay area that took in the overflow of students from Oakland. My school was 60% African American, the other 40% was largely Mexican and Asian. That high school was tough. The overall mentality was such that it was cool to get into continuation school because then you would only have to go to school for half days and they watched a lot of movies! People strived for continuation school by getting into fights. There were no honors classes or AP classes in my high school. There was no need. We had open campus lunch, which was used by most to go and get drunk or high for the later half of the day. Most of the kids were taking care of themselves with very little parental presence or living on their own. My best friend had a liking for gang members. She ran with some of the most dangerous people I had ever known. They beat another friend of mine almost to death with a crowbar and shot up his house. They stole her parents truck. Guns? Yeah! White kids notoriously had issues at my school, but not me because of my best friend's friends. My main point is that NONE of these kids cared about their future. Future? No, they only had their eye on adulthood, which meant that they could LEGALLY go out and buy alcohol and cigarettes. Adulthood meant you could do whatever you wanted. But a future? No...no one cared about that.

What I am saying is that there is no hope. In places like this, the children lose hope real fast. I don't know the age that it happens, but believe me, it is long before their freshman year in high school and it is for the majority of them. When people have no hope and they grow up in such sad and deplorable conditions, hungry, needing, wanting, I think the have less regard for human life because they have less regard for their OWN life.


This isn't about gun laws at all for these cities. It is far more political and sad.

It has been shown that in order to reduce violence in areas such as these, money and programs must be pumped into them in order to give people hope and a future. Here is my favorite example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-florida.html?_r=0


But back to the gun discussion, even with these most dangerous cities in tow, California still ranks as one of the lowest for gun deaths per capita in the nation, why do you think that is? Meanwhile, the states with the most relaxed gun laws are coming in with the highest rates of death.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...0-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths

So all those drugged up criminal gangs are going to give up guns and all the sudden obey gun laws if more are passed?

Now for the rest of the story the cdc numbers are not pure numbers and are adjusted for something called "age adjustment??" to give a distorted picture of the situation the raw data does not support the conclusion.
In other words they played with the numbers to make them show what they wanted them too.
The cdc was playing politics to please the liberals.

 

[Loves Vintage]

I absolutely LOVE Jim Jeffries piece on gun control, it's literally correct in every single way as far as the mindset of Aussies on gun control. Many people will disagree with him but he raises points that are hard to refute; you're welcome to have a gun for sport or hunting and most people would be happy to go through the regulations if it means less gun violence, but protecting one's family and being able to safely store a gun is basically not possible and those are the people who need to consider if they need a gun.

What ends up happening is sales get limited to specialist stores that have to go through stringent procedures, checks and other scans in order to be able to sell a firearm. This is how availability goes down.

Cannot agree with this more! Jim Jeffries completely nails how Aussie's feel about this whole gun issue... and why we find it so frustrating that laws WILL NOT be changed for the better despite obvious evidence that they should.

US citizens opposing progression with archaic, outdated and superfluous pro-gun excuses don't understand what gun regulation and gun control means for them and their hobbies that involve firearms, nor are they willing to educate themselves. When the gun ban happened here after Port Arthur, most people weren't phased as the types of weapons being banned were not hunting or sporting firearms. Those other guns were still available, there was just miles of red-tape procedure added to the acquisition process so those who weren't sure if they needed it ended up not wanting it and those who did need it were more than happy to navigate the red tape due to their requirements and the implications of said legislation.

The NRA teaches that any incursion of the right to bear arms must be avoided. Whether it makes sense or not. Bright lined rule. Regulations intended to save lives are not compatible with their belief system. Everyone should have a gun. Arm the teachers. Sell more guns. Keep them in your home. Protect your family. Your children won't shoot themselves. That only happens to other families. You must protect them. Buy more guns. Your husband won't shoot you. That only happens to other women. Buy more guns. And, don't forget to stock up on ammo too! Need lots in case the gov't turns on ya'.

 

[ericad]

I absolutely LOVE Jim Jeffries piece on gun control, it's literally correct in every single way as far as the mindset of Aussies on gun control. Many people will disagree with him but he raises points that are hard to refute; you're welcome to have a gun for sport or hunting and most people would be happy to go through the regulations if it means less gun violence, but protecting one's family and being able to safely store a gun is basically not possible and those are the people who need to consider if they need a gun.

What ends up happening is sales get limited to specialist stores that have to go through stringent procedures, checks and other scans in order to be able to sell a firearm. This is how availability goes down.

Cannot agree with this more! Jim Jeffries completely nails how Aussie's feel about this whole gun issue... and why we find it so frustrating that laws WILL NOT be changed for the better despite obvious evidence that they should.

US citizens opposing progression with archaic, outdated and superfluous pro-gun excuses don't understand what gun regulation and gun control means for them and their hobbies that involve firearms, nor are they willing to educate themselves. When the gun ban happened here after Port Arthur, most people weren't phased as the types of weapons being banned were not hunting or sporting firearms. Those other guns were still available, there was just miles of red-tape procedure added to the acquisition process so those who weren't sure if they needed it ended up not wanting it and those who did need it were more than happy to navigate the red tape due to their requirements and the implications of said legislation.

The NRA teaches that any incursion of the right to bear arms must be avoided. Whether it makes sense or not. Bright lined rule. Regulations intended to save lives are not compatible with their belief system. Everyone should have a gun. Arm the teachers. Sell more guns. Keep them in your home. Protect your family. Your children won't shoot themselves. That only happens to other families. You must protect them. Buy more guns. Your husband won't shoot you. That only happens to other women. Buy more guns. And, don't forget to stock up on ammo too! Need lots in case the gov't turns on ya'.

I have a good friend who has been having marriage problems for the last few years. Her husband has been drinking heavily and his temper is out of control. Over the past year he has taken a sudden interest in guns, which she wasn't aware of until he moved a big gun safe into their new house when they moved over the summer. I think prior to that he must have been keeping them in their storage facility. He keeps "meaning to" give her the combo to the safe, but never does. She isn't even sure how many he has in there or what kind, but there are several, and all are legally obtained. A couple of weeks ago he was on a rage about something, slamming doors and cursing, and she lay in bed awake wondering about those guns and what he is capable of. To my knowledge he's never taken any kind of gun training apart from his buddies showing him how to play with guns. His wife and teenage daughter have never even held a gun, let alone do they understand gun safety or, in an emergency, how to use one to defend themselves (and they're home alone quite a lot). She has never once seen him take the guns out to go shooting at the range and he's not a hunter. He just wants guns "for protection". Against who, your 110 pound wife?

Why the hell should this guy be allowed to have guns? This is gun ownership in the US. Anyone who wants one can just go out and get one, or 3 or 10.

 

[AdaBeta27]

There has been another mass shooting, this time at a college in Oregon. 13 dead, 20 wounded, shooter dead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/2015-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/
...

But with so few days between shootings, I guess there will never be a good time to talk about the gun problem in the U.S.

I'm not going to read this entire thread. But you can't rule out the terrorism element in these shootings. Many of these shooters are males whose Internet tracks show they may have some issues revolving around religion, capitalism, racism, etc. Instead of prattling on and on about the gun problem in America, and the role of "mental health" in such incidents, I think it would be a good time to stop and consider that we do indeed have evil people and true enemies among us, and rather than control supply of weapons, perhaps more of us should be procuring weapons and ammo and learning how to use them competently.

 

[House Cat]

A place where all the liberal agenda gun laws are in effect:
http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings
There where over 50 shootings just this last weekend.

No thanks I will keep mine.

Per capita numbers?


Let's not use one of the most densely populated areas of the nation as an example to push a pro-gun agenda. Once we go per capita, we see that liberal gun laws DO work. Hawaii, California, etc have the fewest gun deaths per capita.

But if it worked then Chicago should be the safest place on earth.

By that logic, if liberal gun laws didn't work, Hawaii and California would have the highest murder rates in the nation.

Flawed logic will get us nowhere, but it sure can be fun to throw around.

How would you explain Oakland CA and Stockton, Ca two of the very most dangerous cities in the US?
Or East Palo Alto, CA?
Or Compton, CA?

Karl,

This question has nothing to do with gun safety laws and I DO hope that you know it and are trying to be clever.

In the 80's, these areas were rendered completely desolate by Reaganomics. People were actually starving due to lack of jobs and lack of public programs to help the poor. Enter in Contra funded (and Regan administration linked) cocaine and these people had a means for feeding themselves--drug dealing or they had a means for numbing out because their situation was so dire--drug addiction. Crack cocaine was invented because they realized it was super addictive and made even more money--by this time cocaine had been literally unleashed on these areas without consequence. There are recorded phone conversations of the Contras saying that the government doesn't care about these areas and they are huge money makers. Enter the guns...Contra funded too. Another means for these poor people to make money, now they are armed with dangerous weapons, selling huge amounts of drugs, with little police presence. Gun laws? We allowed a situation to be created where people were starving and unleashed drugs and guns onto them as a means for making money and we want to say this is about gun laws? This is about a lot of things, a lot of sick and twisted things, but this isn't about gun laws.

And what did we do about the problem? We made MOVIES about gang violence and listened to NWA and other rap groups but we did nothing and we still do nothing.

In 1989 I went to a high school in the bay area that took in the overflow of students from Oakland. My school was 60% African American, the other 40% was largely Mexican and Asian. That high school was tough. The overall mentality was such that it was cool to get into continuation school because then you would only have to go to school for half days and they watched a lot of movies! People strived for continuation school by getting into fights. There were no honors classes or AP classes in my high school. There was no need. We had open campus lunch, which was used by most to go and get drunk or high for the later half of the day. Most of the kids were taking care of themselves with very little parental presence or living on their own. My best friend had a liking for gang members. She ran with some of the most dangerous people I had ever known. They beat another friend of mine almost to death with a crowbar and shot up his house. They stole her parents truck. Guns? Yeah! White kids notoriously had issues at my school, but not me because of my best friend's friends. My main point is that NONE of these kids cared about their future. Future? No, they only had their eye on adulthood, which meant that they could LEGALLY go out and buy alcohol and cigarettes. Adulthood meant you could do whatever you wanted. But a future? No...no one cared about that.

What I am saying is that there is no hope. In places like this, the children lose hope real fast. I don't know the age that it happens, but believe me, it is long before their freshman year in high school and it is for the majority of them. When people have no hope and they grow up in such sad and deplorable conditions, hungry, needing, wanting, I think the have less regard for human life because they have less regard for their OWN life.


This isn't about gun laws at all for these cities. It is far more political and sad.

It has been shown that in order to reduce violence in areas such as these, money and programs must be pumped into them in order to give people hope and a future. Here is my favorite example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-florida.html?_r=0


But back to the gun discussion, even with these most dangerous cities in tow, California still ranks as one of the lowest for gun deaths per capita in the nation, why do you think that is? Meanwhile, the states with the most relaxed gun laws are coming in with the highest rates of death.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...0-States-By-Gun-Sense-And-Gun-Violence-Deaths

So all those drugged up criminal gangs are going to give up guns and all the sudden obey gun laws if more are passed?

Now for the rest of the story the cdc numbers are not pure numbers and are adjusted for something called "age adjustment??" to give a distorted picture of the situation the raw data does not support the conclusion.
In other words they played with the numbers to make them show what they wanted them too.
The cdc was playing politics to please the liberals.

I think you missed my entire point. I already said that gun laws have little to do with those areas. If you have a look, we already have some of the strictest laws in the nation.

But, we also have a 30-year case study on gang infested, illegally obtained gun infested, violence-ridden areas, and it seems to me that those areas stay LARGELY self-contained. If they didn't, you can believe that we would actually find a solution to help those people once and for all.

As I said, we need to inject programs that inspire hope, not gun laws into those areas.


Can you please explain to me how the CDC played with the numbers in order to please the liberals? This will be an education for me. I hear this a lot from conservative gun owners. A rational explanation of exactly how these numbers are skewed would be nice.

 

[AGBF]

I'm an American living in America, and to my knowledge nobody I know owns a gun.

I sort of wish I could say this, but ksinger speaks for me. As she so often does. I exist in a little world where some of my friends are gun owners who love their guns and some would never in a million years allow a gun in their homes.

I can understand why it might be hard for a non-American to understand how we can live with this dichotomy, but we Americans are used to living with diversity. We are a very heterogeneous bunch and we differ from our neighbors in myriad ways. It does not surprise us to learn that in a house on our block a family does not eat pork or does not eat any meat or is vegan. Why should it surprise us that one family has a parent who loves the rifle range and uses the e-mail address annieoakley@ suchandsuchdotcom while another family never let the children have toy guns to play with?

We often have extraordinarily different tastes and get along well. As long as we don't push our views on each other. If Annie Oakley or the mother who doesn't let her children play with guns happens to be a crusader for her cause, then we sometimes see conflict. But 9 times out of 10 we just live and let live. That's how I have always lived my life on the gun topic. My best friend's husband loves guns and is storing up for the apocalypse. One of my female friends (who loves animals and does not hunt) frequents a rifle range. No one in my entire extended family except my grandfather, who was a deer hunter, ever had a gun in the house. (Although my great-uncle did have a shell he brought home from World War II which caused the Stratford, CT police to come out after his death because we didn't know for sure if it was unexploded.)

And so it goes....

AGBF

 

[kenny]

Citizens in the US have an irrational fear of people breaking into their homes to hurt them and their family ...

SOME US citizens.

Call me naive, but I'm not afraid.
I do take some steps though.
I lock windows and doors when not at home, and keep valuables in the safe deposit box, but that's it.

No alarms, no guns, no insurance that I'm not legally required to buy.

I'm not a fan of fear.
So, someone steals our TV.
So what, life goes on.

I accept that sometimes sh!t just happens.
This is a very liberating and peaceful feeling.
IMO that makes me NOT a typical American.

I kind of feel bad for people who fight against what is largely imaginary and unlikely.
Odds are, this bad stuff is NOT going to happen to you.
Fear is the most basic human emotion, and the easiest to evoke in others.
The insurance industry, security industry and gun industry fan our fears to make a buck.
The government fans our fears against the so-called 'bad guys' so we support wars, which makes trillions for the military-industrial complex.
We are easily manipulated so others can profit.

I see fear as a rampant and highly-contageous disease that the human mind is VERY susceptible to.
Somehow I got vaccinated.

 

[kenny]

Finally, we have a US politician with balls ...

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has unveiled new gun control laws in the wake of the deadly Oregon school shooting.

She proposes abolishing legislation that protects gun makers and dealers from being sued by shooting victims.

Mrs Clinton also vowed to use executive powers as president to expand background checks at gun shows and ban domestic abusers from purchasing guns."

The rest of the story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34447239

 

[purplesparklies]

That is crazy.

I agree that changes need to be made. Firstly, our country needs to figure out a way to uniformly enforce the laws already on the books. Until the current enforcement problems are fixed, creating more unenforceable laws will accomplish nothing other than quieting the mobs of people who are blindly demanding more laws. Means nothing if they can not be/ are not enforced.

Holding firearms manufacturers accountable is ridiculous. Makes as much sense as holding automobile manufacturers accountable for deaths by auto accidents. I don't know what the answer is but I know this is not it.

 

[Karl_K]

Citizens in the US have an irrational fear of people breaking into their homes to hurt them and their family ...

SOME US citizens.

Call me naive, but I'm not afraid.

neither am I, I prepare.
There was a home invasion at 3am just a couple weeks ago in the apartment building I live in.
They awoke hearing someone in the apartment and there was a guy in the ladies bedroom.
She yelled and the others living there came running and they took off.
The cops did not even bother investigating to any extent, just took a report and left.
My city has one of the highest rate of home burglary and home invasion in the US.
There was a recent case where a convicted felon shot some young burglars breaking into her house.
It was the 4th burglary/home invasion in 2 weeks in a 2 block area.
They beat up an elderly couple in one of them.

There is nothing irrational in wanting to be prepared for someone breaking in, it is a very real possibility.

 

[kenny]

You might argue I'm afraid because I lock my windows and doors when I leave the house.

I guess it's about degrees of fear and where that level of fear causes a person to draw their line.

 

[jordyonbass]

That is crazy.

I agree that changes need to be made. Firstly, our country needs to figure out a way to uniformly enforce the laws already on the books. Until the current enforcement problems are fixed, creating more unenforceable laws will accomplish nothing other than quieting the mobs of people who are blindly demanding more laws. Means nothing if they can not be/ are not enforced.

Holding firearms manufacturers accountable is ridiculous. Makes as much sense as holding automobile manufacturers accountable for deaths by auto accidents. I don't know what the answer is but I know this is not it.

I agree, completely wrong approach. Holding them accountable is not going to help with anything at all and convict honest businessmen. It reminds me of when I ran a pub and there was a lobby to make venues accountable for domestic violence if customers had been in the venue at some point in the previous 24 hours. I agree that alcohol fuelled domestic violence is terrible, but it would be insulting to a customer to refuse them service in the fear they may assault their spouse and could possibly cause a staff member of the venue to be assaulted. Our union argued that it is the governmet and law enforcement's job to deal with the issue of domestic vioence, not a small business owners.

There needs to be a screening, background check and other red tape procedures that make it difficult to obtain a deadly weapon. If people want to argue that a car is also a deadly weapon then they will see we also test drivers and will not let them behind the wheel if they aren't deemed fit. I just can't understand how there is a large proportion of the population there that disagrees.

 

[jordyonbass]

There has been another mass shooting, this time at a college in Oregon. 13 dead, 20 wounded, shooter dead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/2015-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/
...

But with so few days between shootings, I guess there will never be a good time to talk about the gun problem in the U.S.

I'm not going to read this entire thread. But you can't rule out the terrorism element in these shootings. Many of these shooters are males whose Internet tracks show they may have some issues revolving around religion, capitalism, racism, etc. Instead of prattling on and on about the gun problem in America, and the role of "mental health" in such incidents, I think it would be a good time to stop and consider that we do indeed have evil people and true enemies among us, and rather than control supply of weapons, perhaps more of us should be procuring weapons and ammo and learning how to use them competently.

I'd just like to point out that we also have evil people and terrorists here in Australia; we had the siege in Sydney and only in the last couple days we have had a young, radicalized teenager shoot a police officer in a police station.

I still don't feel the need to have a gun for protection from people.

 

[purplesparklies]

Evil is everywhere. There are no easy answers. There should be a process one must complete before gun ownership. In my opinion, there should be some kind of ongoing training requirement or evidence of proficiency. I know too many who own a gun but who have not done the work to become comfortable with using them. That is a recipe for disaster. If you are not comfortable at a range during a training exercise, you will not be effective in the event of an emergency.

I do have a handgun. I do have my CCL, which I have not utilized to date. It was absolutely too easy for me to purchase my gun. I would prefer that it not be that easy. I do go to a local range regularly so I am familiar with my gun. I did not ever want to be a gun owner. I would prefer feeling like I did not need to have one. I do not plan to need it. I hope I never need to use mine. I am prepared to do so, if necessary. It is kept loaded and ready in a biometric safe. Takes seconds to access but can not be accessed by anyone other than my husband or myself. I live in a fairly rural area. Police response time is slow. Property is spaced out and acres apart so neighbors do not typically notice if anything is amiss. My husband travels extensively for business so my young boys and I are home alone often.

I have no problem with enforcement of current laws and additional laws that are more strict on requirements for gun ownership, as long as they can and will be enforced for all.