I think part of the problem is that your side proposed an AWB and a lot of people think thats a silly way to try to address gun violence.
I know more than a few gun owners and NRA members who were turned off by the Wayne LaPierre response to Newtown. The NRA had been losing influence over the years as the issue of guns had started to seem fairly well settled. The NRa had started to take more partisan positions on things like taxes and labor unions and were starting to simply become a right wing organization with an emphasis on guns.
Winning court cases is nto a matter of political influence, its a matter of being right on the law. BTW, the NRA opposed the litigation in Heller, they undermined Sura and tried to cut him off at the knees. Now they are fast friends but the NRA didn’t win that lkitigation, Sura won taht litigation in spite of the NRA. The NRA figured the judiciary would never rule in their favor and preferred to do things through congress than the courts.
\
Yes exactly, they had won and in an effort to make themselves relevant, they had started to tackle issues other than guns.
I don’t know if there is a sense that an AWB or background checks could have stopped Newtown but you could have killed just as many kids with just about any rifle. Background checks would haev done nothing to prevent the shooter’s mother from buying a gun.
The NRA would agree with you on the mental illness issue.
I suppose we will see in 2014 if it even makes any sort of difference at all. We do know that the senators that are taking the most heat for the vote aren’t up for reelection in 2014. Maybe people will remember this vote in 2016 or 2018, but I doubt it.
Can we agree that only one side is trying to do anything about it, and the other side is actually *opposing *that? :dubious:
No, because it is *perceived *to. And because it has money, only some of which comes from its vaunted membership rolls.
Then those interested in the truth and in our society have a responsibility to expose the falsity of that perception, as well as the one that ownership of weapons of mass murder with no other reasonable purpose constitutes a “right”. So why do you not become part of the solution instead?
Why do all the “dead kids” people always ignore the kids that are saved by gun owners, the parents that are saved by guns, and the fact that none of their proposed legislation would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?
Because of the sheer numbers. Hardly anyone would deny that there are occasional anecdotes such as the single one you just linked. The problem is that there are far more the other, tragic, preventable direction.
This reasoning is horseshit. Nothing being proposed would have done anything to stop Lanza and Newtown. He killed his mother, and stole her guns. There is no background check before you kill your mother and steal her guns. The mother would have passed every single thing that has been proposed.
Now, if the teacher in that classroom had a firearm and shot Lanza in the face before he killed those kids, now that could have stopped Newtown. I’m not saying that’s the best solution, or even a likely one. But really, the only thing that’s going to stop a crazy person with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.
So if someone proposes allowing teachers to arm themselves, and you are opposed to that, am I allowed to characterize your position as being indifferent to dead kids or not doing anything to stop kids from getting killed? Because that’s pretty fucking idiotic.
This is parody right? Because it’s so utterly laughable. The same weapon you hysterically claim has no other reasonable purpose than mass murder is deployed by police, just about everywhere. It’s deployed by people defending themselves and property, by hunters, and competition shooters just about everywhere. Your statement is so far from reality its nonsensical.
Whatever “reasoning” inspired your unhinged rant, it wasn’t mine. You specifically cut out the examples I gave.
My reasoning is that when one side has people who say “shit happens” regarding children’s deaths, or explicitly offers that they would not give up their weapons even if that would mean zero more innocent deaths, it is fair to suggest one side is more indifferent to dead children.
Please respond to what I write, not to the rant in your head.
Here is why the reasoning is horseshit. One person may have stated “shit happens”, and another may have stated they wouldn’t give up their guns if it meant no more deaths, and you are comfortable saying that one side is more indifferent to dead kids, as if it’s some sort of contest about who cares about dead kids more.
You are attributing a position that is clearly abhorrent, indifference to dead kids, to an entire ‘side’ based on the opinion of a few. There are posters on this board who have advocating some pretty extreme positions. Just because they are on your side I don’t attribute their crazy positions to you or any other group.
We can eliminate all drunk driving deaths right now, by destroying all vehicles and outlawing all alcohol, right? So if I ask you if you’d give up your vehicle to ensure no more drunk driving deaths, and you respond in the negative, are you now indifferent and callous towards drunk driving deaths?
Either way, shit does happen, and it sucks. We should try to minimize it. Recognizing that not everything is controllable or able to be legislated away does not make one callous or indifferent to dead kids. We can argue the merits of a particular position all day, but to say that a group of people is indifferent towards dead children is what I would expect from Der Thris or BobLibDem. It’s beneath you.
So why then is one side, yours, actively *opposing *measures that might have a chance to address that problem in some way, combined with deriding the naivete of those working for it, including words like “hysterical” and “nonsensical” (scroll up 3 posts) while offering exactly *jack *as an alternative constructive approach?
What inferences can therefore be reasonably drawn about their, i.e. your, underlying atttitudes? Don’t kid yourself. You’re not fooling anybody else. You want the “right” to act irresponsibly without being questioned or held accountable for it.
What has been proposed that would have stopped Newtown that isn’t an outright ban/confiscation of all firearms? The thing that may have had the most chance of stopping Lanza, is if the teacher in that classroom was armed and killed him before he could kill those children.
Saying that a weapon deployed everyday all over the country has no other purpose than mass murder is hysterical and nonsensical. If you’d like to join us in reality feel free.
‘Exactly’ ‘jack’. Again, reality is over here. You should try it sometime.
When you actually believe it’s a reasonable inference that the person you’re talking to is indifferent towards dead children, I question your grasp of reality.
Who’s talking only about Newtown? :dubious: The problem is far larger than that. Yes, I realize that brings you off the perch and into terrain you find uncomfortable, but deal with it.
The problem, since you prefer to be obtuse about it, is the number of needless deaths that result from tthe fact that it’s deployed everyday all over the country. We’re discussing AW’s, however you wish to define the term, incidentally, not whatever the hell was used in Newtown. If you have a way to justify that fact with reason rather than with invective, you might start. As it is, you’re digging a hole.
I asked what inferences are reasonable from the behavior you support and even exemplify. You’ve just responded by way of illustration. Congratulations.
Banning assault weapons would have directly contributed to preventing Newtown. Databases for mental illness likely would have prevented Virginia Tech. You are wrong
Or of the teacher stabbed him in the kidney, or roundhouse kicked him in the groin, or the security doors worked, or if the mother didn’t have a gun in the first place, or if there was a convenient hole that Lanza could have fallen in to. That’s the funny thing about cherries, anyone can pick them. Mmmmm, cherries…
Its pretty fucking idiotic because that’s not reality. With more guns in schools, we would have more shootings. Its REALITY that when people have guns, they are more likely to shoot themselves or someone close to them. That’s not in dispute. So sure, maybe the teacher would have shot Lanza, but the week before a grade schooler would have shot his friend on accident when the teacher left the desk unlocked, the month before a bully stole the gun and killed 3 kids with it, 3 months before that a kid took the gun and robbed a liquor store, and in the previous school year a teacher shot a kid in the head while showing them the gun.
Proposing that teachers arm themselves will lead to more school shootings, not let. So yeah, its pretty fucking idiotic. Your position of arming teachers doesn’t give a damn about dead kids, all you care about is the poor downtrodden gun owners
NO! Manchin-Toomey would not have prevented Sandy Hook. Manchin-Toomey would not have prevented Sandy Hook. I don’t know how many times we’re going to have to repeat this before you grasp the concept (but we’re apparently not there yet). Manchin-Toomey would not have prevented Sandy Hook.
The “sheer numbers” say there are between 250,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States. Pick whichever figure you like; it’s still pretty hard to ignore it away. Yet the anti-gunners do.
This isn’t really that hard to understand. Guns are inanimate objects. People have to use them. And as long are there are more good/competent people than there are bad/incompetent people, on the whole, the benefits will outweigh the detriments. No matter how much they scare you.
Unless you mean the outright banning of nearly all guns, and somehow successfully enforcing it. This is typical of the ignorance of non-gun people. One can kill a room full of unarmed children with nearly any type of gun. Even Biden’s side-by-side shotgun with some pockets full of double-aught would do it.
You must be looking at surveys of gun owners. Of course they are going to say their gun has saved them. They, or others, will say the same of prayer. The question is how many documented instances there are. And your 250,000 figure, implying 685 defensive uses a day, is wildly inconsistent with the fact that a single documented use with gunfire is national news for days, as this was:
Approximately 50 people shoot themselves to death, in the US, each day. How many documented instances can you find of defensive gun use in one day? Pick yesterday. Or pick any day you want. And then compare to the number 50.
Also, consider that everyone who tells Gallup they pulled a gun on someone else, except in a few tragic cases of mistaken identity, has a story in their mind about how they were in the right. They doesn’t mean they were.
If 685 times a day there was a right to keep and bear arms success story, gun-owners would be be safer than the rest of us. When, actually, they are in more danger.
Does this mean we should pass any particular proposed law? Not particularly. It does mean that we should advise people against arming themselves.
Philly Guy, it’s clear from your previous posts that you’re a data cherry-picker, that you ignore or excuse data you don’t like, and that you treat this (serious) subject like a high school kid on a debate team trying to get a better grade. You’re not worth any more keystrokes.
I realize in the world of the anti-gunners, there’s no need to obtain the means or to muster to the courage to defend one’s self. In their world, the police always show up in time, and if they had a gun, they’d most likely shoot their own inept selves. But in the real world, it works more like this:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/burglar-locks-homeowner-his-own-gun-closet-gets-shot
How does it feel to entrust the well being of yourself and of your family to others? Are you comfortable with your own weakness, or are you ashamed, and instead of raising yourself, do you feel the need to diminish others bt dragging them down to your own level of weakness?
I don’t know how many times we are going to have to repeat that we are talking about the entire problem of gun murders, NOT just Sandy Hook, before you grasp the concept (but we’re apparently not there yet). :rolleyes:
Now, can you agree that your side is *opposing *measures that would reduce gun deaths, including those of children? Can we then go into exploring why? Or do you need to sit in the corner giggling to yourself a little longer?
ChickenLegs, perhaps you could ask **Damuri **for the stats on gun deaths of children. I know he has them right at hand.
This thread is talking about the post mortem of gun control in the wake of Newtown. Elivis, you are the only one that is talking about the entire problem of gun murders. I know you have trouble keeping track of what threads are about, but this is right there in the OP.