[Grizzly]

And I can't blame him.

Because honestly, this is bull****. I honestly can't believe that there's so many politicians (Obama aside, natch) that look at the price of their 'gun freedom' and go "Well, it's still less gallons then my car uses every week"!

I mean, I know a bit about US politics and it's lobby (lobster?) infested nature, but a lot of this whole gun debate bull**** is so completely backwards and filled to the brim with double standards that I am surprised at this point nobody has stood up and outright said "You are a bunch of ****ing pathetic morons!". I simply can not believe that a country that is so uptight about controlling stuff like drugs, who ****s who, and what people do to their own bodies is so lax in controlling it's own weapon trade and lets psychopaths slaughter their own population freely.

EDIT: and I highly recommend you read that article in full, as Obama went out swinging against the gun lobbyists.

[Luis Dias]

Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.

[Mars]

If a plane had crashed into that school, and he had used the speech to talk about stricter regulations for planes, would you consider that politiking as well?

[666maslo666]

If a plane had crashed into that school, and he had used the speech to talk about stricter regulations for planes, would you consider that politiking as well?

Planes are not in the constitution. You cannot strictly regulate guns unless you also change second amendment. Id rather deal with regular shootings than make a mockery out of basic law of the country. Statistically speaking, these shootings are not a big threat anyway.

[karajorma]

Yeah, I'm not surprised that he's pissed off. Given that we've had nearly a thousand mass shootings during his 2nd term alone. But unlike him I'm at the point where I think the rest of the world should join me in a loud collective "meh"

This is actually one of the few issues where it's not lobbying that is the issue. It's the general public who can't get behind any kind of gun reform. The rest of us are for the most part from countries that managed to come up with a sensible gun policy. Whether they decided to go with the route of banning guns or giving almost everyone guns we made it work. If Americans can't be bothered to give a **** about it (at least in the kind of numbers to actually get anything done), I don't see why I, or anyone outside America should really give a ****.

Keep paying the 2nd amendment tax guys.

[NGTM-1R]

Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.

This is honestly one of the sickest things about watching this sort of thing play out. In literally no other form of man-made disaster does this line get trotted out. Nobody said we shouldn't be legislating huge changes to how we approach potential terrorists after 9/11. Nobody said it was wrong for the Koreans to crack down on their ferry industry after a disaster. Nobody argued that Metrolink didn't need to immediately clean up its act after the 2008 Chatsworth crash killed 25 people. Nobody argued we didn't need a Benghazi investigation.

"Said no one ever".

Yeah.

This is actually one of the few issues where it's not lobbying that is the issue. It's the general public who can't get behind any kind of gun reform.

I shouldn't be entirely surprised, but you're completely wrong. A majority of Americans don't support open carry even in places it's legal. A majority of Americans have supported various measures like greater and more in-depth background checks. Opposition in the political class does not translate to opposition on the street.

The issue has become, as many others, an ideological loyalty test, particularly among Republicans. The reason the NRA et. al. wield such power isn't that they're supported by a broad spectrum of the population. It isn't even that they're particularly good lobbyists, though they are. It's the casting of the question as an ideological purity one, similar to, say, abortion. These aren't dealbreaker issues for most people; they believe, rightly, that other issues matter more in the grand scheme of things. You know, food on the table? Most people do have to think about that before they can think about whether they'll get shot.

Also, seriously, if you're going to come into topics about people dying and just go "meh" and deploy some vaguely sadistic schadenfreude, why the **** are you even posting? We get into some pretty monstrous digressions in GenDisc on occasion, witness the AIDS thing not long ago, but at least those are people who actually have convictions and subscribe to some kind of morality no matter how wrongheaded it might be. This kind of contemptuous sniggering means nothing and adds nothing.

Planes are not in the constitution.

Neither are guns. There's merely a vague "arms" and it was written at a time where men still carried swords and even pikes as real battlefield weapons. It's literally only since the '90s that anyone has interpreted it to an individual right to gun ownership, and only since the mid-2000s that there's been a Supreme Court decision to that effect.

[Luis Dias]

This is honestly one of the sickest things about watching this sort of thing play out. In literally no other form of man-made disaster does this line get trotted out. Nobody said we shouldn't be legislating huge changes to how we approach potential terrorists after 9/11. Nobody said it was wrong for the Koreans to crack down on their ferry industry after a disaster. Nobody argued that Metrolink didn't need to immediately clean up its act after the 2008 Chatsworth crash killed 25 people. Nobody argued we didn't need a Benghazi investigation.

"Said no one ever".

Yeah.

You're right, in fact too many people are saying it, even this very forum. It's bad practice, and you know what, the ****ing iraq war PROVES IT. The Patriot act PROVES IT.  There *has* been people who have looked at what happened and even suggested that governments should have a law forbidding it from making harsh decisions while emotions were still running hot.

MANY of your examples are precise concrete examples of how this methodology sucks. Because actual efficient measures are not going to be porsued in this emotional state, only *something* to show off as some kind of "vengeance", like, say, invade the ****ing wrong country that didn't do anything to your twin towers.

[AdmiralRalwood]

You cannot strictly regulate guns unless you also change second amendment.

Yeah, let's just ignore the words "well-regulated" and "militia", I'm sure they're not important.

[The E]

You're right, in fact too many people are saying it, even this very forum. It's bad practice, and you know what, the ****ing iraq war PROVES IT. The Patriot act PROVES IT.  There *has* been people who have looked at what happened and even suggested that governments should have a law forbidding it from making harsh decisions while emotions were still running hot.

MANY of your examples are precise concrete examples of how this methodology sucks. Because actual efficient measures are not going to be porsued in this emotional state, only *something* to show off as some kind of "vengeance", like, say, invade the ****ing wrong country that didn't do anything to your twin towers.

You know what else happened this week? The legislation that effectively prohibits the CDC from financing a comprehensive study into the causes of gun violence in the US got an extension.

[karajorma]

I shouldn't be entirely surprised, but you're completely wrong. A majority of Americans don't support open carry even in places it's legal. A majority of Americans have supported various measures like greater and more in-depth background checks. Opposition in the political class does not translate to opposition on the street.

Take a very careful look at my wording. I didn't say that they don't want stronger gun control. I said they can't get behind it.

The issue has become, as many others, an ideological loyalty test, particularly among Republicans. The reason the NRA et. al. wield such power isn't that they're supported by a broad spectrum of the population. It isn't even that they're particularly good lobbyists, though they are. It's the casting of the question as an ideological purity one, similar to, say, abortion. These aren't dealbreaker issues for most people; they believe, rightly, that other issues matter more in the grand scheme of things. You know, food on the table? Most people do have to think about that before they can think about whether they'll get shot.

You've basically confirmed what I said. Other issues matter more to Americans. They might want gun control more but this is not an issue they can get behind and push on. This is not an issue people are going to say "Change your point of view or I'm voting Democrat next election" over. This should be a really, really simple issue, especially given how people feel about it. Look at how immediately guns were banned in the UK after Dunblaine. But in the US it is not a priority. It ****ing well should be, but it's not.

Also, seriously, if you're going to come into topics about people dying and just go "meh" and deploy some vaguely sadistic schadenfreude, why the **** are you even posting? We get into some pretty monstrous digressions in GenDisc on occasion, witness the AIDS thing not long ago, but at least those are people who actually have convictions and subscribe to some kind of morality no matter how wrongheaded it might be. This kind of contemptuous sniggering means nothing and adds nothing.

Once again you should try to take a look at who you are talking to. How many of these discussions have I been involved in? I care about the victims. What I think "meh" about is the fact that we're going to sit and watch the same debate again with not an iota of change. Can you tell me a single thing that is going to be said in this one that hasn't been said in 2005? Only the places and the names of the victims change. There are plenty of Americans who do want a change, and I'm happy to hear them speak on the subject but the rest of the country doesn't really consider this to be important enough to make it a debate.

The situation is only going to change if Americans want change. And I've seen enough of these debates to show that the second someone from another country gets involved the debate degenerates. This is a subject that really should be left to America to solve.

[Grizzly]

Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.

Letting people die again and again for the sake of 'objectivity' is bull****. Waiting untill the bodies are cold is not going to work because in that timeframe there will be another shooting. This isn't a one off event like 9/11 was, missapropriated for notions of ill concieved revenge, this is a recurrent issue, like dams breaking. There is no notion of vengeance here as the perpetrator is already dead.

**** every cause that ends in murder and children dying, and in this case, **** every argument that advocates for letting that happen.

[666maslo666]

You cannot strictly regulate guns unless you also change second amendment.

Yeah, let's just ignore the words "well-regulated" and "militia", I'm sure they're not important.

They arent very important, from the wording it does not logically follow that being in a regulated militia is a must to bear arms. Otherwise the amendment would be saying directly that it is the members of a well-regulated militia who have right to bear arms, instead of general "the people". Anyway, I dont think it is wise to play word games with the constitution and stretch its meaning so much. Even if we assume that the wording is unclear and can be interpreted both ways, then lawmakers should err on the side of government non-interference and require changes to the constitution before any strict gun regulations are enacted.

Neither are guns. There's merely a vague "arms" and it was written at a time where men still carried swords and even pikes as real battlefield weapons.

It adopted in 1791, not in middle ages or antiquity. "arms" obviously includes guns.

[Grizzly]

But why would these have to be issued with ammunition? IIRC that is how the swiss do it: Every service member has a rifle, but the ammo is locked in the armory.

[Luis Dias]

You're right, in fact too many people are saying it, even this very forum. It's bad practice, and you know what, the ****ing iraq war PROVES IT. The Patriot act PROVES IT.  There *has* been people who have looked at what happened and even suggested that governments should have a law forbidding it from making harsh decisions while emotions were still running hot.

MANY of your examples are precise concrete examples of how this methodology sucks. Because actual efficient measures are not going to be porsued in this emotional state, only *something* to show off as some kind of "vengeance", like, say, invade the ****ing wrong country that didn't do anything to your twin towers.

You know what else happened this week? The legislation that effectively prohibits the CDC from financing a comprehensive study into the causes of gun violence in the US got an extension.

I saw that too. Disgusting.

I see people around here attacking what I said, thinking perhaps that I agree with the american law regarding guns or smth. I don't. What I do think is that using people's raw emotions to bring about your political goals has always been a terrible method.

And it was divisive. Conservatives were fuming that the president was using this thing to further his "talking points". All I see here is further divisiveness and polarization, tribalism and without some sort of consensus, I really can't see many things changing.

I guess it's the american way.

e:

Nothing like politicking while bodies are still warm. It helps with objectivity, said no one ever.

Letting people die again and again for the sake of 'objectivity' is bull****. Waiting untill the bodies are cold is not going to work because in that timeframe there will be another shooting. This isn't a one off event like 9/11 was, missapropriated for notions of ill concieved revenge, this is a recurrent issue, like dams breaking. There is no notion of vengeance here as the perpetrator is already dead.

**** every cause that ends in murder and children dying, and in this case, **** every argument that advocates for letting that happen.

Yeaaaah, no. Politics cannot be driven by raw emotions like that. Just look at your mind state here. Do you think any reasonable efficient legislation can come about from raw emotional disgust? I'm sorry, I really don't believe in that.

Of course this is a "recurrent" thing, but it's also pretty harder to solve than any random talking points I constantly hear about, so all this can do is make everyone go into brinksmanship.

[Bobboau]

Keep paying the 2nd amendment tax guys.

you're assuming they are not already completely aware of this and happy to.

and, yeah this has become a loyalty test, on both sides, as has every other issue no matter how minute.

[Goober5000]

The shooting took place in Oregon, a state with higher than average gun control laws, and at a community college, which is a "gun-free zone".  So the solution being proposed is more of what didn't work?

What needs to be done is to allow teachers to carry weapons for self-defense, which is their constitutional right.  Every time mass shooters have been confronted with resistance, they have either surrendered or killed themselves.

[Luis Dias]

Oh boy, let me out of this thr

[karajorma]

Keep paying the 2nd amendment tax guys.

you're assuming they are not already completely aware of this and happy to.

Quite the reverse actually. I'm assuming that the vast majority are happy to keep paying. That's why things don't change.

[Bobboau]

oh, ok, I think you've got a good grasp on it then.

[karajorma]

Which is why I said that I don't think the rest of the world should bother with this. There are enough Americans who are okay with the state of affairs that it's going to carry on for the foreseeable future. There have been 142 mass murders (i.e shootings where 4 or more people were killed) since Sandy Hook. So in what way is it really news? Especially when you consider that by ignoring any future mass shootings, we're preventing the killers becoming world-famous. At best they'll be America-famous.

To be honest, the only thing that was in any way different about this was when Obama basically said that he couldn't do anything himself and that people need to help him. I doubt they'll listen this time though. Maybe if he says it enough.