Doesn’t it totally suck how a whole room full of dead six year olds has made it harder to wave your hands hard enough?
Funny how people work, huh? You guys have your phantom 2.5 million boogeymen, and they just might be trumped by one small homeroom.
I know it’s fashionable to mock concern for dead children, but at least at the moment, you look like the monster when you do so.
Crazy talk? These people a number of them children weren’t killed by the ATF, a whole lot burnt up? FWIW, I don’t think holding up in a fortress to be a very good strategy. And you never answered my questions about slaves, Jews, and revolvers.
If I thought that turning in my firearms at Senator Feinstein’s request would do anything to address the problem, perhaps the appeal to my emotions would be more effective. As it stands now, if I look like a monster because I don’t succumb to emotions, I’ll have to live with it.
Part of the solutions moving forward will probably include some change in gun control laws, but not ineffective irrational laws like the AWB.
Working to help end the sense of shame that kept Jared Loughner and Adam Lanza from being treated in our mental health system would probably be more productive if you wanted to end “spree” shootings.
Banning one type of firearm will do little to save any lives, and that should be the primary concern. Not pandering to the unsubstantiated claims
IMHO the solution will require more screening of gun owners. The more absurd type gun control laws are pushed based on the ignorance of the general population the more defensive the pro-gun part of the electorate will get.
Hiding your head in the sand and letting people offer arguments for legislation that has not worked with no regard for their arguments validity does nothing to save lives.
Hentor, I just went back and checked and I don’t see that you ever commented on the original article I linked in my OP. Do you have any specific criticisms or do you think the case he presents is more or less correct?
There are differences of opinion on the effectiveness of the AWB. My side quotes stats that say it did help, your side quotes stats that say it didn’t. Who to believe is a matter of opinion.
What I do know is that there is a much better chance that fewer innocents would have died in that school if the shooter’s mother didn’t have possession of a weapon that she had absolutely no need for.
A rational person would look at it like this:
What are the chances that a natural disaster willl occur that is sufficiently serious that law will break down and I will need a gun to fend off the ravenous hordes who want my stash of Oreos and cream soda vs the chance that someone in my house will accidentally shoot themselves, commit suicide, or mistakenly shoot someone that they think is a threat.
What shame did they feel? Many people with mental illness simply do not believe that they are mentally ill or that treatment is a reasonable or productive option. (Now, in general, I wholeheartedly agree with the need to address issues of mental health stigma and to improve access to services and mental health research, but those things are at most a tiny part of the solution.)
Some claims are unsubstantiated. The substantiated ones seem to be largely ignored or hand-waved away. A concerted effort by one side has been undertaken to prevent further substantiation. I consider that a disqualifying action.
I would consider legislation to increase the general profusion of firearms through the populace to have been a demonstrably failed strategy.
Really…explain the death toll at VA Tech then?
That entire massacre was done with a 22 pistol and a 10 round 9MM pistol. Mass shootings are done with slow, directed fire the rate of fire is irrelevant if you look at the tools those monsters use to do them.
My “sides” stats (the DOJ) say that even if the AWB helped and stopped every murder committed by an “assault weapon” it doesn’t really matter.
The original AWB only applied to the tools use in the loss of about 34 lives per year. Yes every one of those lives had value I know Sandy Brook was a large number of young kids all at once but it is pittance compared to the 12,000 who die each year.
Your stance is the one of someone who doesn’t care about the lives of innocents, because you only care when the body count is high and you will waste political capital to pass laws that won’t help the 1000’s that are killed every year.
Do you mean they? You are aware that there were two authors involved in your cite, right?
In any case, they failed to achieve the aim stated in their first sentence. What they said in their article is no different than any of the stuff I’ve heard from you and other people with wild fantasies about Red Dawn.
The paper is a meandering mess that instead of focusing on prevention of genocide, wanders through personal protection against rape, references Betty Friedan and feminism to Kristallnacht.
It’s quite something, also, to see snark in a purported academic publication too. I consider it a serious failure that they do not provide any full consideration of evidence to the contrary. Describing the literature on the public health consequences as “the latest science from scientists at such-and-such university” is well beyond hand-waving and into the realm of ranting.
There is a complete failure to consider the vast worldwide historical examples of societies that persist without genocide yet without also having a heavily armed populace.
It is thus, again, no more convincing for those authors to write a meandering, non-scientific rant than it is for you to do so.
Do you consider yourself a rational person? If so, what was your conclusion? Please show your work.
Setting aside availability heuristic, how frequent are natural disasters in the US? And what is the likelihood that at least some chaos/looting will occur? Is it irony that the most recent natural disaster and most recent mass shooting were both named Sandy?
It doesn’t take much to knock out power to a large area, I was in Toronto during the Blackout of 2003 when 55 million people were without power. So I personally think the likelihood of a sufficiently serious natural disaster is pretty high (did someone say global warming?). It’s also nearly impossible to control for, unlike the ability to control access to the a firearm in my own house.
Both were semi-automatic. A majority of the American public favors banning semi-automatic weapons.
Let’s do that.
If the Virginia Tech shooter used an assault weapon no doubt the body count would have been higer. Even if a ban saved only 34 lives per year, it’s worth it. Condider a benefit cost analysis. Ban the weapons, we save 34 lives. Don’t ban them, what is the benefit? Some nebulous “right” that you claim to have?
Of course I care about the lives of innocents. I want to save those who die from assault weapons and from handguns. I’d prefer to see them all confiscated and melted down. I’d love to see all CCW permits revoked. But you have to start somewhere. Getting the ones that make mass murder easiest seems like a good place to start.
You still aren’t working on the problem, A killer with 5 6 shot revolvers would have had the same killing power as would a murder two tube fed lever action rifles.
Mass shooters rarely have just one gun and their attacks are premeditated. This is the problem with playing Whac-a-mole because another weapon type will just pop up.
I’ll ignore the “most want it banned” argument and you should note that this is a “appeal to popularity” which is a fallacy
[
](New Rule: Smart President ≠ Smart Country | HuffPost Entertainment)
I’m quite content to see what the effects of lesser capacity, slower firing weapons popping up will be.
Sometimes this is also called “voting.” If you think I said such a ban would be right because most people favor it, you aren’t paying attention. Popular opinion suggests that which might be politically feasible. It’s right to ban them because the costs of having them outweigh the benefits.
Ban the guns and we
a) don’t work on the core issues
b) hand off the entire federal government to the Republicans for another decade like after the first AWB
If you are going to go with the “if it saves a single life” argument then why not ban private planes, motorcycles and swimming pools? Or heck handguns which kill 10’000 per year?
And if you could use this political capital to enact better background checks or to open it up those checks to private sales and save way more then 34 what have you gained.
But here is the important part 34 lives per year is if the law was 100% effective, but NO gun control has ever been 100% effective and in England and Australia massive semi-auto bans and confiscations have had effect that it is not measurable, if they have had any effect at all in the overall homicide rates.
Heck if you can even show that gun bans are effective at all I may be convinced to come over to your side but to this point not a single cite has been shown to demonstrate that banning firearms from law abiding citizens has any measurable effect on the murder rate.
Seeing as “assault weapon” is a label placed on a firearm due to fashion and not function banning them will probably save zero lives.
So yes… compared to what the Tea Party will do to women’s rights, reproductive rights, gay rights and universal health care it is worse than doing nothing at all.
I’m all for banning handguns. Don’t give me the ridiculous argument about planes and swimming pools. They aren’t designed to kill people and have legitimate purposes.
Would a push for gun control be a boon for Republicans? I don’t know that. The Newtown shooting was like an earthquake that changed the course of great rivers. The center of gravity definitely shifted leftward because of it. Is it enough to make a difference? I don’t know, but I don’t believe that gun control is the third rail of politics like it used to be.
What legitimate purpose do private planes have? They are far more risky per hour than even motorcycles both of which could be replaced with safe sedans.
And you may want to look at your conservative work mates or family, they are rallied around the pro-gun cause just like they were in the 90’s. They actually know their firearms and know how silly it is to claim that just because a semi-auto can fire faster than you can aim that that is any use.
It will rally them, it always has in the past. There is a chance to pass new possibly effective gun control but a feel good “ban” of any type will be a boon for the Republicans.
Assuming you are not advocating arming teachers or school superintendents, but instead placing sizable* numbers of armed security personnel in schools, wouldn’t this mean that all places, public and private should be similarly protected? If a sociopath is bent on shooting up a school, but realizes his chances would be better in a gun free zone, he could simply chose another place. Isn’t the logical conclusion of your argument that if gun free school zones should be abolished, that all of society will need to be similarly protected by armed agents of the law? Or God forbid, are you saying that a fully armed citizenry is what is required? That we should all be packing?
*A single armed guard in Newtown may very well have been completely ineffective in preventing the shootings, due to the size of the school.
Anything specific that’s false?
But the argument isn’t that disarmed societies must have genocide. It’s just that an armed society increases the attackers cost of doing so, such that it’s not possible or not worth trying. Do you disagree?