[Phantom Hoover]

I also run under the assumption as long as humanity persists, there will always be certain elements and criminal mindsets that will never change, no matter the tools on hand.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

[Klaustrophobia]

I'm going to drop in here to say that I find it incredibly offensive that supporters of legal gun ownership are being blamed for shootings.  I know that's not the exact phrasing being used, and few people believe this is what they are doing, but stop and think about it.  I'm even more offended at the notion that I'm just towing a line.  No, I can't POSSIBLY be a goddamn free-thinking individual basing my opinion on my own thought out logic and reasoning.  It MUST just be those damn republicans all just following the party line.  It's just not possible that so many people would all agree on a logical argument being valid.  And politicians would work in support of their constituents.  Nope, that can't be what's happening at all. 

I went intending to purchase a firearm yesterday, and the only reason I didn't is that the one I carefully selected was out of stock.  I will do so when they get more in.  That decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of group think and was absolutely NOT impacted by the recent (or any other) shooting.  I take that back, mass shootings in general did IN SMALL PART support my decision to buy a gun.  Just not this specific one, as I didn't even know about it until I after I had committed to buying.

I have no problem with REASONABLE gun laws that attempt to restrict firearms sales to people likely to use them for ill, so long as they don't unduly burden legal gun ownership by responsible citizens.  I say 'attempt' because I have little confidence that stricter gun laws will result in less guns.  At the risk of a cliche argument and being again accused of towing a line, drugs are already illegal.  To own and to sell.  Please think for a second about how those laws have stopped criminals from using and dealing.   I have no problem with universal background checks.  I don't exactly support the notion, but restricting private sales to have to go through a licensed dealer (i.e., traceable) wouldn't offend me greatly.  What I DO have a problem with is "All guns are evil and must be banned!!!"  Bull****.  That's irrational response to criminals and crazy people doing things that are already illegal.  I don't blame people for feeling that way, but I DO blame them for acting on it by attempting to restrict MY right to defend myself and potentially putting MY life in jeopardy.  On more 'party line,' if you don't like guns, don't buy one.  Make your personal property a 'gun free zone' and see how that works out for you.

I'm not saying "give everyone a gun" as this argument is usually painted by anti-gun people.  We don't need to "give all teachers guns" (for example, apply to whatever context is appropriate).  What we need to do is allow the teacher to have a gun, if they so desire.

[karajorma]

And someone posts another monologue.

This, right here is exactly the problem. Don't talk to the liberals, talk down at them about how they are affecting you. They'll do the same and absolutely nothing will get done.

[Klaustrophobia]

And someone else posts a dismissive statement.

Well, my money was on full-on flame anyway.  So.... progress?

[AtomicClucker]

Well, seeing as how "liberals" have started to fracture into authoritarian strains, libertarians, and traditional liberal viewpoints, I think "talking down" is more like stereotyping. I have to correct myself sometimes when I use the term "liberal" because it's no longer really representative of its actual ideals, as the lefties (personal catch-all) have done a pretty good job of killing "liberal" in every sense of the word. Lefties have done more damage to sever their historical liberal ties.

Gun control is more like an ideological football, and I think since people fight over the same old things, I've little left to say about it.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Why is not having a gun potentially putting your life in jeopardy?

Maybe the real obstacle to gun control is not the 2nd amendment but the US media culture of fear mongering.  As long as people are more scared than compassionate then why would they want restrictions that potentially affect their own security and well-being.

[karajorma]

And someone else posts a dismissive statement.

Did you say a single thing that is actually going to help? You simply ranted about your point of view. Despite this entire thread being composed of people complaining that the reason nothing gets done is exactly that.

Sure you made noises about being okay with what you term as sensible gun control, have you actually DONE anything towards that end? Or are you just waiting for the other side to do something? And if you have done something, why not talk about that instead of being negative and complaining about people who want to take your guns?

[Goober5000]

Edit: As for Goober, well Oregon gives gun permits to anyone without a criminal record without a waiting period. I'm not sure by what metric that passes as "stricter then average".

Oregon has universal background checks.  Most states allow exceptions for private sales and gun shows.  It's worth noting that the Oregon shooter passed the background check and, as you say, did not have a criminal record.  Maybe we need the checks to be conducted by the Department of Pre-Crime instead.

I saw some quote on facebook from a journalist named Dan Hodges, he said:
"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over"

This is a very odd argument for a supporter of abortion to make.  It's supposed to be unbearable for children to be killed by guns but perfectly fine to be killed by their mother?

And yet that ineffective mess is the cycle Kara pointed out,
1) bring the issue during the aftermath of one of these events and you are accused of making political capital off of the dead bodies
2) bring it up once everything calms down and you get apathetic meh responce
3) because nothing is done it happens again
4) go back to point 1)

Breaking this cycle is the key, but to break it you need to break the zellous politics that surrounds guns in the US

Gun control is far from the only way to break the cycle.  (And considering that gun control hasn't worked -- even people who don't believe the scientific studies still concede that it is not politically practical -- people who truly want to break the cycle should be open to other approaches.)

This interesting article cites a Harvard study which claims that one of the strongest predictors of violent offenders is growing up in a home without a father.

[karajorma]

And yet you were the one to bring up the department of pre-crime.

This is a very odd argument for a supporter of abortion to make.  It's supposed to be unbearable for children to be killed by guns but perfectly fine to be killed by their mother?

If you bring up abortion again, I'm going to ask you to leave this discussion.

You know full well what the response would be so this is a deliberate attempt to derail the topic.


To be honest, your entire post is pretty much more of the same thing I've been on about this entire thread. Talk past the other side. Claim it's about family values and abortion instead of gun control. If you talk loud enough you can completely ignore the other side while convincing yourself that you are right.

[Goober5000]

This is a very odd argument for a supporter of abortion to make.  It's supposed to be unbearable for children to be killed by guns but perfectly fine to be killed by their mother?

If you bring up abortion again, I'm going to ask you to leave this discussion.

You know full well what the response would be so this is a deliberate attempt to derail the topic.

No, I was merely responding to Akalabeth Angel using the same language he used.  Perhaps the subtlety escaped you.  If he thinks it's fine to cite a journalist who implies that his political opponents are in favor of killing children, then it's perfectly reasonable to turn that argument around on him.

But I'm happy to refrain from using that line of argument if Akalabeth Angel does as well.

 

To be honest, your entire post is pretty much more of the same thing I've been on about this entire thread. Talk past the other side. Claim it's about family values and abortion instead of gun control. If you talk loud enough you can completely ignore the other side while convincing yourself that you are right.

Your dismissiveness is unwarranted.  I engaged with both -Joshua- and headdie, and proposed a third option that may not have occurred to others participating here.

As for which one of us is talking louder, I suggest counting the number of our respective posts in this thread.

[Scotty]

Note: This lock is not permanent; it will be unlocked in ~twelve hours.

If the major strain of discussion is of the relative quality (or lackthereof) of your opponents' posting habits, I suggest that everyone involved has gotten rather far off the track of what is important and what is on-topic.  Please take a few hours to reflect on that and come back at it without automatically approaching this discussion from a position of obvious and condescending moral superiority.  I suspect that it won't work.

[Grizzly]

Edit: As for Goober, well Oregon gives gun permits to anyone without a criminal record without a waiting period. I'm not sure by what metric that passes as "stricter then average".

Oregon has universal background checks.  Most states allow exceptions for private sales and gun shows.  It's worth noting that the Oregon shooter passed the background check and, as you say, did not have a criminal record.  Maybe we need the checks to be conducted by the Department of Pre-Crime instead.

But here's the thing: Universal background checks is not a big measure at all. Contrast it with, say, New York City. You say that other states have even less gun control, but that does not qualify Oregon as stricter then average at all: Those other states are significantly below the average.

The argument here, that gun control laws don't work becuase look Oregon has gun control laws is not an argument. Oregon's gun control laws are minimal. There's no requirement to be part of a shooting club, militia, or profession where these firearms are needed. There's no sanity checks. There's... well, nothing. Getting a driving license is harder, and cars are partly designed to prevent harm whilst the very purpose of a firearm is to cause it. The only thing that we can learn from this is that Oregon's gun laws, as they currently are, are not effective at preventing these tragedies. That does not at all rule out harsher measures (like those taken in NYC).

The same with "Gun free school zones". That schools want to take these measures to prevent their students or teachers from taking their agression out via gunpowder abuse is a reasonable thing, but if the rest of the state does not comply they're worthless. Requiring that teachers get guns? That makes it rather easy for a student to aquire a gun without going trough the background checks, by seizing it from a teacher whilst they are performing teaching duties like explaining a math equation to a student in person. But the teacher dies first, it happened in this shooting too. Go into a classroom, shoot the teacher and then shoot the kids, and then perhaps you are yourself shot by another teacher. Okay. But that didn't prevent the tragedy from happening, it only contained it.

In the end they are all half hearted measures.

[Phantom Hoover]

Oregon legally requires campuses to allow concealed carrying. In fact, one of the survivors claims he was carrying a gun during the shooting. Goober is, as far as I can tell, totally wrong about the campus being a gun-free zone.

[karajorma]

The claim about the Harvard study is also similarly funny. That article cites no such thing.

No, I was merely responding to Akalabeth Angel using the same language he used.  Perhaps the subtlety escaped you.  If he thinks it's fine to cite a journalist who implies that his political opponents are in favor of killing children, then it's perfectly reasonable to turn that argument around on him.

Perhaps the subtlety in the original comment escaped you.

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over"

This comment can be read as being equally scathing of both sides. Sandy Hook is a great example of exactly the point when America decided that being proven correct about their ideological viewpoints was more important to most people than actually coming together and trying to figure out any kind of compromise that would actually reduce the death toll. Even the death of children wasn't enough to get people off their soapboxes and actually have a dialogue.

I very clearly remember posting in 2012 that both sides were being idiots. I don't see anything that has changed in the intervening time.

[Mika]

Yeah, I'm with Kara here. The less the rest of us discuss this, the less visibility it gets elsewhere, and the more contained it will be to US only.

This is a US problem, we don't need to bother with it. They either will or will not solve their own mess, and either goes to the rest of us.

[Ulala]

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.

I'm from Oregon, and I agree. "Gun-free" zones are the most ludicrous and idiotic idea ever, espcially if there isn't anything in place to protect said zone (such as an armed security detail).

[Phantom Hoover]

Good thing the college wasn't gun-free! Read my post above.

[rubixcube]

I think gun control laws need to be federal in order to be effective, states can have as strict gun laws as they want, but people can still bring guns from other states fairly easily.

[Bobboau]

well, lets say that somehow a law was passed tomorrow making all firearms illegal in the US, that wouldn't make the guns actually go anywhere.

[rubixcube]

well, lets say that somehow a law was passed tomorrow making all firearms illegal in the US, that wouldn't make the guns actually go anywhere.

I never said guns should be illegal. The idea would be to enact laws that would make it as hard as possible to possible mass murdered to get their hands on firearms, primarily compact weapons. Of course, their are already so many guns among the american population, I'm actually not sure how you would approach the issue of confiscating guns from would be murders whilst ensuring law abiding gun owners are not inconvenienced too much.

I suppose I'm a little biased because I'm from Canada, so the idea of walking around with a firearm in my bag seems bizarre. But I do think the US should take a page from our book and try to make their gun laws more along lines of Countries like Canada, Norway, New Zealand etc.

But this issue is somewhat complex, so I think its important it gets debated as much as possible so we can come to a reasonable consensus.