What the hell, gun people!?!

[soxfan]

omg, these b*tches are crazy. They want to keep guns out of Staples! Just because there was a shooting at a Staples? How am I going to get my printer ink without my gun?

I'm dying

 

[soxfan]

hint they do have a website that has part of their agenda on it.
They avoid some of the more controversial things the leaders have said to make them sound less harmful.
But what is there is enough to brand them as grabbers.
But when it comes down to it they are Brady part5 backed by the same gun grabbin globalists trying to take advantage of a tragedy.

The real failing of the tragedy is the complete and utter failure of the mental health care system.
But that gets little discussion and no answers because the gun grabbers want to use it for their own gains.
Blame bits of plastic and metal to keep attention away from the real cause.

http://momsdemandaction.org

omg, these b*tches are crazy. They want to keep guns out of Staples! Just because there was a shooting at a Staples? How am I going to get my printer ink without my gun?

And what tragedy are they taking advantage of? Sandy Hook? Where the crazy kid's mom taught him how to shoot legally owned guns? How is that a failure of the mental health care system? 'Twas just a good 'ol gun loving mom having some quality time with her kid. Yes, there was some collateral damage, but that's the price we've all agreed to pay isn't it?

Same with Sgt. Michael Landsberry. How exactly was that a failure of the mental health system. Was the local mental hospital supposed to be informed that the sargeant's killer's parents kept a loaded handgun on top of their refrigerator?

It's such a GREAT thing that we have these true American's in Texas showing these crazy moms what's what. You know what would be really interesting? If a group of Americans that didn't look like this "true American" crowd, say some Black Americans or Mexican-Americans, were to demonstrate in such a way. I'll bet the cops would have been called then.

I agree with EVERYTHING you've said. I don't know why others can't see that THESE are the real problems and WHY we need gun reform.

 

[Maria D]

and plenty of people who don't carry have some sort of twisted notion that every single gun owner is one step away from being a whackadoo nut job letting loose in a crowd.

While I don't think that, I do think that plenty of people who keep guns don't do *enough* to keep them away from their whackadoo relatives. And by enough, I mean preventing their mentally ill and/or just plain angry kin from having access to their guns AND recognizing that their kin/friends/strangers that may break in are whackadoo in the first place. Packrat, any whackadoos around you?

mentally ill people are whackadoos???

It is words and attitudes like that that prevent many people from getting help who need it.
IL has cut mental health care by over $1.8 billion since 2009 because of that attitude.

Please don't talk to me about language. My family has had its issues with mental illness and I'm well aware of the problems about getting needed medical help. Packrat used the word whackadoo and I'm responding in kind. You are deflecting from the issue at hand which is that GUNS make it really easy for tragedies to occur. Using a pejorative term like whackadoo instead of an appropriate one like mentally ill doesn't mean you're for cutting mental health care. I'm not for that and I doubt Packrat is either.

 

[kenny]

They want to keep guns out of Staples! Just because there was a shooting at a Staples?
How am I going to get my printer ink without my gun?

By paying for it, like the rest of us.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I'm going over their mission statement at the moment (admittedly have only skimmed) and I am not seeing anything about them opposing citizen's rights to carry a gun? From what I can gather they support the second ammendment and oppose people being able to purchase an uzi online.

 

[TooPatient]

I'm going over their mission statement at the moment (admittedly have only skimmed) and I am not seeing anything about them opposing citizen's rights to carry a gun? From what I can gather they support the second ammendment and oppose people being able to purchase an uzi online.

Not just an assault rifle online -- it looks like they want to ban ammunition sales online.

FWIW, ammunition orders online can save a lot of money and are what allow me to go to the range to practice as much as I do. The places I order from require signature on delivery -- specifically MY signature as the purchaser -- and government issued photo ID.

Also -- some of the highest quality guns (and btw, high quality means functional -- a gun that has problems is dangerous) I have purchased were ordered online. Do you know where they were delivered? To my local gun shop. Where I was required to show government issued photo ID, pay additional taxes & paperwork fees, wait while they ran ANOTHER background check on me, and then my current address (for the background check) had to match the address on my government issued photo ID. Do you know what happened when my current address wasn't on my ID? (we'd recently moved) I had to go to the DOL and get a new ID.
They do NOT just ship to any old address.

Do you know what they require now that I have my concealed carry license? Exactly the same thing. The only difference is that they can run their multiple background checks on me the same day they record my shipment rather than requiring me to wait for some time before they can do the checks.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I'm going over their mission statement at the moment (admittedly have only skimmed) and I am not seeing anything about them opposing citizen's rights to carry a gun? From what I can gather they support the second ammendment and oppose people being able to purchase an uzi online.

Not just an assault rifle online -- it looks like they want to ban ammunition sales online.

FWIW, ammunition orders online can save a lot of money and are what allow me to go to the range to practice as much as I do. The places I order from require signature on delivery -- specifically MY signature as the purchaser -- and government issued photo ID.

Also -- some of the highest quality guns (and btw, high quality means functional -- a gun that has problems is dangerous) I have purchased were ordered online. Do you know where they were delivered? To my local gun shop. Where I was required to show government issued photo ID, pay additional taxes & paperwork fees, wait while they ran ANOTHER background check on me, and then my current address (for the background check) had to match the address on my government issued photo ID. Do you know what happened when my current address wasn't on my ID? (we'd recently moved) I had to go to the DOL and get a new ID.
They do NOT just ship to any old address.

Do you know what they require now that I have my concealed carry license? Exactly the same thing. The only difference is that they can run their multiple background checks on me the same day they record my shipment rather than requiring me to wait for some time before they can do the checks.

I know the due diligence behind gun purchases and am very happy they exist! I'm still coming up empty with where they want to ban guns or only allow police to carry?

 

[packrat]

Ack, I used whackadoo not as a reference to people w/mental health problems, but as a reference to what *some* anti gun people think all gun owners are.

B/c they do-the minute some people who are against guns find out we have guns, or that *I* have guns, there comes the side eye of suspicion, like they're waiting for me to suddenly go crazy and start firing wildly-which is how the media portrays things. I've been told I must not love my kids, b/c we have guns in the house. I've been told I have a death wish, and that I'll be sorry when my kids die and they hope I spend the rest of my life in jail when other people's kids are killed in my house. Hello? Some people need to get a grip.

 

[House Cat]

Over 130 school shootings have occurred since Columbine. I have yet to hear a gun advocate give a reasonable and finite solution to the problem of a person freely walking onto the campus of our children's schools and shooting them. I've heard a lot of rhetoric, deflection, and excuse making, but nothing of any intelligence or real problem solving. Until I do, I am for extremely strict gun controls, period.

The fact of the matter is that we, as a nation, are becoming numb to the incidents of "mass shooting." This is very telling. This last school shooting was hardly even covered on the news. Mass shootings, where four or more people are killed at once occur every two weeks and we don't even hear about most of them because they might be gang related or happen in the ghetto and not be considered "news worthy."

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe. The fact of the matter is, more people carrying guns aren't stopping school shootings or mass shootings, as the gun advocates would have you believe. The shooters take out as many people as they can and then they take out themselves. It is so extremely rare that an armed citizen has stopped any shooter at all.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

 

[Maria D]

Over 130 school shootings have occurred since Columbine. I have yet to hear a gun advocate give a reasonable and finite solution to the problem of a person freely walking onto the campus of our children's schools and shooting them. I've heard a lot of rhetoric, deflection, and excuse making, but nothing of any intelligence or real problem solving. Until I do, I am for extremely strict gun controls, period.

The fact of the matter is that we, as a nation, are becoming numb to the incidents of "mass shooting." This is very telling. This last school shooting was hardly even covered on the news. Mass shootings, where four or more people are killed at once occur every two weeks and we don't even hear about most of them because they might be gang related or happen in the ghetto and not be considered "news worthy."

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe. The fact of the matter is, more people carrying guns aren't stopping school shootings or mass shootings, as the gun advocates would have you believe. The shooters take out as many people as they can and then they take out themselves. It is so extremely rare that an armed citizen has stopped any shooter at all.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

Word.

 

[Maria D]

Ack, I used whackadoo not as a reference to people w/mental health problems, but as a reference to what *some* anti gun people think all gun owners are.

B/c they do-the minute some people who are against guns find out we have guns, or that *I* have guns, there comes the side eye of suspicion, like they're waiting for me to suddenly go crazy and start firing wildly-which is how the media portrays things. I've been told I must not love my kids, b/c we have guns in the house. I've been told I have a death wish, and that I'll be sorry when my kids die and they hope I spend the rest of my life in jail when other people's kids are killed in my house. Hello? Some people need to get a grip.

Packrat, I kinda like the term "whackadoo." It's friendly; reminds me of cock-a-doodle-doo and who doesn't smile when they hear cock-a-doodle-doo?

This is the Staples shooting that the "terrorist" crazy moms are reacting to:

http://www.wral.com/no-charges-against-woman-after-shooting-self-in-wake-forest-store/12808147/

In a nutshell (no "nut" pun intended!), a woman accidentally discharged her gun and shot herself in a Staples store. The gun was in her purse and her 2 year-old was trying to reach for something in her purse. Knowing her gun was in there, she reached to get his hand out of the purse and accidentally fired the gun. She suffered a hand wound, no one else got hurt.

Do I think she's whackadoo? Nope. Do I think she has a death wish? Nope. Do I think she loves her child? Obviously - she was trying to protect him from harm. Do I think she's misinformed to believe that carrying a gun makes her safer? Yes, and I think the results justify my opinion.

Did she take the necessary steps to carry the gun legally? Well, the article says she had a permit to carry a concealed weapon so presumably that includes training on how not to let this kind of thing happen. But it did happen. And someone could have been seriously hurt. So the crazy b*tch terrorist moms, who according to some here deserve all the intimidation that True Open Carrying Americans have to offer, might just have a point when they ask Staples to take a stand and say "No Guns in the Store."

Kinda like restaurants who don't want you to come in barefoot, 'cuz health hazard. Guns in store could also = health hazard, ya think?

 

[packrat]

Hard to stop a school shooting when you can't carry in a school. People who want to kill people/kids, where do they go? The police station? The gun store? A gun rally? Nope. They go where there is a mass amount of people who are unable to defend themselves.

Our preschool has no locks on our doors during school hours. Wooden doors. No place to go, no place to hide. Prime pickins, us.

A SANE AND LOGICAL PERSON does NOT take a gun and go off willy nilly executing people left and right. If someone DOES this, they are NOT SANE AND LOGICAL. They have a MENTAL PROBLEM. It is not up to the gun advocates to go around and make sure everyone is on their meds. Sometimes people crack. They do. Pressure, money, stress, family issues, it all weighs on a person and everyone has a breaking point.

We have NO SYSTEM IN PLACE in schools for things like this. We do fire drills every month. When's the last time a kid died in a fire in a school? Active shooter drills are done, yes. Not with the kids, mostly. AND, it's basically a lock down procedure, *if* you can lock down, which some schools can't, and what do you do? You hunker down, try to keep the kids quiet and pray like holy hell the cops can get there in time.

There should be things done to prevent these things from happening, yes. There ARE systems/checks in place but you CAN NOT prevent everything. It's impossible. Not even taking guns away from normal every day joe's, and I know nobody wants to hear it but that's the truth. And guess what "helps" prevent things from being talked about or actions taken to make people safer? -->

PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES WHO FUH-REAK THE HELL OUT. Plain and simple. RATIONAL thinking goes right out the f-ing door. It's total black and white thinking on both sides, no middle ground.

Unless you take EVERY SINGLE GUN on the FACE OF THE PLANET away. None for military, law enforcement, NOTHING. WORLD WIDE. THAT is the only way to prevent unnecessary deaths and that is A FACT. And, it will NE-VER happen. EV-ER. A criminal or someone who WANTS to do HARM will FIND A GUN no matter where it is, if it's there, plain and simple.

 

[packrat]

We also learned in our conceal carry class that it's your duty as a responsible gun owner to take precautions if you are going to carry in public. She (Captain Hindsight has arrived) should've had a specifically made purse so that the child couldn't reach it, or had it *in* something in her purse for that same reason. And the safety should've been on.

 

[Maria D]

I'm going over their mission statement at the moment (admittedly have only skimmed) and I am not seeing anything about them opposing citizen's rights to carry a gun? From what I can gather they support the second ammendment and oppose people being able to purchase an uzi online.

Not just an assault rifle online -- it looks like they want to ban ammunition sales online.

FWIW, ammunition orders online can save a lot of money and are what allow me to go to the range to practice as much as I do. The places I order from require signature on delivery -- specifically MY signature as the purchaser -- and government issued photo ID.

Maybe they are taking this position because James Holmes bought his arsenal of ammo online. But, whatev, he just caused some more of that collateral damage we shouldn't be so concerned about. Much more important that True Americans can practice their hobby as cheaply as possible.

edited to add:
Packrat, it's hard to stop a school shooting even when there are armed officers in the school! Columbine HS had armed guards. I'm amazed that people want to arm teachers. I'm a high school teacher. I like most of my colleagues and love a few of them. But I'm more worried about one of them snapping than I am about the students or random people entering the building!

 

[Amber St. Clare]

Disgusting, and totally disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook.

Trying to disarm Americans is disgusting and disrespectful to the veterans who have fought to keep the U.S. free.
The gun gabbers exercised their rights to gather as did the gun owners.
Gathering together with rifles in public is totally legal in Texas.
Calling the cops would have not done any good other than getting the restaurant boycotted and picketed because no laws were broken by the gun owners.

I disagree Karl. I see it as intimidation and hostility at a time when our citizens should be discussing such matters peacefully and thoughtfully.

Perfectly stated.

 

[packrat]

Disgusting, and totally disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook.

Trying to disarm Americans is disgusting and disrespectful to the veterans who have fought to keep the U.S. free.
The gun gabbers exercised their rights to gather as did the gun owners.
Gathering together with rifles in public is totally legal in Texas.
Calling the cops would have not done any good other than getting the restaurant boycotted and picketed because no laws were broken by the gun owners.

I disagree Karl. I see it as intimidation and hostility at a time when our citizens should be discussing such matters peacefully and thoughtfully.

Perfectly stated.

We *should* be discussing peacefully and thoughtfully...but...we won't. That's not our way. Our way is to scream bloody murder (on *both* sides) and point fingers. B/c the ones who are the loudest, are the ones..well..who are heard. Sadly. Well...and the ones w/the most money.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Disgusting, and totally disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook.

Trying to disarm Americans is disgusting and disrespectful to the veterans who have fought to keep the U.S. free.
The gun gabbers exercised their rights to gather as did the gun owners.
Gathering together with rifles in public is totally legal in Texas.
Calling the cops would have not done any good other than getting the restaurant boycotted and picketed because no laws were broken by the gun owners.

I disagree Karl. I see it as intimidation and hostility at a time when our citizens should be discussing such matters peacefully and thoughtfully.

Perfectly stated.

We *should* be discussing peacefully and thoughtfully...but...we won't. That's not our way. Our way is to scream bloody murder (on *both* sides) and point fingers. B/c the ones who are the loudest, are the ones..well..who are heard. Sadly. Well...and the ones w/the most money.

I suppose I am a naive subscriber to the notion "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." You are so right. Zealots on either side of an issue is never good.

 

[justginger]

Over 130 school shootings have occurred since Columbine. I have yet to hear a gun advocate give a reasonable and finite solution to the problem of a person freely walking onto the campus of our children's schools and shooting them. I've heard a lot of rhetoric, deflection, and excuse making, but nothing of any intelligence or real problem solving. Until I do, I am for extremely strict gun controls, period.

The fact of the matter is that we, as a nation, are becoming numb to the incidents of "mass shooting." This is very telling. This last school shooting was hardly even covered on the news. Mass shootings, where four or more people are killed at once occur every two weeks and we don't even hear about most of them because they might be gang related or happen in the ghetto and not be considered "news worthy."

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe. The fact of the matter is, more people carrying guns aren't stopping school shootings or mass shootings, as the gun advocates would have you believe. The shooters take out as many people as they can and then they take out themselves. It is so extremely rare that an armed citizen has stopped any shooter at all.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

Exactly. The US has no shortage of guns, especially when statistically compared to the rest of the developed world. Similarly, the mass shooting, and normal everyday "neighbour kids accidentally shoots his friend", incidences are statistically through the roof. For those who advocate so strongly for gun rights, how do you explain this? Do you think it is not statistic causation? If not, the only other explanation I can see is that, as a whole, Americans are remarkably more imbalanced than the rest of the world.

I feel like gun advocates are behaving like stubborn children, digging their heels in and refusing to see the facts, laid bare. What's happening now is NOT working. If you continue to advocate for a failed system, you are either willing to put your own good above the good of the whole, or you're actually mentally imbalanced, in terms of being unable to accept reason.

 

[aljdewey]

The real failing of the tragedy is the complete and utter failure of the mental health care system.

Wholly, WHOLLY agree with this.

It's not a coincidence that none of the events we hear about involved mentally balanced people mowing people down.

 

[Snicklefritz]

Over 130 school shootings have occurred since Columbine. I have yet to hear a gun advocate give a reasonable and finite solution to the problem of a person freely walking onto the campus of our children's schools and shooting them. I've heard a lot of rhetoric, deflection, and excuse making, but nothing of any intelligence or real problem solving. Until I do, I am for extremely strict gun controls, period.

The fact of the matter is that we, as a nation, are becoming numb to the incidents of "mass shooting." This is very telling. This last school shooting was hardly even covered on the news. Mass shootings, where four or more people are killed at once occur every two weeks and we don't even hear about most of them because they might be gang related or happen in the ghetto and not be considered "news worthy."

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe. The fact of the matter is, more people carrying guns aren't stopping school shootings or mass shootings, as the gun advocates would have you believe. The shooters take out as many people as they can and then they take out themselves. It is so extremely rare that an armed citizen has stopped any shooter at all.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

Word.

Hear, hear! Very well put.

 

[Karl_K]

Gun owners tried the talk nice and work on compromises since 1934 and all it has got us is another slap on the face more restrictive laws.
It is time to roll back the damage and take a firm stand.
We are winning in more and more states. Concealed carry in all 50 states and more and more states going to constitutional(no permit other than the 2nd) carry laws.
PDR(personal defense rifle) ban is bye bye most places.
Now is the time to stand firm and take our rights back.

 

[aljdewey]

There should be things done to prevent these things from happening, yes. There ARE systems/checks in place but you CAN NOT prevent everything. It's impossible. Not even taking guns away from normal every day joe's, and I know nobody wants to hear it but that's the truth. And guess what "helps" prevent things from being talked about or actions taken to make people safer? -->

Emphatically agree with this.

The reality of life is, *everything* comes with some level of risk. If we're going to say "the kid in Staples would never have been at risk if guns weren't allowed", then I guess the next arguments should be "no one should own phones because of the risk of texting/driving", "No one should own cars because it might be possible to drink/drive", and "all prescription medication should be outlawed because it might fall into the hands of kids".

Whether it's a car, a cell phone, a prescription medication or a firearm, the only thing that mitigates risk is an abundance of caution and responsibility on the part of the owner. That responsibility includes keeping these potentially risky things out of irresponsible or mentally ill hands. Until you can legislate *that*, the rest is just window dressing.

 

[TooPatient]

There should be things done to prevent these things from happening, yes. There ARE systems/checks in place but you CAN NOT prevent everything. It's impossible. Not even taking guns away from normal every day joe's, and I know nobody wants to hear it but that's the truth. And guess what "helps" prevent things from being talked about or actions taken to make people safer? -->

Emphatically agree with this.

The reality of life is, *everything* comes with some level of risk. If we're going to say "the kid in Staples would never have been at risk if guns weren't allowed", then I guess the next arguments should be "no one should own phones because of the risk of texting/driving", "No one should own cars because it might be possible to drink/drive", and "all prescription medication should be outlawed because it might fall into the hands of kids".

Whether it's a car, a cell phone, a prescription medication or a firearm, the only thing that mitigates risk is an abundance of caution and responsibility on the part of the owner. That responsibility includes keeping these potentially risky things out of irresponsible or mentally ill hands. Until you can legislate *that*, the rest is just window dressing.

I've been thinking about this today and the whole problem seems to tie in to the same thing as the drunk driving thread showed -- people are not being taught to take responsibility.

You don't leave a 14 year old alone with the keys to your car. You don't leave your prescription pain pills out on the counter when your kid has friends over. You don't go out of town for the weekend and leave a cupboard of alcohol where your kids can get to it. You don't leave your kitchen knives within reach of your toddler.

So don't go out drinking and get behind the wheel of a car.
And don't leave loaded guns sitting around where your kid could pick them up. (and don't leave unloaded guns where your kid could pick them up either!)

People need to take responsibility.

 

[aljdewey]

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

You mean like driving down the highway and getting wiped out by another teen texting on the phone? You mean like preventing the kids in school dealing drugs in the bathroom? Are our children "safe" from those forms of slaughter? Are the kids any less dead when they die from those? As a matter of statistics, kids die much, *much* more frequently from drugs and texting than they do from mass shootings, and those (drugs and texting while driving) already *are* illegal. Hasn't seemed to stop the problem at all from where I sit.

 

[aljdewey]

You don't leave a 14 year old alone with the keys to your car. You don't leave your prescription pain pills out on the counter when your kid has friends over. You don't go out of town for the weekend and leave a cupboard of alcohol where your kids can get to it. You don't leave your kitchen knives within reach of your toddler.

So don't go out drinking and get behind the wheel of a car.
And don't leave loaded guns sitting around where your kid could pick them up. (and don't leave unloaded guns where your kid could pick them up either!)

People need to take responsibility.

The responsibility has to lie with everyone, not just the owners of the cars/cell phones/guns/prescriptions, etc.

The template of events for these tragedies is more predictable than a dime-store romance novel plot. With nearly every single one of these events....Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, the LAX shooter.......comes scores of people who admit after the event to having witnessed troubling behavior from the eventual perpetrators well, well before the events. And none of them said a word.

Where is the responsibility there? We already know for a fact how that kind of responsibility prevents tragedies effectively, right? There are numerous recent stories of people being arrested before they could harm and kill; behind each of those prevented tragedies was one or more brave souls who saw something off and opened their mouths. Most of those stories end with no loss of life, and in most cases, not even slight injury.

Clearly, that kind of social responsibility works. Why not place energy behind promoting more of that?

 

[Maria D]

I've been thinking about this today and the whole problem seems to tie in to the same thing as the drunk driving thread showed -- people are not being taught to take responsibility.

You don't leave a 14 year old alone with the keys to your car. You don't leave your prescription pain pills out on the counter when your kid has friends over. You don't go out of town for the weekend and leave a cupboard of alcohol where your kids can get to it. You don't leave your kitchen knives within reach of your toddler.

So don't go out drinking and get behind the wheel of a car.
And don't leave loaded guns sitting around where your kid could pick them up. (and don't leave unloaded guns where your kid could pick them up either!)

People need to take responsibility.

It's very interesting that you make the connection with drunk driving because that's exactly the same connection the group you called terrorists makes. From their website:

"Much like Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created to reduce drunk driving, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (www.momsdemandaction.org) was created to demand action from legislators, state and federal; companies; and educational institutions to establish common-sense gun reforms. We are a non-partisan grassroots movement of American mothers demanding new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws, loopholes and policies that for too long have jeopardized the safety of our children and families."

I am 52 years old, old enough to remember when drinking and driving was NOT considered a criminal activity. Accidents where alcohol was a factor were still considered accidents. Not only are the laws different, but US society has a completely different mindset thanks to MADD.

 

[TooPatient]

You don't leave a 14 year old alone with the keys to your car. You don't leave your prescription pain pills out on the counter when your kid has friends over. You don't go out of town for the weekend and leave a cupboard of alcohol where your kids can get to it. You don't leave your kitchen knives within reach of your toddler.

So don't go out drinking and get behind the wheel of a car.
And don't leave loaded guns sitting around where your kid could pick them up. (and don't leave unloaded guns where your kid could pick them up either!)

People need to take responsibility.

The responsibility has to lie with everyone, not just the owners of the cars/cell phones/guns/prescriptions, etc.

The template of events for these tragedies is more predictable than a dime-store romance novel plot. With nearly every single one of these events....Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, the LAX shooter.......comes scores of people who admit after the event to having witnessed troubling behavior from the eventual perpetrators well, well before the events. And none of them said a word.

Where is the responsibility there? We already know for a fact how that kind of responsibility prevents tragedies effectively, right? There are numerous recent stories of people being arrested before they could harm and kill; behind each of those prevented tragedies was one or more brave souls who saw something off and opened their mouths. Most of those stories end with no loss of life, and in most cases, not even slight injury.

Clearly, that kind of social responsibility works. Why not place energy behind promoting more of that?

Agreed!

There were a couple of news stories in our local news just recently about kids who showed up to school (I think one was a middle school and one was an elementary school) with guns/knives but were stopped because someone spoke up when they saw a problem.

Responsibility lies with each and every person. It can't be placed exclusively on any one group of people.

 

[TooPatient]

I've been thinking about this today and the whole problem seems to tie in to the same thing as the drunk driving thread showed -- people are not being taught to take responsibility.

You don't leave a 14 year old alone with the keys to your car. You don't leave your prescription pain pills out on the counter when your kid has friends over. You don't go out of town for the weekend and leave a cupboard of alcohol where your kids can get to it. You don't leave your kitchen knives within reach of your toddler.

So don't go out drinking and get behind the wheel of a car.
And don't leave loaded guns sitting around where your kid could pick them up. (and don't leave unloaded guns where your kid could pick them up either!)

People need to take responsibility.

It's very interesting that you make the connection with drunk driving because that's exactly the same connection the group you called terrorists makes. From their website:

"Much like Mothers Against Drunk Driving was created to reduce drunk driving, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (www.momsdemandaction.org) was created to demand action from legislators, state and federal; companies; and educational institutions to establish common-sense gun reforms. We are a non-partisan grassroots movement of American mothers demanding new and stronger solutions to lax gun laws, loopholes and policies that for too long have jeopardized the safety of our children and families."

I am 52 years old, old enough to remember when drinking and driving was NOT considered a criminal activity. Accidents where alcohol was a factor were still considered accidents. Not only are the laws different, but US society has a completely different mindset thanks to MADD.

The focus on not driving while drunk is good!
Banning alcohol is not.
Banning cars is not.
Giving your friend a ride home is good!
Figuring it is his own problem and letting him drive is not.

Focusing on gun safety -- promoting classes, teaching that guns are not toys, safe storage, etc -- is good.
Banning guns in the home is not.
Banning the purchase of ammunition (or just making it too expensive to afford) is not.
Encouraging safe storage in the home is good.
Banning "large" magazines is not. (fwiw, I can't even buy a <10 round magazine for some of mine!)


The responsible thing to do is to learn safe handling and store guns (and knives for that matter) in a safe way.
The responsible thing to do is to notice when something seems "off" about a person and make sure that someone knows -- and this is a responsibility of every last person out there.
The responsible thing to put the responsibility on each and every person.

 

[aljdewey]

Re the contention that the US has a completely different mindset about drinking/driving than we did 30 years ago......I'm not sure I'd agree re the 'completely different mindset', but I'd agree that it has had an impact in reducing the number of drunk driving deaths by half.

And yet despite that progress, below are the following current statistics:

- Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.
- On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime.
- In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes - one every 53 minutes.
- An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest. - This one I find particularly notable; it speak to the fact that while injuries/fatalities have decreased, there are still numerous infractions that just have been caught due to no injury/fatality consequence.- If all 17 million people who admitted to driving drunk had their own state, it would be the fifth largest in the U.S
- Adults drank too much and drive about 112 million times per year - almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving a day.
- In 2011, 226 children were killed in drunk driving crashes.
- Over 1.2 million drivers were arrested in 2011 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.

I point this out to say that it is never wrong to seek improvement, but a healthy dose of rational expectations would go a long way in the gun control issue. First would be a recognition that no matter what controls we try to establish, it will never fully eliminate injuries/fatalities (just as drunk driving laws have reduced but clearly not eliminated infractions).

Second, it would probably be more successful and well accepted if those proposing solutions would choose solutions that aren't wholesale eliminations of some makes of firearm. (Just because someone hit my cousin with a Dodge Dart doesn't mean all Dodge Darts are dangerous or cannot be responsibly owned, so to speak.)

Third, outline how the proposed controls will actually impact the problem.

With that kind of approach, it's hard to imagine rational people wouldn't get on board.

 

[momhappy]

Disgusting, and totally disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook.

In what ways was it disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?

Because carrying guns to a gun safety advocacy meeting is meant to show intimidation, not respectful disagreement.

But, again, my question still stands - how is that disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook?