Slog Comments


Comments (119) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Hover Dog 1
We're always quick to point out that when it comes to issues like taxation or gay marriage, the GOP straight-up lost. They had the debate, they forced the issue, and the voters overwhelmingly chose Democrats in response.

Well, on the issue of gun control, I think the Democrats lost, and they know it. Unless gun control becomes an issue that people are willing to change their vote over (in the same way that anti-gay attitudes became a 'deal-breaker' for many Republicans this cycle), don't expect Democrats to fight that battle.
Posted by Hover Dog on December 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM · Report this
theophrastus 3
so long as the NRA holds all politicians in thrall your children will remain at risk.

i weep for the families of Connecticut.
Posted by theophrastus on December 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 4

Cause talking about legalizing gay marriage or legalizing MJ was really really bad for us too.


Posted by Will in Seattle on December 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM · Report this
Shipping tens of thousands of guns to Mexican cartels probably doesn't help that stigma.
Posted by Spindles on December 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM · Report this
I'm a democrat. What happened today, and happens to often is a travesty, and a true abomination. I, however, do not support a gun ban, nor do I believe it would be effective at ending or significantly diminishing gun violence. I believe in the right to bear arms so deeply that, had Barack Obama supported such a ban, I would have abstained from voting for him. Democrats will not support a platform that will alienate a vast majority of Americans, nor should they.

As a nation, we need to reflect on why these stabbings occur. A black and white dictate that guns are the sole reason that these tragedies occur dumbs dialogue and closes minds. We need an open and mature conversation about our moralities that is in line with the constitution. Guns aren't going away. The solution is just not that simple.
Posted by NancyBalls on December 14, 2012 at 5:14 PM · Report this
*shootings, not caught up in that China article for a minute.
Posted by NancyBalls on December 14, 2012 at 5:15 PM · Report this
Oxycontin Merry-go-round 8
The notion that the NRA is politically powerful is more myth than reality. See this article at Media Matters:…
Posted by Oxycontin Merry-go-round on December 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM · Report this
cracked 9
Democrats haven't done anything meaningful on gun control since 1994 with what they thought would be a harmless low hanging fruit in the assault weapons ban. And Gore was probably undone by the gun nuts in his home state.

If their sole concern is reelection, they may be right on this. I know several gun owners who vote Democrat consistently and share the values of the Democratic party platform, but who are such gun nuts that they will turn on a dime to vote against someone who brings gun control legislation to the floor. It is the most important political, social, and moral issue of their lives. It is both scary and sad how they can be manipulated to support politicians and policies they otherwise wouldn't. For them to accept a balancing between gun freedom and sane policy is an assault on their core identity.
Posted by cracked on December 14, 2012 at 5:22 PM · Report this
@7 NancyBalls: your Freudian slip is telling. True, guns aren't the sole reason. But they have so much more killing power than other weapons like knives. That is the heart of my opposition to widespread gun culture.

If we can diminish the probability that someone in a killing mood has a gun on hand, that will make a huge difference. Might still have mass shootings: those folk might get rifles anyway. But the vast majority of the 30,000+ gun fatalities in the US aren't committed by mass murderers. They are committed by people in a murdering mood and a gun. With that many fatalities, just changing P(has a gun)*P(murdering mood) even a little would have a big effect.
Posted by wxPDX on December 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM · Report this
Not to mention bad policy, and either ineffectual or unconstitutional.
Posted by GermanSausage on December 14, 2012 at 5:33 PM · Report this
@6 Gun ban, no of course not, not even possible. But how about just making them a bit harder to get? How about banning those that seem to serve no purpose but to indiscriminately slaughter large numbers of people? Maybe keep them out of the hands of unstable people?

If you don't think that would work to some degree, then please explain why guns are different from every single other thing we know of.
Posted by giffy on December 14, 2012 at 5:39 PM · Report this
Fnarf 15
See, I'm going to stick with my original appraisal, which is FUCK YOU GUN OWNERS. Does it "solve anything?" Does it "contribute to the dialog?" No. No, it does not.

Fuck you people and your guns.
Posted by Fnarf on December 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM · Report this
Teslick 16
14: "If you don't think that would work to some degree, then please explain why guns are different from every single other thing we know of."

Actually, guns are not different from any other item/behavior that people want to have/do. Case in point: It was pointed out during the I-502 debate that it was easier for high school kids to get marijuana than alcohol. Why do we think a "war on guns" will be any more successful than the "war on drugs"? If people really desire something, they will go to any lengths to get it.

The causes for today's horror go way, way deeper than some printed words (or lack thereof) in some law book. Until we make violence in general "not acceptable" in this society, we can pass all the laws in the world and it won't solve anything. It's attitudes and feelings that have to change, and that is a harder task to accomplish. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but let's be clear on the task required.
Posted by Teslick on December 14, 2012 at 5:50 PM · Report this
Timrrr 18
Ya' know, elected officals aren't the only ones that can bring and issue to the fore and provoke a "conversation" about it. Especially not in this state!

There's not a damn thing stopping an independent, non-partisan group from putting up an assault weapons ban INITIATIVE for the ballot in 2014.

Worked for weed, it could work for AK's too!
Posted by Timrrr on December 14, 2012 at 5:52 PM · Report this
@14 Yes some forms of control would be probably effective, but there are also privacy issues to consider. We need to be able to talk about these things without being overrun by gun-nuts or anti-gun-nuts. And even if stricter controls were implemented, would they have prevented today's tragedy? I'm guessing the kid (it was a young person, right?) didn't buy the guns himself. And the shooting in Oregon yesterday? Borrowed from a friend.

There is a deep sickness in modern society that needs to be addressed. Attitudes like @15 prevent people from having simple conversations about mental healthy, gun safety, and reasonable regulation.
Posted by NancyBalls on December 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM · Report this
Timrrr 20
Ya' know, elected officials aren't the only ones who can bring an issue up before the public and invoke a "conversation" about it. Especially in this state!

There's not a damn thing stopping an independent, non-partisan group (preferably of concerned parents) from putting up an Assault Weapons Ban INITIATIVE for the ballot in 2014!

If it worked for MJ, it can work for AK's too. Don't doubt it!
Posted by Timrrr on December 14, 2012 at 5:59 PM · Report this
mubhappy 21
@10: Do you have a gun?

Put it in your mouth and pull the trigger. It's best for society that you do.
Posted by mubhappy on December 14, 2012 at 5:59 PM · Report this
I'm very curious - exactly what sort of Gun Control are you proposing, that would be effective, Goldy? Connecticut require a permit, a background check and a "class" for handguns. In this case, the weapons were, apparently, owned by his mother - what exactly would you propose that would realistically have prevented him from taking his parent's firearms?

Really, I'd love to hear a well thought out viable proposal on gun control! I'm unable to come up with one that I believe would work myself. Not when there is close to a 1 firearm per person available in the United States already.
Posted by randoma on December 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM · Report this
Doctor Memory 24
@10 remains the single most laughable would-be troll on slog. I reiterate my offer to pay cash money to whichever staffer forcibly changes his handle to "StrangersWeakestTroll".
Posted by Doctor Memory on December 14, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 25


Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

Shit works. Vaccines work. Seat belts work. Helmets work. It's science, baby! There's a reason why it's the same gang of know nothings that oppose science at every turn: evolution, global warming, vaccines, homosexuality, and always, guns.

Conservative enemies of science.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 14, 2012 at 6:15 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 26
The US Constitution was written in the 18th Century. the ideas contained within it and the Bill of Rights are based in the Enlightenment, a time when Europe was beginning to shed absolute monarchy. Many of these concepts were rooted in then-legitimate fears that the early US Presidents would imitate Britain by assuming absolute control. To avoid this, the Right to Bear Arms and the abolition of a standing peacetime military were encoded.

Well, no arms that you could purchase would enable you to overthrow the US government today. Whatever the biggest gun you think you can buy may be, Uncle Sam's got a much bigger one. And a surveillance system to track your foolhardy attempt at purchasing the heavy arms for your attempted coup.

So why do we hew to this belief that individuals should have the right to high caliber automatic weaponry?

And why do we make it so easy for crazy fuckers to gain access to these weapons?
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 14, 2012 at 6:18 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 27
You're right, Goldy.

At least Mayor McGinn, to his credit, just presented a clear stance in support of gun control measures AND increasing funding for mental health services (as Eli reported in the post before this one).

That's a start, maybe?

@18/20: Good point.
Posted by Ipso Facto on December 14, 2012 at 6:20 PM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 28
Here's another cool idea for controlling mass-shootings: Stop the media blitz. These people are trying to go down in a blaze of glory, to make a mark. If the media would stop making mass-murder so god-damn effective at providing the insane with what they want the insane would look elsewhere. Maybe they'd dance around highways naked or something other such low-body count behavior.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings on December 14, 2012 at 6:23 PM · Report this
@25, we're talking about Connecticut, where A) "Assault Weapons" are illegal (although I believe this sunsetted with the Federal 'ban') B) requires trigger locks C) mandates storage requirements. From Connecticut's Gun Legislation:

"The law imposes criminal penalties on people who (1) store loaded firearms in a way that gives a minor under age 16 unauthorized access to them and (2) transfer handguns to minors under age 21, except as authorized at firing or shooting ranges."

"With minor exceptions, state law bars anyone from carrying handguns (except antique handguns) either concealed or openly without a gun permit in Connecticut, except in one's home or business. The permittee must carry the permit when carrying a handgun (CGS § 29-35(a)). Carrying a handgun without a permit is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to $1,000, with a one-year mandatory minimum sentence in the absence of mitigating circumstances. Any handgun found in the violator's possession must be forfeited (CGS § 29-37(b)). A permittee who does not carry the permit on his person when carrying handguns commits an infraction and must pay a $35 fine (CGS § 29-37(c))."

From the link you provided, you'll notice that Connecticut has some of the lowest firearms deaths, possibly due to some of the strictest firearms regulations in the country. Yet, that did not prevent this tragedy. So, please tell me how "Shit works".

@26, No one has a "right" to high caliber automatic weaponry. The barrier to purchase of an automatic weapon is quite high.
Posted by randoma on December 14, 2012 at 6:29 PM · Report this
Here's a link to Connecticut's Gun Laws as of 2007:…
Posted by randoma on December 14, 2012 at 6:37 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 32

A bunch of illiterate goat farmers with a backwards religion armed with sub par small arms have been giving the US military a pretty good run for it's money for the last decade.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 14, 2012 at 6:40 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 33
Connecticut ban was instated before the Federal ban and their law is in still in force, New Jersey has an even stricter ban.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 34

As many others have repeatedly stressed, this isn't about some magic retroactive perfect law targeted at this one guy to stop this one incident. That would be seriously misguided. We don't write any laws intended to stop one and only one specific instance of crime. We regulate to reduce the overall frequency of incidents, and Connecticut has been successful, overall, compared to states that don't regulate.

The reason this one incident today matters is that it is the latest in an ongoing epidemic of mass shootings. And part of a larger picture of too much overall gun violence. If we had only had this one incident, it would be premature to change anything in reaction. This is just the latest outrage.

It's depressing to think how many of these massacres have to happen before that sinks in. I don't expect much to come of this one. It's not going to be until the next one, or the next one, or the next one until the cracks begin to appear.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 14, 2012 at 6:50 PM · Report this
@16 Your example proves my point. 502 was not about getting rid of all restrictions on marijuana it was about moving it into a highly regulated market.

It is not so much about the law alone as it is overall access. If the kid next to me in trig is selling dime bags then that is pretty damn accessible. If I have to go to a special store where I will be required to show ID that is much less accessible.

That's the best option. Not a ban, not what we have now, but a system whereby people can access guns, but with safe guards in place.
Posted by giffy on December 14, 2012 at 7:09 PM · Report this
I'm so glad I completely ignored the internet today.

As usual, people kill people, not guns. This was a failing of the mental health system and social safety net as a whole.

Don't get your wires crossed.
Posted by Swearengen on December 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM · Report this
seandr 42
Sure, let's ban all the guns.

While we're at it, let's ban the massive media frenzy that inevitably follows every mass killing. Think about it - 30 years ago we had the same gun laws, and yet slaughtering students and moviegoers, or attempting to do so, wasn't a biweekly occurrence. Then Columbine happened, followed by billions of bytes of media raking through every aspect of the killers' lives, not to mention the Hollywood movies, documentaries, and books, all of which provide a huge incentive for any hateful asshole looking for an easy way to leave his mark on the world. What's more, the ubiquitous coverage plants ideas in the heads of thousands of psychopathic lunatics.

A*** L**** wouldn't have gunned down those kids with his mother's legally purchased guns if he'd never heard about the scores of preceding incidents.
Posted by seandr on December 14, 2012 at 7:37 PM · Report this
seandr 43
P.S. As long as the media keeps sucking these killer's dicks (posthumously if necessary), you can look forward to increasingly bizarre and horrific variations of this stuff in the future.

Anyone remember the Wyoming community college shooting from a couple of weeks ago. Barely. No creativity, small body count, and Wyoming? That ain't gonna drive page hits.

But dressing up as the Joker and showing up at the Batman premiere? Or mowing down 20 first graders? Now there's a story that sells!
Posted by seandr on December 14, 2012 at 7:49 PM · Report this
We should do nothing. Because Jesus.
Posted by excitablerooster on December 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM · Report this
Mother Jones has an article on mass shootings and there have been something like 81 since the early 1980s. Almost all of them involve white men, with 4 exceptions: 1 woman, one African American,1 American Indian and the Asian guy at Virginia Tech. In all instances the shooters were mentally unstable or as is the case with this 20 year old had "personality disorders." All were upset by personal stuff in their lives, but in some instances we have no idea what motivated the murdering son of bitch because he usually kills himself. These were people whose wives left them, got fired, or were enraged about something else, or just fucking nuts.

The mental health system cannot contain crazy, violence prone people. In our state Anthony Zamora is an example. Wasn't he just transferred from Western to jail? However the way the laws are written (or fucking ignored by the state legislature) Zamora probably won't be able to be held in jail because he is considered mentally ill and therefore not a criminal.

Western, probably like most mental hospitals, doesn't have the capacity to successfully house violent criminals (see nut case who escaped on an outing and killed people a year or so back from western).

This 20 year old who was obviously a life long troubled youth, lived with his mother who inexplicably owned a set of assault weapons. Why you would have firearms in a house with a troubled male is inexplicable and something I will never understand.

What I do know is shooting kindergartners execution style is the turning point. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with us? And why do we tolerate it?
Posted by lauramae on December 14, 2012 at 8:03 PM · Report this
smade 47
Remember kids, if everyone has a nuclear arsenal, we're all much safer from attack. North Korea and Iran are just doing their part to protect everyone's kids. What's all the fuss?
Posted by smade on December 14, 2012 at 8:08 PM · Report this
@34: I think you missed my original question which is, what gun law do you propose (or rather Goldy) that would have any effect on what happened in Connecticut? The only thing that I can think of that would be effective would be a nationwide ban (and collection/destruction of the millions of firearms out there) which is never going to happen. Given our country as it stands, the only thing that will help reduce gun violence, in my opinion, is gun education, and better mental health system/facilities/education.

I notice that you don't offer any sort of idea for how to fix this, just restate that things are broken.
Posted by randoma on December 14, 2012 at 8:24 PM · Report this
Seems to me that it makes sense that taking an unconstitutional stance SHOULD be politically difficult. It should be political suicide for rightwingers taking stances against equal protection just as it currently is for saner people taking stances in favor of gun control.

If we have a problem with guns, we need an amendment, not an initiative.
Posted by tired and true on December 14, 2012 at 8:35 PM · Report this
The way to lessen the probability that this will happen is to ban all guns. Period. If you say that won't do it, I say it will lessen the probability that this will happen again. That's good enough for me.
Posted by sarah70 on December 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM · Report this
As others have pointed out, the U.S. Constitution was written in the 18th Century. At the time, the most sophisticated weaponry available was a two-barrel muzzle-loading flintlock. Perhaps if we restricted universal access to those and got all other types out of private citizens' hands, we'd have a safer country. There's no reason for anyone to have an assault weapon in the house. None.
Posted by Calpete on December 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM · Report this
dnt trust me 52
If I've learned one thing reading Slog this year, it's that all the evils of the world are caused by two people, Mittens and Rmoney.
Posted by dnt trust me on December 14, 2012 at 8:59 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 53

When the constitution was written the height of communications technology was the printing press. Should we restrict free speech because at the time there was no internet?
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on December 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM · Report this
@53, stupidest straw man argument I've ever heard.
Posted by sarah70 on December 14, 2012 at 9:13 PM · Report this
Kapow 55
I think trying to enact gun control is like going against abortion. You are going to run into a fuck load of resistance. The kind of resistance people have spent their entire lives waiting for.
Posted by Kapow on December 14, 2012 at 9:26 PM · Report this
There are a large number of people in America who, sadly, have both fetishized and deified the 2nd amendment. They don't give a flying fuck about the rest of the Bill of Rights. They don't give a flying fuck that the right to unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment) has been completely neutered. They don't give a flying fuck that the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) is routinely violated by our corporate, for profit prison system. Nor do they give a flying fuck that the 1st amendment right to assemble and address for grievances is now, for all practical purpose, null and void. Nor do they seem the have the foggiest idea what "Well regulated" might mean. If you are one of these people, please, from the bottom of my heart... Go fuck yourself, you miserable, selfish hypocrite.
Posted by Pol Pot on December 14, 2012 at 9:43 PM · Report this
cracked 57
@55 Uhhh...? Pretty sheltered, right? Hadn't noticed that that anti-choice people are winning in much of the country.

How about this, just like the forced transvaginal ultrasound has nothing to do with medical care and are intended simply to make exercising a constitutional right unpleasant, howabout we force gun buyers the get colonoscopies?

There, see how I've proposed a reasonable measure?
Posted by cracked on December 14, 2012 at 9:43 PM · Report this
Fnarf 58
@40, but banning high capacity magazines is EXACTLY the bill that's failing in the Senate right now. Today. There's a bill in the Senate to ban high capacity magazines, but it's being deliberately blocked in committee.

Every tiny change in the gun laws receives the full force of NRA-led disapproval. The only tiny changes that ever gain any traction are the ones like the bills that were passed yesterday in Ohio and Wisconsin. Gun rights expanded, control limited. Over and over again.

This is why we don't believe you when you say things like "dialog".
Posted by Fnarf on December 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM · Report this
sirkowski 59
Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of children.
Posted by sirkowski on December 14, 2012 at 9:48 PM · Report this
zivilisierter Wurm 61
Hey - how about the utter and abysmal failure of our nation's mental health systems, which have left the often untenable burden of care and therapy to fall entirely on family members - many of whom are unprepared or unwilling to provide the sort of treatment which is necessary to protect individuals such as this young man from others and themselves.

There will always be guns. While gun control is certainly an element of this tragedy, it is just one facet of what was almost certainly a preventable occurrence. In the next 24 hours I can almost guarantee that we will "discover" that the shooter had a LONG history of violent and delusional behavior.
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm on December 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM · Report this
watchout5 62
You know what causes gun violence? Guns. This idea that they don't, and their users do, is a dead meme that being beaten like a dead horse. If this killer didn't have access to guns, maybe he would have done a mass stabbing like the one in China, but I'd rather the devoted killer have to bring those measures than what happened in that elementary school.

Excuse me, please read this comment 72 hours from now, when it's acceptable to besmirch the perfect 2nd amendment with my baseless accusation that we should aim to have far less guns in society than we do today. ALL. GUNS.
Posted by watchout5 on December 14, 2012 at 10:09 PM · Report this
Let's see, mental health issues, video games, the media, the social safety net, fast food, body odor, traffic - what else can we attribute the death of 26 innocent people on? Can we put all the gun nuts on a deserted island for a year, with their guns, to see if they can resolve this question?
Posted by MacGruber on December 14, 2012 at 10:13 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 65
There have been multiple stabbings on the streets of downtown Seattle.

Is the culprit knives?

No, the culprit is mental illness.

De-institutionalization and the inability to label clearly insane mental behavioral as anything other than a "spectrum disorder" has left our society interspersed with psychopaths and megalomaniacs.

I am not asking them to bring back the Cuckoo's Nest, but what we really need are stronger institutions to contain some of these people outside of society where they can be put back on the path to wellness. Let's explore the building of a clean, modern, and monitored asylum.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http:// on December 14, 2012 at 10:21 PM · Report this
zivilisierter Wurm 66
@62/64: Sigh... Canada has a higher rate per capita of gun ownership than the United States. Clearly there is more at play than simply gun ownership. And at no point did I say that we should not work towards restricting the availability of fire-arms from those who are too incompetent/irresponsible to own them.
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm on December 14, 2012 at 10:26 PM · Report this
If it's easy for people to kill people then it will be easy for people to kill people. I hope this makes sense, but I have the sinking feeling that it won't.
Posted by MacGruber on December 14, 2012 at 10:26 PM · Report this
Posted by MacGruber on December 14, 2012 at 10:29 PM · Report this
Dems caved in just about almost everything relevant over the last 30+ years, I have difficulty understanding how gun control somehow differs from the norm.
Posted by anon1256 on December 14, 2012 at 10:43 PM · Report this
zivilisierter Wurm 70
Those data demonstrate guns per capita, not owners per capita. A more interesting analysis would probably be to look at violent crime per gun and violent crime per gun owner, though my stats days are long past. At any rate, my point was that there are countries which allow for some form of (rationally controlled) gun ownership, yet experience far less violent crime.
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm on December 14, 2012 at 10:49 PM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 71
What America can learn from Switzerland

In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive.

The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity.

One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area.

Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.…
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http:// on December 14, 2012 at 10:52 PM · Report this
@62 FTW.
Posted by sarah70 on December 14, 2012 at 11:05 PM · Report this
zivilisierter Wurm 73
Kicking a little math from:…


it looks like 4.7x10^-5 murders/per gun occur in the united states, as opposed to 5.2x10^-5 in Canada. But I am very tired and may entirely have carried something wrong. Also, this does not reflect accidental death or non-fatal violent crime.
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm on December 14, 2012 at 11:06 PM · Report this
Michael of the Green 74
Democrats don't like to talk about gun control because they're hysterically concerned about appearing to prove the GOP's paranoia true.

Could be that only Nixon could go to that territory.
Posted by Michael of the Green on December 14, 2012 at 11:06 PM · Report this
zivilisierter Wurm 75
Kicking a little math from:…


it looks like 4.7x10^-5 murders/per gun occur in the united states, as opposed to 5.2x10^-5 in Canada. But I am very tired and may entirely have carried something wrong.
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm on December 14, 2012 at 11:11 PM · Report this
mubhappy 76
"Dialog" in gun nut speak is translated to "Don't make me leave my fucking fantasy world where I'm John Rambo and will be of use during a shooting."
Posted by mubhappy on December 14, 2012 at 11:11 PM · Report this
I also agree that the Second Amendment has been misinterpreted, but my opinion doesn't matter, and your opinion doesn't matter. Short of a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court has the last word, and resent rulings (one of them dealing with a local gun control law) have shown that this conservative Supreme Court is opposed to it. This is a big reason you don't hear anybody proposing any sweeping legislation, or at least nothing that has a realistic chance of passing.

And yet I think gun control is a better issue than people think. I say that based on the comments I've read on Slog today. Some reliably pro-gun Sloggers are going on the record as supporting some measures, such as tracking sales. I have to think that it's only a very small minority that hear about a classroomful of dead elementary school kids and say, "Whatever."

I haven't heard of any actual leadership from any politician today. That is, I haven't heard any going out on a limb against conventional wisdom and stating that we need to revisit the concept of gun control. The only ones that have are preaching to their liberal choir, so that doesn't count.

I'm not giving Obama a pass on this, because he's not serving his people if he chooses to deflect a problem in the interest of political expediency and, furthermore, there's probably no real reason to be afraid of gun control. If he went out there, like a leader, and made specific, common sense gun control proposals even a number of Republican voters would support, then the issue would be a problem for Republicans, not Dems. I thought the 2012 election showed that America is not a center-right country.
Posted by floater on December 14, 2012 at 11:14 PM · Report this
Goldy -

The main problem here is a debate about 'gun control' that infers all of these incidents can be managed through law.

The discussion needs to be around gun safety. Given that nuts or criminals will get their hands on weapons, how can we give ourselves a chance against them? The common argument is that 'criminals' will circumvent laws. The fact of the matter is that many of these Amoklauf killings are performed by otherwise law abiding, non-career criminals. Let's start there.

Eliminate private gun transfers; require legal weapons to be transferred via a FFL. Require new weapons to have RFID tags embedded, and existing ones retrofitted when transferred. Give the rest of us a better chance to know when weapons are around us, give me the choice to stay or leave. Not perfect, but allows legal & responsible gun ownership to exist.
Posted by Action Slacks on December 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM · Report this
@zivilisierter Wurm, well your analysis is not bad at this time of night, still need to know where you came up with "zivilisierter Wurm" as an alias though.
Posted by MacGruber on December 14, 2012 at 11:30 PM · Report this
zivilisierter Wurm 81
@MacGruber: German for a favorite Melvins song. Just little good-natured self-depreciation :)…
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm on December 14, 2012 at 11:44 PM · Report this
@69 that is not true you are just bitter Marx doesn't run the party.
Posted by Seattle14 on December 15, 2012 at 12:37 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 83

82 comments above me says we're not even talking about gun control

Wake up.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on December 15, 2012 at 2:39 AM · Report this
@28 is right - stopping the media blitz that always results from these tragic events is a great idea. The sick individuals that perpetrate such crimes see their going down in history as a bonus.
Posted by WestSeven on December 15, 2012 at 5:01 AM · Report this
I'm genuinely curious, Goldy; what would you do different?
The guns used in CT were legally owned and registered to the victim's mother. Her son could not legally purchase guns, ammunition, or use a weapon. He murdered her and stole her pistols, neither of which by any reports were automatics or had expanded clips.

So again I have to ask: what would you have done differently than the CT legislature, if you could? Would you ban all handguns from the US (including those owned by emergency personnel, since there's no reason a cop couldn't also be murdered by their child and their weapon use in a crime.) do you have a plan on how to get 300 million legally owned weapons, and who knows how many illegally owned ones out of the country, and make sure they don't come back? Please, tell us what you would have done differently. Please.

Yesterday was not a failure to discuss or enact gun control. It was a failure of correctly implemented gun control, because you can't always predict or stop insanity. A woman was murdered, her property stolen and used in still further murders. The only failure there was the lack of humanity in her son.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 6:02 AM · Report this
#77 - "I thought the 2012 election showed that America is not a center-right country" - why? Because we elected a center-right president?

#83 - I think when people say we need a discussion about guns in society, they're talking about a discussion at the highest levels of government, not anonymous commenters trading insults on an obscure blog.
Posted by catsnbanjos on December 15, 2012 at 6:09 AM · Report this
Just Jeff 88
The shooter did not come by the weapon he used legally. What form of "gun control" would have prevented this tragedy?
Posted by Just Jeff on December 15, 2012 at 7:17 AM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 90
Reducing the total number of guns within the system would have reduced the probability of this gun having been purchased. If that probability becomes small enough, you effectively have prevention.

Once again, the difference between liberals and conservatives is simply this: math. We've got it. You don't.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM · Report this
There are other issues that matter, Goldy, issues which will be badly harmed if the Democrats lose elections. Taxes on the rich? Health care? The environment? Abortion? Worker's rights? Keeping the government functioning as something that helps people instead of a feeding trough for crony capitalists? Given the importance of these things, I'd say gun control isn't a hill to die on.

What's needed on this issue is nonpartisan activism to educate the public about the problems with guns to counter NRA misinformation and rebuild support for gun control back up to the point where it's safe for Democrats to take the issue back on.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on December 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM · Report this
@90:... What? In what way is that a solution? "Well, if we have less guns we'll have less shootings." I suppose that's technically true, but considering there are 300 million legally owned guns in the country and 10,000 shooting deaths a year, it's already such a statistically small percentage of legally owned weapons involve in said shootings that you'd have to eliminate virtually all guns in the country to make a difference. Including those owned by police. And, as previously pointed out, that'll never happen. Sorry, that may count as 'math' for you, but it's not a solution.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 8:40 AM · Report this
So has anyone thought to ask Senate Majority Leader to be Rodney Toms what he would propose? Since he isn't a democrat again he should be able to say something, or am I missing something here. Maybe this isn't just an political problem for dems, maybe just maybe it is a political problem for R from swing districts too?
Posted by cub on December 15, 2012 at 8:40 AM · Report this
@10 remains the single most laughable would-be troll on slog. I reiterate my offer to pay cash money to whichever staffer forcibly changes his handle to "StrangersWeakestTroll".
But Dr. Dope, you already hold that title, and I really don't see you giving it up. That and your uncontrollable flatulence are all you have. Interestingly, these are the qualities that put you right in the middle of the Active Shooter Demographic...
Posted by Arthur Zifferelli on December 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM · Report this
@94: Aw, muffin. I was hoping you'd rear your head. You finished jerking off to the news reports now? I hoped you' cleaned your own semen off your chin before you started typing. I know how aroused this all makes you. May I suggest actually reading what people write before responding, hun? I can help with the big words if you like. I know you have trouble with that whole civilized discourse thing. Seriously, you and the homophobic troll should just start rage fuckin. You'd feel better.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM · Report this
That's quite the fantasy, Nate. I'll bet you have one hell of a porn collection.
Posted by Arthur Zifferelli on December 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM · Report this
@97: I do indeed, though my words have less to do with porn than the amusement and contempt the gun troll's lack of grammar, eloquence, and rational thought. There's no point in trying to have a civilized discussion with the yeasty little discharge. And he does take my mind off the tragedy of what actually happened. So I suppose I should thank the filthy little Santorum stain for that.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 102

The guns were registered to his mother. if she didn't have guns in her house, he wouldn't have had them.She'd be alive today and so would all those kids if she had not bought guns.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 103
You know, it sounds all macho and butch when you say "from my cold, dead hands." but it sounds a little sick when it's the cold dead hands of a 5 year old at an elementary school, and 19 of his little classmates.

You want to die in a hail of bullets? Go join the military. Stop jeopardizing the lives of our children so you can cling to some outdated ideology and pretend that you're John Wayne. Your ego is not worth the life of our kids.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 15, 2012 at 10:11 AM · Report this
@102&103: it's got nothing to do with macho posturing. I don't own guns for home protection, and I don't expect I'll ever use them in that way. But your argument is specious. If her son wasn't crazy, the mother wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't have killed all those kids. If people didn't have alcohol, no one would ever be killed by a drunk driver. If men didn't have dicks there wouldn't be nearly as much rape. We do not prohibit, within reason, what people can own, do, or consume because of what the insane or criminal will do with those items or substances. Now, your idea of reason may be different than mine, but your argument seems to be we should ban everything potentially lethal because of what some people might do with it. I tend to disagree with that approach, because it never ends. Unless you think this poor, dead mother of a murderous psychopath should have preemptive lay known her son was a lunatic and never purchased a gun in the first place? And how, exactly, do you think she was supposed to know that? Are we to blame the parents of every serial killer put there? Punish them for what their offspring does?

If you think there aren't many, many rational gun owners out there grieving just as hard as you right now, you are sadly mistaken. But I cannot blame a woman who died for her son's actions just because she owned a gun. I can't blame an inanimate object for what an adult did with it. And I can't blame the US or the state of CT for failing to enact some sort of legislation which would magically keep a stolen gun out of this man's hands.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM · Report this
The other thing Dems don't want to talk about is how the neoliberal educational policies of Bush 2 and Obama /Duncan-the-dumbshit have royally screwed up public education. With the push to test the shit out of American kids, many of their more creative outlets are gone. Music, art, recess, drama all get cut in the race to focus on test scores, and dwindling funds are spent on test prep materials rather than music teachers, counselors, or recess aides. After school programs are cut, so more kids are going home to empty houses, with hours of unstructured and unsupervised time in which they sit in front of the TV or computer and absorb more and more of the violence, then mimic what they see. Mental health services have been cut, social services cut, school psychs spend most of their limited time testing kids for special Ed - usually working at 2-3 buildings each - and never get to really know the kids, nor are they available to help spot abnormal behavior and get interventions before shit like this happens. Ask any teacher or school employee - they'll tell you that more and more kids are showing up to school with major mental health issues due to poverty, neglect, abuse, addiction, and other environmental factors (pesticides? Pollution? Lead paint?), yet all that matters is TEST SCORES AND DATA.
We dehumanize our children with this focus on data rather than focusing on the child. Video games and TV dehumanize life by glamorizing guns and violence, prizing gunplay and a fake show of strength over using words to solve problems. We test food stamp recipients for drugs, but any jackass can buy a gun. States like Utah and Arizona pride themselves on how loose their gun regulations are even as they cut more funding to schools. Legislators waste time over bullshit legislation with their vaginal probe obsession, meanwhile more and more kids are being stuffed into decrepit schools with asbestos and rusty pipes and rats and being told that all that matters is their test scores. Guns are only part of the problem. We need to look at how we treat and value our children, and make our actions match the lip-service so many of us offer when shit like this happens. School is cheaper than jail. Intervene early and maybe we can prevent more of this from happening.
Posted by StuckInUtah on December 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM · Report this
@107: Very well said.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM · Report this
As far as Inslee not doing anything 4 gun control, didnt he vote for the Brady bill when he was U S Rep from Yakima dist? And the NRA helped sink his re-election, as a result. I wouldn't blame from being a bit gunshy on this issue. After all, he hasn't been swarn in yet.
Posted by pat L on December 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM · Report this
Fnarf 110
@105, keep rationalizing. You're almost there. A couple more comments and you won't even feel a shred of your own culpability anymore. You've about covered the gamut of excuses here, but I'm sure you can squeak out one or two more. Come on, motherfucker; America is counting on you.
Posted by Fnarf on December 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM · Report this
Seems like there aren't a lot of people on this thread blaming the shooter.

Just sayin...
Posted by CPN on December 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM · Report this
@110: Oh please, you self-righteous tool. You've clearly never heard of anyone taking responsibility for their own actions. Get back to me the day after I shoot someone. Until then, and I mean this with all sincerity, take your holier-than-thou attitude, your casual disregard for actual facts, and your black & white view of the world and shove them so far up your ass you rupture something. You're no help to this issue, I'd guess to any issue. And please believe me when I tell you your attitude makes gun owners even more determined to do whatever the fuck we want. I'd never give money to the NRA or any of the other gun addicts out there, but goddamn if you don't make it tempting.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 113

A crazed murderer with an automatic assault rifle= tens if not hundreds killed.

A crazed murderer with a kitchen knife = 5 dead at most.

Guns serve one sole purpose; to take life, to kill, to render something living dead. Guns may not be used to prepare food. They are useless tools for the purpose of opening plastic wrap. They are not helpful in opening a stuck door. So lets stop pretending that a gun and a kitchen knife are equivalent, in terms of their lethality or use.

The issue here is not how do we cure human insanity. Humans have been wrestling with that issue for all of recorded history, and have made little if any progress. To say that the solution to mass killings will have to wait until we have extinguished the homicidal urge from the human species is to say that we shall wait forever, that this problem shall never be solved.

We can however reduce the impact of the homicidal. We can reduce the number of persons capable of being killed in a single act of violence by a single person. And we can do that by reducing access to firearms in America.

Your ideology does not match my epidemiology. The numbers are quite clear; we have a problem with mass violence in America. This problem is severe, and it results in preventable death and disability for an unacceptably high number of our countrymen. Were the pathogen a virus or a bacterium, emergency measures would be implemented to contain the epidemic. Were its origin a chemical spill, herculean efforts would be made to remediate the environment. You would not hear advocates for the right to die of ebola or cancer declaring that the doctors of our country can only make an effort to save our children from SIDS after they pry the IV from your "cold, dead hands". Nor would we see major lobbying groups speaking out on behalf of cyanide or arsenic, and the right of Americans to drink as much of it as they damn well please in our tap water.

But we do see you here, pleading for the rights of our children to be murdered in a hail of bullets. We do see you equivocate the banning of assault rifles with that of kitchen knives.

And how insane you appear to me. How incomprehensibly monstrous do you have to get to argue the case you are arguing. The mother of this murderer bought her guns for the same reason you bought yours. If your son went on a rampage and shot 20 kids, would you still advocate for his right to bear arms?

I do not understand you.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 15, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
@112, Does part of the thrill of owning a gun come from parading you responsibility around each time one of your lesser brothers-in-arms has a meltdown and kills a bunch of people? "Get back to me the day after I shoot someone;" yeah, but that day will never come because you're soooo responsible. You have the power to do evil, but don't, so it makes you feel good.
Posted by DisorganizedReligion on December 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 116

I should not have to learn that difference. The fact that I have to know what a Bushmaster is or that there are things called Glocks or SIGs, because someone stupid enough to buy one wound up dead along with 20 of her students because of it, and now I have to understand these vagueries in order to make some sense this story, sickens me.

Do you have to understand the difference between El Tor and classic cholera? No, you don't, because we've made an effort to banish both of these from our drinking water. And if we made a similar effort to abolish gun violence, the rest of us wouldn't have to obsess over the details of your sick hobby.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 118

At least I have the intelligence required to see the value of human life, and to understand that it is greater than the value of your ideology.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
@113: I don't need you to understand me. I don't need you to approve of what I do or what I own. The facts remain the same: guns are legal and will remain that way. People like you always talk about the purpose of guns only being to kill, as though someone stabbed to death or run down by a drunk driver is somehow less dead because they weren't killed with a gun. You are willing to split every hair necessary in order to be right about this, even though you lose thousands if not millions of allies who'd be perfectly willing to enact same gun control due to your fanaticism. Dead is dead. It's easier to kill with guns, yes. But many, many more people die every year from substance abuse and carelessness than do from gun violence. Where's your self-aggrandizing outrage for them? You have the same reason people always do when they try to take something away from someone else: you don't like guns. Tough shit. I don't like murder, and I'll choose to point my outrage at the people who actually deserve it; the murderers.

@114: I have the ability to bury a knife in your belly, run you down with my car, and make explosives out of fertilizer. I have the ability to rape, to assault, to burn your house down. I choose not to. Being human is making that choice day in and day out. I have no need to feel good about choosing not to shoot you because, like all people not brain damaged or evil, I simply make that choice. Do you need to be made to feel good about not hitting someone with your car? For not punching your spouse? Again: it's not about death or right or wrong for you. It's that you don't like guns or the people who own them. That's your choice.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 121

No, you do need me to understand you. Because I vote. And like many of my countrymen of similar mind, I am going to vote for politicians that support gun control. If there are none with the spine or liver to support such legislation, then we'll do it by ballot initiative.

And you can pry my ballot from my cold, dead hands.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM · Report this
@121: And, again, no I don't. I live in MA. I'm used to dealing with gun control, and I'm totally fine with it. I'm licensed, my guns are trigger locked and registered, and I'm comfortable jumping thru the hoops I have to in order to keep them. And because I vote too, and so do lots and lots of people with guns, I know they're not going away. I also know gun control isn't going to end gun violence, not until we do something about the conditions that cause it. But by all means, put all your fantasy eggs in the dream basket of gun control.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM · Report this
@122: You're right all the way down the board. I've stayed off Facebook for the last 2 days because I don't have to see any of the stupid 'if the teacher had been armed all the kids would still be alive' memes. Gun nuts exist, and I hate them as much as I do any extremist. I don't know if this woman was one; I don't know if her guns were in a safe or trigger locked, and if they weren't then yes, she bears some culpability. It's also possible they were and her son knew where the key was. My wife certainly knows where mine is, even though she doesn't like guns. As far as why they were still in the house with someone with mental problems, I'd guess (since I have no alternative or information) she never thought her son was capable of such a thing. I think most parents would make that mistake.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 1:51 PM · Report this
@126: Yes, they certainly do. And I wish these murderous assholes could just kill themselves when they want to end it.

And I absolutely believe in strict regulation. Instant background checks, prohibitions on gun ownership for anyone convicted of any violent crime, DUI, restraining order, etc. I'm also fully in favor of mandatory trigger locks for every weapon purchased, up to and including fingerprint technology. And any weapons violation should come with incredibly strict penalties.

Things can be and should be safer. It won't stop these tragedies, but I want them gone as much as anyone else does.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM · Report this
You're 100% right on two things, NateMan. I don't like guns. I don't like them one damn bit. And until gunslingers like you can guarantee that only your own children will get slaughtered by them, I won't like people who own them. All your other statements can use some fact checking.
Posted by DisorganizedReligion on December 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM · Report this
Fnarf 130
David Frum today:
And I'll say: I'll accept no lectures about "sensitivity" on days of tragedy like today from people who work the other 364 days of the year against any attempt to prevent such tragedies.

It's bad enough to have a gun lobby. It's the last straw when that lobby also sets up itself as the civility police. It may not be politically possible to do anything about the prevalence of weapons of mass murder. But it damn well ought to be possible to complain about them - and about the people who condone them.…

@127, you say you're for those things because you know they are politically impossible. You're exactly like all the rest. The people who make even the tiniest moves toward gun regulation impossible are YOU, not hotheads like me. That's why I reject your sniveling bullshit about "dialog". There is no dialog. There's only assholes like you protecting your asshole rights. The right to own guns is an asshole right.
Posted by Fnarf on December 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM · Report this
@130: Feel free to put whatever thoughts in my head you like, Fnarf. Whatever makes you sleep better at night. That doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make you any less part of the problem than I am. But fuck it. I'm an asshole, and you're a miserable shit. Guess that puts us right next to each other.
Posted by NateMan on December 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM · Report this
OirishOiyesAreSmilin 132
Can you point out to me the exact wording in the Bill Of Rights where it says, that I have the right to be armed ONLY with 18th Century technology weaponry?
In fact point out to me ANY reference to guns or firearms in particular in the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were very smart men to put it mildly. I think if they meant to be specific about muskets or guns in general, they would have stipulated it.

By the way, the Bill Of Rights does not give me or grant me ANY rights. It enumerates them, i.e. it recognizes rights that pre-existed the the Constitution.

Posted by OirishOiyesAreSmilin on December 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM · Report this
OirishOiyesAreSmilin 134
>>And until gunslingers like you can guarantee that only your own children will get slaughtered by them, I won't like people who own them.

First off, I guarantee no such thing when presented with such moronically formulated and expressed conditions.
Will you hold cops and the all the various armed trough-swilling Fed agencies to the same standard? Why aren't you baying for all their Mil grade toys hmmm? Unlike we "gunslingers", they actually get to wield full-auto-zomg-killing-machine-weapons-of-war.
And whether statist fuck-sticks like you and the rest of the commie filth on this CapHill circle jerk of a blog LIKE me or not, I give not a flying fuck
Posted by OirishOiyesAreSmilin on December 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM · Report this
OirishOiyesAreSmilin 135
>>There is no dialog. There's only assholes like you protecting your asshole rights. The right to own guns is an asshole right.

Exactly! Me and I'm sure many others like me, are done having a dialog with assholes like you. I won't have a dialog, a "conversation" or meet you in the middle, or be "reasonable" according to a standard defined by shitstains like you. I'm done talking and being reasonable - and I'm far from alone - , because it's never enough is it?
I guess it's your move.
Posted by OirishOiyesAreSmilin on December 15, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this
OirishOiyesAreSmilin 136
Define "gun nut". Seriously WTF?
Posted by OirishOiyesAreSmilin on December 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM · Report this
OirishOiyesAreSmilin 138

>>@112, Does part of the thrill of owning a gun come from parading you responsibility

You really have some issues there don't you Disorganized?

>>around each time one of your lesser brothers-in-arms

That POS was no brother-in-arms of mine or anyone I know

Posted by OirishOiyesAreSmilin on December 15, 2012 at 6:28 PM · Report this
@129 Fuck yourself with a fork, you NRA stooge. Give it a real good twist, too.
Posted by DisorganizedReligion on December 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM · Report this
Fnarf 140
@138, but his mom was.

Posted by Fnarf on December 15, 2012 at 7:26 PM · Report this
@138 brother-in-arms, partner in crime, whatever. Your dumb little hobby blows up every goddamned month in some mass shooting. Buy a taser, get a cross bow, or learn to feel secure with the size of your genitals, but don't get guns. This massacre is game over for asinine bumpkins getting citizens of actual value killed with their irresponsible hobbies.
Posted by DisorganizedReligion on December 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM · Report this
Fnarf 142
When some people who live near the elementary school heard the shots fired by Mr. Lanza on Friday, they said they were not surprised.

“I really didn’t think anything of it,” said a resident, Ray Rinaldi. “You hear gun shots around here all the time.”

Social. Generous. Slender. Liked to play bunco. Interested in gardening. And guns. She had five guns, loved to talk about them. Took her son Adam to the shooting range all the time.…
Posted by Fnarf on December 15, 2012 at 8:04 PM · Report this
I'm still not seeing many people on this thread actually blaming the guy who pulled the trigger...
Posted by CPN on December 15, 2012 at 8:29 PM · Report this
Fnarf 145
@143, I'd love to support "reasonable regulation and limits, including RKBA" if that was actually on the agenda. But it's not. Reasonable regulations are on the chopping block in every state. It's easy for you to support something that you know is never going to happen.
Posted by Fnarf on December 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM · Report this
Actual evidence that making the right changes to gun laws DOES reduce gun violence, from an Australian study of what happened after their 1996 reforms:…
Posted by diner mo on December 15, 2012 at 10:41 PM · Report this
Citizen X, do you also believe that the 1996 gun law reforms in Australia (see the link @146) were part of a conspiracy, and if so, what was the outcome of that conspiracy?
Posted by diner mo on December 16, 2012 at 12:52 AM · Report this
Citizen X, do you believe the 1996 gun law reforms in Australia (see link @146) were part of a conspiracy to disarm the populace? If so, what was the outcome of the conspiracy, other than less gun violence?
Posted by diner mo on December 16, 2012 at 1:10 AM · Report this
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on December 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM · Report this
Let's Do Something about the STIGMA of TREATMENT of Our Children Suffering From MENTAL ILLNESS.....I have family members and extended family who have Needed Treatment and Gotten It.......We can't just "Home School" our Kids and HOPE they "G
row Out of It".......PLEASE GET TREATMENT for Your Child or Family Member who's Suffering From Depression or Mental Illness......Don't Put It Off.......!
NOBODY Knows what make a Person SNAP until it's Too Late!
Posted by DakotahJohn on December 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM · Report this
Guns are not the problem. They need to be guided by a person to do damage.

Neglectful parents who (to their benefit) didn't learn how to model constructive and pro-social behavior for their children are a dangerous, growing phenomenon in our society.

Who's regulating/monitoring parenting skills? Because we become parents doesn't give us a "free ticket" from having mental health and interpersonal communication issues which need attention.

Metaphoric to a person who seeks to acquire a gun - a parent who is not "qualified" (has no "background check" or monitoring done for parenting/communication skills) is potentially very dangerous. Further, parents "wrap their hands around" a child, guide/"aim" their direction, and, ultimately, pull the trigger.

What we really need to give our attention to is not the gun, but who's behind the trigger?
Posted by friendlyneighborhood on December 17, 2012 at 8:23 AM · Report this
dwightmoodyforgetsthings 156
@45- Two Asian guys, the Simon's Rock shooter was also an Asian American man.

Nobody wants to talk about how all this talking about it is part of the problem, eh? Too meta?

Too much change in our own beloved behavior?
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings on December 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.