When you have Republican lawmakers who have received the highest ratings from the NRA saying that there is a problem… You know, fuck that: When you have school children mowed down, it’s a rather large fish that jumped into the boat, begging to be put into a pan with some oil and spices.
Bullshit. Obama has presided over several mass shootings while in office. One of them took the career of a respected colleague in an assassination attempt. How come things didn’t change at any point before?
Because enough is enough. Most Americans feel this way. Many gun owning Republicans feel this way. And it’s about time that Obama feels this way.
I don’t think so. If they’re terrified of the president forming a commission to look into the issue of gun violence, aren’t they going to be terrified of pretty much anything? In his first term he expanded access to guns in a few minor ways. That ought to be proof that he’s not taking a draconian view on this, but of course, it’s not…
It’d be terrible if our politics were contaminated by … politics. Laws are either good or bad (and I agree a lot of provisions in the AWB were cosmetic and pointless). The “you can’t talk politics now!” thing is a stalling tactic. Maybe that’s why it isn’t working this time- the NRA and conservatives were very successful at using it to forestall conversations about gun laws after other massacres, but they didn’t resort to this complaint because they wanted to pause for sober reflection. It was because they didn’t want to have the conversation at all under any circumstance, and it worked. When something bad happens, sometimes the laws get changed to try to prevent it from happening again or to improve the response to similar events in the future. That’s usually a good thing. But with shooting rampages it wasn’t allowed for some reason.
I assume Obama agrees with you because he put this on Biden’s plate. I can’t imagine any new gun control law passing before the next Congress is seated anyway. The government is always doing a bunch of things at one time. The fiscal cliff stuff - calling it negotiations might be a stretch - has not stopped.
[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear]
When you have Republican lawmakers who have received the highest ratings from the NRA saying that there is a problem… You know, fuck that: When you have school children mowed down, it’s a rather large fish that jumped into the boat, begging to be put into a pan with some oil and spices.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think that appealing to the Republicans jumping on an obviously populist bandwagon is going to cut any ice with me? Show me that there IS a problem, don’t try to justify things by saying some idiotic Republicans (who you would most likely be CALLING idiots if they didn’t happen to, perhaps, agree with you this time) think so too.
I’ve seen zero evidence that there is a problem thus far. The rate for blowups such as this latest one hasn’t substantially changed in years…decades…as far as I’ve seen. They aren’t going up. Gun violence, despite an opening up of restrictions, isn’t going up either…it’s going down, especially when you consider that the population IS going up.
Sorry, but bullshit right back at you. It’s pretty obvious that the fix is in, with places like CNN providing lots of articles backing up the bandwagon.
What a load. You wouldn’t piss on a Republican if they were on fire normally, but since a few agree with you that means you’ll trot that out as if that’s going to make a difference. Secondly, enough is enough? Really? So, a random tragedy occurs that wouldn’t have been prevented by anything other than perhaps a total gun ban (we are talking 9mm pistols here…pretty much one of the most common firearms in the country…weapons that literally are out in the population in the 10’s of millions of numbers), at a time when gun crime is ALREADY dropping…but now, enough is enough? Good grief.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I don’t think so. If they’re terrified of the president forming a commission to look into the issue of gun violence, aren’t they going to be terrified of pretty much anything? In his first term he expanded access to guns in a few minor ways. That ought to be proof that he’s not taking a draconian view on this, but of course, it’s not…
[/QUOTE]
It’s the rapidity that this is all coming together that, to me, quasi-validates their concern here. As I said, a month ago I was basically amused by some of the pro-gun crowds hand wringing over this, and their waiting for Obama to show his real colors. Today, I’m not nearly so sanguine about it…and, hell, I’m not even a freaking gun owner.
Tell you what. If they actually change laws that have a quantifiable effect on events like this one, then we can come back and talk about it. I don’t see that as what’s going on atm. To me, this is more like a witch hunt, and my guess is the NRA is backing off not because of any sober reflection, but because it’s pretty obvious that the Dems and the anti-gun folks have won the battle of public opinion on this, and any move on the NRA’s part would be shot down as being insensitive to 20 children being murdered…which is a lose/lose position for them regardless. So, what we’ll get is the AWB dusted off and trotted out, with perhaps some other, new scary provisions put in for spice. Possibly, some places like Connecticut who already have fairly strict gun control laws will put in MORE, which will have little effect on future mass murders like this one.
It’s almost like a large chunk of the public is very upset by recent events.
Obama said the following today: “the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible. They buy their guns legally and they use them safely. But you know what? I am also betting the majority – the vast majority – of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war.”
I don’t think that’s witch hunt language. It’s not even far-left language. The far left position tends to be that nobody needs a gun or only police should have guns. Obama’s position is that we should do more to keep some guns out of some people’s hands. He doesn’t seem to view this as only a gun issue (the panel is supposed to look at mental health issues and, ugh, perhaps media ones too) and he’s asked Congress to move on the issue in the next session, not this one. And we both know that not a single gun is going to be taken away from anybody. At most, the manufacturing of some types of guns and ammunition will be banned. Of course that’s much less effective, but larger bans would probably still be politically impossible even there were a school shooting like this every week.
I don’t really care how you view the world. So you chose to think that the world is black and white and either you stick to your guns (haha) or you’re a turncoat RINO. Big deal. I feel that means you’re looking at the place in an overly simplistic way.
Most of the country disagrees with you. Sorry. Most of the country think that burying third graders is repugnant. Most of this country does,m in fact, see a problem.
Now, most of the country thinking something doesn’t make something necessarily morally correct. But if we’re using morally correct as a standard rather than a popularity contest, I’d rather be on the side of “it is a problem that 20 school kids are being buried this week” than “I’ve seen zero evidence that there is a problem” with 20 schoolkids being buried this week (especially when it is not an isolated incident at all).
Right. It’s all the media’s fault because they never covered the Sikh Temple. Or the Aurora movie theater. Or the Gabrielle Giffords attack. Or Virginia Tech. Or Columbine. Nope. “The fix is in.” :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
The fact that you still throw out the words “random tragedy” when it is pretty obvious that there was nothing “random” about it shows that you just love your guns more than you hated seeing parents burying their kids.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
It’s almost like a large chunk of the public is very upset by recent events.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly…it’s an emotional response to a tragedy. People want the government to Do Something(arr).
And yet, one of the first things he mentions is the AWB. Had he JUST appointed a task force to look into the ‘problem’ and left it at that, I’d agree with him completely…but while he might say that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, he is already talking about ‘solutions’ that we already know are complete and utter horseshit and won’t solve a gods damned thing. Yeah, you can say that everything is political, and that’s true…but can you not see that this is simply milking this tragedy and appealing to the public’s shock and horror of this, while in reality doing nothing that is substantial towards rectifying even the edges of the ‘problem’…a ‘problem’ that is being blown way out of proportion to it’s actual threat?
[QUOTE=John_Stamos’_Left_Ear
]
I don’t really care how you view the world. So you chose to think that the world is black and white and either you stick to your guns (haha) or you’re a turncoat RINO. Big deal. I feel that means you’re looking at the place in an overly simplistic way.
[/QUOTE]
No, I think your knee is jerking, and you didn’t comprehend what my point was.
The fact that most of the country is clueless about assessing risk and jerks it’s knee is on par with your attempt to throw Republicans at me earlier…I’m militantly unconcerned with their ignorance and fear. Just as I am with the majority of the public being opposed to nuclear power while smoking 3 packs a day and eating that double cheese burger with large fries and a diet coke, which I put in the same league.
How many people were killed in all of those combined over what period of time? The media is one of the reasons why people can’t understand any of this stuff in any sort of context of actual risk, so, in that light yeah…they are at fault. They want sensational, and it gives people a magnified view of tragedies like this, making them think that they are more prevalent today, that things are worse today, that things are going downhill today…while the opposite is true.
I’ll just let this one go, but really this isn’t making your case look any better. Though, gods know, on this board at this time it will probably get plenty of traction.
If he’d left it at that, people would be asking him what he thinks, and refusing to offer an opinion would be kind of ridiculous. And Dianne Feinstein has already said she’ll be reintroducing an AWB, so he’d be asked to comment on it one way or another. Maybe this time the Republicans could offer some useful ideas on how to eliminate the pointless elements of the AWB and focus on ones that could make a difference.
It is. Especially politics.
I’ve stopped caring about the “milking the tragedy” element. It became obvious a long time ago that those accusations are just a way to stifle discussion. I want any new laws or recommendations to be sensible and effective, but I’m not concerned about propriety at this point. I’ve heard this song too many times already.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I’ve stopped caring about the “milking the tragedy” element. It became obvious a long time ago that those accusations are just a way to stifle discussion. I want any new laws or recommendations to be sensible and effective, but I’m not concerned about propriety at this point. I’ve heard this song too many times already.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting…I feel exactly the opposite about this. What changed my mind was the 9/11/Iraqi War debacle. I got caught up in it exactly the same way seemingly so many are getting caught up in this. The reasons at the time seemed so right…I just wanted somethig ‘sensible and effective’ to be done, once and for all, abut Saddam, and I wasn’t particularly concerned about propriety at that point. I’d heard the same songs and dances so many times already, after all, so it was time for the government to Do Something™…and they did. It’s not a happy memory, and one I’d just as soon not repeat.
Well, if you are expecting the Republicans to offer something useful, ideas wise, you are seriously deluded. I don’t expect the Democrats to offer anything useful on this topic either, of course. What I expect is the standard knee jerk reaction we already seem to be seeing. It will make the public happy for a while though, and feel good. Sadly, it will do dick for the situation, but really, what does that matter?
Get back to me after a few police departments adopt them. They have the budget and the motivation, and if they ever actually work reliably and cost effectively the cops will be all over that. What they will NOT be all over is something with only the reliability of a smart phone. “Smart guns” are nothing but publicity stunts to suck up grant dollars, and are only slightly more legitimate than perpetual motion schemes.
The problem with the comparison is that the situation was very different. We’re talking about altering gun laws, not invading a country. The fact that most people supported the war when it was being discussed - this was more than a year after September 11th - speaks more to their failure to pay attention than anything else, and while repeating the 1994 AWB without changes would be a mistake, it doesn’t compare to the sheer mendacity of the case for war against Iraq. I understand your desire not to rush into anything. It’s not that I don’t trust you when you say you want this to be considered prudently. What I’m saying is that after every single one of these mass shootings, the response from the NRA and the elected officials they support has been “This is not the time to discuss gun control, and you are ever so rude for bringing it up!” The “from my cold dead hands!” crowd was frightfully sensitive. That’s what I’ve stopped caring about. If the NRA had proposed some recommendations of its own after some careful thought, that would have been fine. But what happened every killing spree was “Nope, not now! … Or now … And not now, either!” For some reason - it’s pretty confusing if you step back and think about it - the slaughter of high school kids or people at the movies wasn’t enough to get people motivated. It had to be six-year-olds. It’s not that I’m in a hurry to see a new law on January 21. The legislation doesn’t have to be fast. It’s that I’m tired of seeing the conversation endlessly delayed.
I’m not expecting that. Which is too bad, of course. I don’t expect them to try to craft the best possible piece of legislation. I do expect that if a law passes they’ll complain about it and try to chip away at it for years. Same thing they did with the health care law even though that didn’t work out very well for them.
I propose we don’t remove constitutional rights in an attempt to solve problems that were not caused by it.
but if you want a solution to crazy people attacking innocent children, adults, the elderly, fuzzy pets, and the occasional politician then the amendment you want to cash in works nicely right now without any new technology added.
If the Principal had something other than her body to use against Lanza then the outcome may have been very different.
In 2000, the height of recent gun-control support as measured by the Pew survey, two-thirds of Americans supported new restrictions. The latest numbers reflect the difficult climate facing President Barack Obama and legislative allies who have vowed to toughen gun laws after the Newtown shooting.
“There is only a modest tilt toward gun control following Newtown, not a sea change,” Michael Dimock, associate research director for the Pew project, said in an e-mail. “Levels of support for gun control still fall far short of where they were as recently as 2008.”
I haven’t proposed removing a Constitutional right.
We have this discussion in every thread. It’s always useless and sad. Yes, it’s possible someone could have stopped the shooter if they’d been armed and in the right place at the right time and realized what was happening in time and were lucky. I think it makes more sense to get rid of some high-capacity guns and ammunition (along with improving our mental health system and some other issues) instead of wishing the victims had been armed and lucky.
While I am not sure that restricting guns would really help, you are absolutely right about what would happen if the teacher was armed.
Shoot out fantasy aside, if you are not a combat veteran etc, when you get shot at, you panic, you don’t shoot back. I have been shot at a couple times, and its not like in the movies.
First time it was some coot on a roof with a .22, and his aim was terrible. I hit the gutter, and stay there for several terrifying minutes. And- I was a trained armed security guard with a .357.
Now sure, later I had better combat reflexes, and even managed to draw down and scare off a trio of punks.
This is why we so rarely read about a CCW armed civilian shooting a spree killer, even if someone had a gun, he would be hugging the ground for at least a few minutes. That is why even trained cops panic and simply unload their gun at the center of mass.
But unless the kindergarten teacher is a marine vet or something , her carrying a gun just means a chance some kid will pull it out of her purse. Bad.
Now, I would support a police officer or state certified armed guard at all schools over a certain size. That will help more than gun regulations.
I believe you have. You’re placing blame on one gun versus another and promoting a law banning it.
But we’re not talking about the right place at the right time as if it’s random. We’re talking about a specific type of location. Schools. It’s a specifically vulnerable location because we banned guns there. We painted a Bulls eye on the children.
If you want to protect children then the active course is to arm specially trained members of the faculty or hire police to guard the school. the passive course is to vote a bunch of feel good legislation that stops nobody and still leaves children vulnerable to attack.
Explain to me how banning the manufacturing of a particular type of gun or ammunition take away a Constitutional right.
I wasn’t aware the discussion was restricted to schools. From what I can tell, these shootings happen all over, and the one thing they have in common is that they tend to happen in places where people usually don’t carry guns. Not just in places where guns aren’t allowed, but places where most people probably won’t be armed. Malls, movie theaters, schools, and so on. This school probably had about two dozen classrooms and the shooting was over in 10 to 20 minutes. Given the time the teachers needed to hide their own students, I’m not sure anyone with a gun would have even had time to help.
Yes, it’s all our fault. :rolleyes:
A teacher with minimal experience and training is going to be of little use, and people who think every school in the country should hire security guards in case of a shooting really need to do the math. School districts are cutting their budgets all over the country, and now schools around the country need to spend billions of dollars to hire guards because it might reduce the chances of a shooting spree by an infinitesimal amount - all because any kind of restriction on guns is an affront to liberty? Please.
It’s self explanatory. You’re asking how does banning a gun take away the right to own it.
It’s not. I used a school as an example. You can apply the argument anywhere. A good analogy would by 9-11. We banned knives on planes in response to the use of knives by terrorists despite the fact that one of the terrorists plans was thwarted by passengers. Had they defended the planes from start the plot would have failed. We use to be able to carry knives on planes. Now we’re just a bunch of sheep.
Yes Marley, it is the fault of those who ban guns in schools. How many mass killings do you see at court houses? They’re protected by armed guards.
And yet I never suggested that. In fact I went out of my way not to suggest that. I said: “the active course is to arm specially trained members of the faculty or hire police to guard the school.”
Show me that there IS a problem, don’t try to justify things by saying some idiotic Republicans (who you would most likely be CALLING idiots if they didn’t happen to, perhaps, agree with you this time) think so too.