Why? It’s not my argument. I’m not the one claiming guns are less dangerous than swimming pools or trampolines. It’s up to the people making the claim, innit? I would not say the sample size is 330 million plus unless every gun in the US is fired at a person over the course of a year. Don’t count the number of guns (or pools), count the number of uses.
Well, that’s 'cause you didn’t ban guns at the same time.
Yeah but after 9/11 we were allowed to have a conversation about where box cutters should be allowed and decided within our air transportation structure was not acceptable.
We’ve had multiple shootings yet the places where people are allowed to have guns have only been expanded in recent years. Are we ever going to be allowed to have a real discussion about when and where and what people should be allowed to carry?
I don’t see anything changing, we could have a mass shooting every week and gun advocates would still be out arguing it’s an acceptable loss.
We don’t have a rational dialog on this issue. Every shooting we have increases gun sales. More guns isn’t helping but we aren’t allowed to talk about that.
and it was a stupid conversation. I use to be able to carry a knife on commercial flights that was the better of any box knife. All they’ve managed to do is disarm the people capable of defending themselves.
In this case the person who stopped the shooter used a gun. All Sikhs carry a knife (kirpan) to defend the innocent. Had they carried guns it would have been a different outcome.
How do you know the shooter didn’t obtain the guns illegally the same as Patrick Purdy and the Columbine killers?
Wouldn’t it be more prudent to actually wait, learn more about the situation, find out if he’d obtained the gun/guns he used legally or illegally and then speculate as to whether or not stricter gun laws would have prevented this tragedy.
Patrick Purdy actually got his guns used in the crime legally (he used an alias to get the guns, but it was a moot point as it was noticed that even with his real name there was no law to stop him then, nor a system in place to check his eligibility) of course laws were changed after to prevent criminals like him from getting guns.
Personally I already do think that guns should not be banned, but that all gun right activists should demand that funding and enforcement of the new rules regarding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System be more than adequate (actually many red states do not do much of an effort in this regard as the reporting is still mostly voluntary).
Also we should all also demand that mental health care should be more accessible and capable of reporting to the authorities when someone should lose their right to get weapons. Unfortunately the ACA that does help, in the part that deals with treatment, is constantly voted down by the Republicans in congress.
Didn’t take but 5 minutes for the FBI to horn in and declare a domestic terror investigation. Nice brownie points for Obama and the other politicians.
Why couldn’t they keep their noses out of this? At least give the proper local authorities time to investigate and find out whats up. If it’s some lone whack job then a Federal investigation isn’t needed. If it’s some plot by a group then yes, of course bring in the FBI.
btw, when is a thread about a shooting tragedy stuck in Great Debates? 
The FBI has a lot of resources that local police departments lack. They were also inovlved in the Aurora shooting although there was no ideological motive in that.
Your own cite says he purchased the guns illegally. It’s certainly not legal to use a phony name to purchase guns.
No, don’t try to claim things that they are not reporting:
“Apart from the use of an alias at the Oregon Gun store both purchases were legal”
And I already did notice that it is a moot point to make.
Translation: It was illegal.
This is a town of 30,000 people with only 17 full time police officers. More people were just killed in one day than the total of the last ten years.
The fact your intimidate inclination is that the FBI is overstepping their bounds is truly fascinating.
A sheriff in that position is likely pleading for the FBI’s assistance.
Moot point, as the New York Times also reported:
Remember, I also did mention that illegal move, it was still moot.
You’re forgetting the State Police. Nearly every state has a fully qualified investigative division of state police. They are there to aid the local police departments and provide lab facilities.
FBI resources can also be requested without the FBI wading in and taking over an investigation. This was a crime against the state and people of Wisconsin. It’s their jurisdiction. Unless there is a group that operated across state lines.
Anytime the Feds butt in right after a crime happens it often seems like a ploy to get brownie points for the politicians. Don’t worry we’re here protecting your interests America and all that b.s.
What a bitter person you must be.
Not really. I just have a strong belief in states rights. States can take care of their own affairs without hand holding from the Feds.
Many of the state crime labs are state of the art technology. The TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation) is one of the best out there. I’m not sure what Wisconsin calls their state division.
Doesn’t matter. Illegal guns are generally stolen from people who got them legally; eliminate one and you largely eliminate the other.
Why take them out? On of the negatives of gun ownership is an increased suicide rate, and obviously you aren’t going to accidentally shoot someone if you don’t have a gun.
I pretty much am. Perhaps not a total one, but regulate them to the point that they are rare and typically locked up in secure locations.
Looks like Wisconson calls it the DCI - Division of Criminal Investigation. I imagine they’ll be conducting their own investigation into the shootings.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dci/
Might as well make killing folks legal. I mean, determined people are going to do it anyway, so…
And… given a large enough population you will always have pockets of people with these feelings. Some are fanatics, some are mentally disturbed, many both.
Is it worth so many innocent people being slaughtered in order to preserve a fantasy that any gun regulation will lead to totalitarian control of our lives?
There are reasonable ways we can control the supply of guns to the psychos. 1: No more gun sales at gun shows. 2: Psych evaluations at least once before allowed to buy guns. 3: If you buy a gun you are meaningfully responsible for what happens with it. If you sold the guns without following the regulations and someone is killed or injured with those guns you are personally guilty of negligent harm or negligent homicide.
These are not over-reaching regulations. Gun ownership is about personally responsibility. It is not about making money at the expense of the safety of society. But try to do anything about it and watch the NRA destroy your efforts. They are about the gun manufacture and sales industry. They do not care about people. It’s just another political representative for corporate inhuman companies that don’t give one crap about how much death is between them and a bigger paycheck.