Slog Comments


Comments (69) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Lew Siffer 1
I guess for the extended future all your're going to do is exclusively make note gun deaths. Pay no attention to the other 99.9 percent of deaths, no siree, looky here a gun did this I say! A gun!

You fuckers are a sideshow.
Posted by Lew Siffer on December 24, 2012 at 8:01 PM · Report this
Yeah! Why not focus your attention on cancer or old age - fuckers. Why worry about people dying of gunfire when you could use your bully pulpit to focus on preventable deaths like traffic accidents and spinal meningitis. Fuckers.
Posted by jnonymous on December 24, 2012 at 8:14 PM · Report this
seatackled 3
Exactly, you fuckers could be exploiting the death of Jack Klugman, who may have died of both cancer and old age, instead of those meddling kids in Connecticut. Fucking fuckers.
Posted by seatackled on December 24, 2012 at 8:18 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 4
Hey, a little over 700 people each year die in fistfights (far more than from mass murderers). I think you should post about each of them.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on December 24, 2012 at 8:22 PM · Report this
Ah, we invest billions preventing disease deaths. We've made a lot of progress. We've invested nothing in preventing gun deaths, such as gun regulation. Why the hell do we bother with any background checks when fully fourtyeight percent of guns are sold at gun shows exempt from those checks
Posted by jeffy on December 24, 2012 at 8:26 PM · Report this
@1 Gun deaths are additional deaths. They are not "instead of" deaths. They are deaths of intentional violence. They are also both the result and the cause of paranoid and self-agrandizing fantasies. That violence degrades our society in every way.

You might want to live in an early-19th century Dodge City. I don't. You might want to be entirely responsible for your own and your family's safety from malevolent people. I don't. I want to live in a peaceable society with sensible laws and less violence. I don't want to see America continue to turn into some kind of idiot dystopia right before my eyes. I don't want to have to walk around with a bullet-proof vest, NATO armored helmet, rifle and sidearm all the time, just to be somewhat safe on the street. If you do, if you're hungry to live in a war zone, be shot at and shoot back, join the fucking army and volunteer for Afghanistan.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on December 24, 2012 at 8:40 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 7
Who said I wasn't in Afganistan.
Posted by Lew Siffer on December 24, 2012 at 8:44 PM · Report this
Guns were illegal in Dodge City. We've gone backwards. Well, actually, some new hell.
Posted by firewalkwithme on December 24, 2012 at 9:09 PM · Report this
@5, just because a gun is sold at a gun show does not mean it is "exempt from background checks." Person-to-person transactions are exempt, dealer-to-person transactions are not. Additionally, in most states, both parties need to be a resident of the same state. So, for example, if I lived in New York, I could not go to Ohio and purchase a firearm from a private party without going through an FFL (and a background check).

For more information, see here:…

Additionally, that 40% figure sounds mighty suspect to me - you've clearly never been to a gun show. The private firearms sellers make up maybe 5-10% of the firearms available and most of them are selling 'collectibles'. The large majority of firearms sellers are licensed dealers which require a background check. From what I can glean from various 'reports', the 40% figure includes non-firearm vendors in the figure.
Posted by randoma on December 24, 2012 at 9:45 PM · Report this
NotSean 10
@6 Amen.
God Almighty, Amen.
Posted by NotSean on December 24, 2012 at 9:47 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 11
The NRA's message is that guns make you safer. They want to win this argument with that.

So the Stranger posts about the daily incidents where guns clearly are making nobody safer. And what do the NRA's little minions do? Bleat "Shut up! Shut up!"

The only trick they know is the trick of trying to silence the discussion. Reveal all the facts, and put them out there in the light of day, and they have no talking points. Remember what a kook the NRA's million dollar a year talking head looked like, ranting about foreign aid dollars and a movie from 18 years ago? That guy, Wayne LaPierre, was the best they had. He was their ace.

Tomorrow there will be more shootings. And what will the gun nuts have to say? They'll say, "Stop paying attention. Stop caring!" That's all they've got.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 24, 2012 at 10:50 PM · Report this
@10, yes, a thousand times yes.
Posted by crone on December 24, 2012 at 11:03 PM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 13
People die from other things -- what about all of them?!?!?!?!?!

Fuck all of you, you fucking sideshow fuckers.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on December 24, 2012 at 11:39 PM · Report this
@7, if you're in Afghanistan, you might be better off keeping an eye out around you instead of commenting on Slog.
Posted by sarah70 on December 24, 2012 at 11:42 PM · Report this
MirrorMan 15
Lew, and associated trollers, if you have a better idea about how to deal with this, please speak up. If all you have is trollery, STFU.

Really. We have seen your 'Great Idea', and we are all Wilco Tango Foxtrot!

Address this issue, or go away. End of fucking story.

Shooting Firemen? ......There are no words.....
Posted by MirrorMan on December 24, 2012 at 11:50 PM · Report this
I'm not worried that you guys will start reporting every gun death-I'm worried you guys will start reporting ONLY gun deaths. Seriously, the past few days it's been like 90% of slog. Don't you people ever watch any movies or see any shopping carts or go to any coal train protests anymore?
Posted by Oh little town of insomnia on December 25, 2012 at 12:10 AM · Report this
delirian 17
@15: I agree with you 100%, but I do have one nitpick. It is Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. "Wilco" isn't in the phonetic alphabet because it is a radio codeword meaning "will comply" (it has a similar meaning to "roger").
Posted by delirian on December 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM · Report this
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 18

The right to bear arms as stated by the NRA is that sane, responsible people should be allowed to have access to weapons.

No sane responsible person would do what Adam Lanza or the fireman shooter or any criminal would do.

So what's the problem?

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on December 25, 2012 at 12:41 AM · Report this
Karlheinz Arschbomber 19
I used to live in West Webster NY, a few blocks from this incident. This is disgusting, and I wish all the gun-fondling assholes a fine time on the wrong end of their fetish object.
Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber on December 25, 2012 at 12:53 AM · Report this
Problems: sane people may not stay sane (drunk, depressed, angry, stroke, etc.) all the time, even careful people are rarely always careful (and a lot of people aren't careful), nobody is always alert and there are a heck of a lot of guns.

The above lines are a contribution to the armed guard idea not passing the laugh test.
Posted by david on December 25, 2012 at 1:23 AM · Report this
Why do you fuckers never seem to actually blame the fucker that pulled the trigger and did the killing?
Posted by CPN on December 25, 2012 at 1:25 AM · Report this
They may have been armed with guns, but they weren't armed with God!!!!! The problem is self-evident.
Posted by michael bell on December 25, 2012 at 1:36 AM · Report this
Good thing no one from The Stranger was in Clackamas Town Center in Portland a couple weeks ago. Their life would've been saved by the concealed carry gun owner who stopped the mass murderer with the assault rifle. Of course, if a Stranger reporter's life had been saved, it would have been a wasteful rescue, and the story would've said so, right?
Posted by Mister G on December 25, 2012 at 1:51 AM · Report this
@18 You and/or your fellow gun nuts bought out the Bushnell assault rifles after Sandy Hook, flooding the United States with more guns and encouraging the manufacturers to not only make more but figure out new ways to push these new guns into the market.

The NRA is now primarily a political engine for the gun manufacturers to manipulate their flying monkeys, the gun nuts, and threaten politicians who want to discuss policy. The NRA and the gun manufacturers love every single child killed, cop killed, wife killed, fireman killed... because their sales improve in direct correlation to the outrageousness of the killing. Gun nuts get really worked up by blood and fear, worked up in away that can only be satisfied by a new version, a new accessory... a new something metal and dark with numbers, ratios, and tactical minutia to bandy about the way we used to discuss baseball stats.
Posted by cracked on December 25, 2012 at 2:49 AM · Report this
@24 New York state already has rather strict gun laws and, as a convicted felon, the shooter was already prohibited from owning a firearm. We don't have all the facts yet, but I don't think we'll be able to blame this incident on the NRA.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 25, 2012 at 6:35 AM · Report this
@25 Except the NRA works against all regulations, and assuming this guy was using rifles of some sort, it would probably require new regulations (non-automatic long guns don't require background checks or licenses, even in New York). They resist any regulation or enforcement of regulations that could have prevented this guy from having firearms, just like Maurice Clemmons. No system is foolproof of course, it's a game of numbers.

To add to the tragedy, the slain firemen were volunteers. (Also the guy's sister with whom he lived is currently missing.) Ad a bunch of people are now homeless due to the fire. Overall a shitty Christmas for those affected.
Posted by madcap on December 25, 2012 at 6:52 AM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 27
Don't worry, Ken, these people will find some way to blame the NRA. Even if they have to make it up.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on December 25, 2012 at 6:54 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 28
Time to shut down Slog...the asswipe gun freaks have taken over.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on December 25, 2012 at 7:01 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 29
Oh, and the NRA is nothing more than a domestic terrorist organization. And you know who one of their members was? Timothy McVeigh.

If you are a member of this domestic terrorist organization you should be sent to Gitmo and/or have your next convention attacked with drones.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on December 25, 2012 at 7:03 AM · Report this
@26 "non-automatic long guns don't require background checks or licenses, even in New York"

All gun purchases from licensed firearm dealers have to be approved through the instant background check system. There is no exception for 'non-automatic long guns' whatever those are.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 25, 2012 at 7:21 AM · Report this
I find it amusing that anyone who owns a firearm is immediately declared a "nut," a "sideshow fucker", and an "asswipe," and then people wonder why they aren't interested in talking about regulations.
Posted by doceb on December 25, 2012 at 8:11 AM · Report this
@23 Citation, please.

Here in Utah, teachers can get free weapons training!…
Posted by StuckInUtah on December 25, 2012 at 8:48 AM · Report this
I think he was referencing the guy who drew his gun and was spotted by the shooter shortly before he killed himself. The relationship between the two events is tenuous. He didn't fire any shots or anything, for fear of hitting anyone else in the mall.
Posted by doceb on December 25, 2012 at 9:03 AM · Report this
@31 because the nra and the gun owners' typical positions are in fact, nutty.

thei central argument is guns make us safe. obviously, the high rates of gun ownership in the usa the high rates of death by gun are causal -- they dismiss this.

they nuttily focus on minutiae, like "you non gun people aren't qualified to talk about the subject because you don't know the difference between a tactical sig glock 2820 and a bushmaster citizen defender 303030" or other drivel.

they say nutty things like arm teachers -- their hypothesis is somehow the good guys always win, when we know bad guys usually get the jump on the good guys.

they use a clackamas as an example of guns in the hands of good people WORKING to make us SAFE for god's sake. Clackamas is not an example of SAFETY; it's an example of HARM and DEATH.

they say the nra shouldn't be blamed, because [pick one state or city] has good gun control on paper, and aha! someone defeated it by crossing the political boundary. Seriously, they always point to chicago or DC or CT as "proving" gun controls don't work. This is nutty.

These nuttynesses are indicators of a deep seated imbalance that we, the non gun people, fairly and reasonably call nutty.

they refuse to see the social ill effects of lots of guns, legally, being in lots of homes, legally, stored, legally, under lock and key, when obviously this does enable lots of drunk people, nutty people, suicidal people, people with suicidal urges to murder lots of other people, and thieves, to simply (a) take the key and (b) steal the guns or (c) as iwth ms. lanza, you kill her first then take the guns. not seeing that the existen ce of 280 million guns is causally associated with the highest rates of gun death and massacre of any similar nations is in fact, nutty.
Posted by many gun owners nutty on December 25, 2012 at 9:47 AM · Report this
Your mistake is lumping all gun owners in with the most outspoken 10 percent, which are always the biggest jackasses in ANY group. Everyone I know, gun owner or not, thinks that the NRA's recent statements were beyond idiotic, for example.

Use caution when lumping large numbers of people into a single block taking the opposite, extreme, view on an issue - keep it up, and they'll end up voting that way.
Posted by doceb on December 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM · Report this


pre-judging all members of a group based on the actions of a few.....

the very definition of prejudiced bigotry.

a staple of the HypocriticalHomoLiberalLeft.
Posted by Bigotry makes people Stupid on December 25, 2012 at 10:10 AM · Report this
the killers in these crimes always seem to commit suicide.

and yet Goldy doesn't see it as a mental health issue.

funny how one's prejudice can block out the glaringly obvious...
Posted by eyes that do not see on December 25, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
JonnoN 38
The AR-15: When you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherfucking child, cop and firefighter in the room, accept no substitutes!
Posted by JonnoN on December 25, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
@35 36 -- I said typical positions referring to vocal gun owners. but in fact, you're right, I do blame all gun owners, as they are the ones backing the nra for decades and pushing our politics to one side, resulting in us not having the system of canada and australia. if you're offended by that too fucking bad gun owners. until I read that there has been a 50% drop in nra membership and until you all stop blaming the likes of me for our problems, and take some responsibility, we won't let up.

the basic issue is this: the average person just shouldn't have guns. because if he or she does, this means you end up with 280 million guns all over, and you end up with our elevated rates of death by gun, gun massacre, suicide by gun, and huge swaths of the biggest cities plagued by daily violence. so it's you, you gun owners, you are a cause of our problems in those areas. not me. every one of you has a gun most of you have three or four and
-it's not that useful for home defense, as you have to keep it locked in a safe. right?
-you teenage kid or the neigborhood thief can find a way to steal the gun, or enough of them we have the social problem of guns.
--the very existence of the massive market in legal guns feeds the massive market in illegal guns.
--the political pressure by owners of 280 million guns is what blocks us, the non gun owners, from achieving laws like they have in canada or australia.

but hey, prove i am the asshole in this picture by all resigning from the nra and leading the political effort to get us canada style gun laws! that would surely . . . .
Posted by . . . make my day! on December 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM · Report this
@35 and @36 -- you don't own bushmasters, do you?

tell us the firepower you own, and why you need it, how about that.
Posted by well meaning bushmaster owners? on December 25, 2012 at 10:28 AM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 41
@31: You know what, go ahead and get your constitutional convention together, repeal the second amendment, pass a ban on (and then confiscate) all semiautomatic guns, exclude the opinion of anyone who knows anything about firearms (don't forget to demonize them! that helps!), and then prepare to sit back and enjoy nirvana. I am fairly sure that this ban will work much better than the prior bans related to alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc., because, obviously, everyone agrees with it.

It's nutty to think otherwise.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on December 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM · Report this
@39 "the basic issue is this: the average person just shouldn't have guns."

Talk like that is why so many gun owners oppose ANY new regulations regarding firearm ownership.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM · Report this
@41: Are you sure you meant to reply to me?
Posted by doceb on December 25, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 44
@43: HA - nope, it was for 34 - my bad.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on December 25, 2012 at 10:47 AM · Report this
@40: No, I do not own anything that would be classified as an "assault rifle," or the semi-automatic version of one, for that matter. Like I said, use caution while lumping large groups into the opposition category, not just because it's a childish and silly way to look at issues, but because they'll be more likely to vote that way.
Posted by doceb on December 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM · Report this
@39: You may have some flawed ideas about NRA membership figures when compared to the number of gun owners. They claim 4.3 million members, while nearly 50 percent of adults in the US report having a firearm in their home. NRA members are a small minority of firearm owners, and I honestly do expect that their idiotic response to the events in CT will hurt their membership numbers.
Posted by doceb on December 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM · Report this
I continue to believe that that it's gun owners who're responsible for our politics on guns that prevents us from having the lowered death rates, or higher safety rates, whatever, of a canada or australia. I do lump you all together because i do not see some massive effort by gun owners to reject and denounce the NRA nor to influence elections and politics in a helpful way, following decades of gun owners helping the nra. the claim that we can't ban semis under the second amendment is false; we ban automatic weapons and can legally ban classes of weapons, that's why we CAN ban you from owning nukes. the claim a ban won't work is false, these bans on types of weapons are part of the controls in australia japan england == all the places that gun controls work pretty good, which the gun owners NEVER want to discuss. the claim confiscation is required is false, it'd be with compensation. "exclude the opinion of anyone who knows anything about firearms (don't forget to demonize them! that helps!" yes, I exclude you until you face up to the simple fact it's all these guns all over that CAUSE our problems with guns. (Yes politically and sociologically, of course the triggerman is morally to blame, etc.). ), the claim gun control only would work as well as bans on pot or heroin is false, again, look at england and japan and again, it's not usually a total ban folks, but highly limited licensing.
the problem is ""the average person just shouldn't have guns." Because it's the nations where gun ownership is far less than our rate is, that are safer, and the ez availability of 280 million guns legally obviously helps the folks misusing guns, keep and bear them. the threat that "I will vote with the NRA if you keep saying that!" only shows my view that gun owners are part of the problem is correct -- how stupid and childish is that?
"Talk like that is why so many gun owners oppose ANY new regulations regarding firearm ownership. " Well jack, there is talk like that and if your shame or guilt prevent you from tolerating it and that's why you like many gun owners will join the nra and support it, well that proves my point-- you guys are the problem. @45 you artfully leave open the possibility that you own a semi automatic ....handgun. but to return to the basic point"

if you believe gun ownership is a good idea for good guys
you will end up with 280 million guns around
then it's super ez for bad guys to get guns
and you get high rates of murder and suicide by gun, high rates of gun massacre and high rates of entire neighborhoods plagued by gun violence
if you don't have that kind of super high ownership of guns
if you have say only ten or twenty percent owning guns
and if they are super well regulated and tightly licensed so that it's just a pain in the ass to get a license and the average suburban mom like ms. lanza isn't going to get one
you don't get as many newtown massacres
so therefore, it's you gun owners collectively who are to blame. now if doceb is aware that there's some massive movement politically by responsible gun owners to reject the nra and push for bans on semis and tight licensing laws and a huge buy back problem, he can earn forgiveness but till then, no, you gun owners ARE the problem because you are why we don't have the gun ownership rates and gun death rates of japan or england or australia. and again note the threat of "don't insult me, or I will pay you back by voting to oppose things that otherwise I will support" -- meaning, "I will continue to back the nra even though on one level I agree with you we should ban semi automatic weapons !" -- this is known as being an asshole, and tends to prove my point. you don't overcome assholery by fearing and pandering to the assholes, you start by calling them assholes. now doceb tell me this, what DO you own? and why?
it's not non gun people who're the problem in the usa. it's the gun owners who directly or indirectly support and accept the gun culture. just owning a gun for home defense supports the nutty view that that's sensible. it's just not sensible. there is NO nation with the super high level of gun ownership we have that has LOW rates of death by gun. QED. the gun owners basic premise is just wrong. till they realize it they will defend it this defends and ensures all these guns all over this supports the nra loving politicians and things won't change and there will be more blood on gun owners hands every month forever into the future while forever into the future in japan there will be like ten murders a year and in england a small fraction of what we've got here. BECAUSE here people believe in guns, and that's NUTTY.
Posted by "widespread guns produce safety!" on December 25, 2012 at 11:24 AM · Report this
@46 am aware of the numbers of nra members. their influence is beyond their members. it's the widespread belief that it's good to have guns around that is the common core belief of gun owners that is the cause, politically, of us not having sensible controls on guns. there isn't one gun ownership group with a million members out there pushing like hell for a ban on assault weapons, closing the loophole, etc. when you go start one and go public, then come back and tell us about it, till then gun owners are the main cause of the problem here. politically, I am not saying they should collectively be executed for the gun deaths where others pull the trigger. it's more like sociological manslaughter blood on their hands -- it's clear you can't have safety from guns, when there's all these guns around in the hands of the average joe.
Posted by "guns make us safe!" on December 25, 2012 at 11:29 AM · Report this
@47/48: Then feel free to continue to take a principled, no-compromises stance against half of America that you've defined as your oppositon, and continue to wonder why you don't get your way.
Posted by doceb on December 25, 2012 at 11:46 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 50

Machine guns are banned. Why not semi-automatics? The Constitution gives no indication at all where you draw the line between a musket and a nuclear bomb. We don't need to change the Constitution to draw the line in a different place.

Nor do we need to to change the Constitution to close the gun show loophole. Or make background checks more effective. Or require safe storage of guns.

You'd have to be nuts to not understand such simple facts. Hence gun + nut. Gun nut.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 51
@47,48: If what you are interested in is passing a law and calling me an asshole, vs actually doing something meaningful that will improve overall safety, then go ahead - pass a ban on all semiautomatic guns, or maybe even all guns that can accept multiple rounds, and do it after accusing your law abiding, responsible neighbors of having blood on their hands and being responsible for things like the school shooting.

It'll TOTALLY work.

I'm pretty sure that all of my tax paying, hard working fellow parents and gun enthusiasts will overflow all of the gun confiscation stations on day one, so make sure you have a lot of volunteers handy. Might want to make it a weekend day so we don't have to take off work.

One thing to keep in mind is that a ton of criminals and psychotics will be showing up to turn in guns as well - once they see on the news that guns are banned they'll be rushing down to turn theirs in that afternoon, so be careful at the confiscation desk, make sure they don't do anything criminal-ish or psycho-ey to you while they're handing over the goods.

Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on December 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
@47 "NO nation with the super high level of gun ownership we have that has LOW rates of death by gun. QED."

No nation has anywhere near the level of gun ownership we have, so there's really no valid basis for comparison. Although many European have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world and have rates of private gun ownership equal to about one third to one half that of the US.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 53
@50: Go ahead and require background checks for private sales, I have no issue, just understand that criminals, again, do not follow the law, and as evidenced by the NY nutjob who KILLED HIS GRANDMOTHER WITH A HAMMER twenty-something years ago before setting fires and shooting volunteer firefighters, we don't seem to do well as a country at keeping violent people locked up in cages.

Maybe there's room for improvement there, like throwing away the key on violent assholes? Possibly we could clear out some space by letting the nonviolent drug offenders (who, miraculously, got their hands on *banned* drugs!) go free and lining the pens with the psychos instead of cycling them back into society over and over and over?

I'm all for making background checks more effective - a violent felon attempts to buy a gun anywhere, don't let him walk out - literally deputize the gun store owner, arrest the guy on the spot and stick him in one of the now-vacant cages for a couple decades, or forever - good riddance.

I, and every single other responsible gun owner I know, am all for safe storage, I consider it part of the responsibility of being armed and would support strengthening those requirements with the caveat that you must let people who know guns participate in the design process - please don't let it be something that sounds good to the inexperienced but is totally ineffective, like the last "assault weapons" ban.

And finally, if you feel like you want to push all the way to confiscating all semi-auto and/or multi-shot guns, see my response above @51 - go ahead, just set your expectations appropriately.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on December 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
@50 Nowadays, most guns are semi-automatics of one sort or another.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
@50 The reason the assault weapons ban was a failure is because the type of rifle that soldiers use on the battlefield really isn't all that different from the type of rifle that farmer Bob uses to shoot coyotes. The politicians who wrote the 1994 AWB didn't want to interfere w/ the rights of sportsmen and ranchers, so they settled for a law that didn't do much of anything.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 25, 2012 at 12:39 PM · Report this
Sorry, is there some argument out there that guns make you invincible and nobody will ever get shot if they pack? Yyyyyeah, I didn't think so.
Posted by notsnarkyever on December 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 57
@55 @53

So what. We can't ban assault weapons because it's haaaaaaaaaaaaaard! Boo hoo.

The old assault weapons ban was defanged by the NRA. It was the NRA's meddling that filled it with loopholes. And then they turn around and pretend they're taking a stand against ineffective laws? They made it ineffective.

All this stuff about how it won't work is just NRA concern trolling. The truth is the NRA fears an assault weapons ban because it would destroy a lucrative market. They fear mandatory safe storage because millions of their customers are too stupid, frankly, to comply with mandatory safe storage.

The gun nut solution is to ban video games. At the same time they do lucrative product placement tie ins with the very same violent video games they pretend to oppose. The NRA can't even keep their lies straight.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn on December 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 58
@57: As I said earlier - we give up. Your berating and generalizations are correct, as it turns out, and you've won us over. Thankfully your insights into the precise backgrounds, beliefs, and practices of millions of us came to light now before we wasted a bunch of time trying to listen and work something out.

Go ahead and mandate full confiscation of everything but air rifles and bows and arrows. You win.

It will work - a quarter of a billion guns will be peacefully, simultaneously turned in, to be melted down into Chevrolets and refrigerators.

Evil will be finished, and the criminals will *finally* see the light and go back to work at plowshare factories, having discovered that their previous careers involving hundreds of thousands of annual murders, forcible rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults are no longer enough of a challenge to be interesting once everyone is living in a "gun free zone."

Pass your law. I'm sorry for my deluded concern trolling, I wish the light had come on sooner.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on December 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM · Report this
@58 You don't think America's lax gun laws contribute our rather high homicide rate?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on December 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 60
@59: I think our misguided drug laws and unwillingness to enforce existing laws related to violent crime and guns are the primary drivers, and mixing easy access to firearms into that mix gets us to where we are today.

And in that context, I honestly don't think that asking normal, responsible people like me to "go first" is the answer.

Per my rant in @53, how about declaring that drugs for personal use are legal and taxed, and treat them like booze? Cut the profit out of the criminal gangs and let American farmers go nuts producing - there's obviously a market there. Go down to the *drug* store and get your fix, we'll help treat you if you need it and are willing, but the minute you hurt someone in that pursuit, you're going away.

Empty non violent prisoners out of jails and get them help, and crack down with fury on the violent assholes who walk around today.

Enforce the laws on the books, and again, cram every single violent offender found near a gun or a gun transaction into a cement box in Kansas for 30 or 50 years. You want to steal my shit - OK, here's a chance at redemption. You kite some checks - OK, bad man, let's give you another shot. You violently assault another dude, wife, girlfriend, kid, teacher - catch you later, enjoy your fellow violent assholes. We can't afford to take a chance on you coming back and wreaking havoc, sorry.

Then come talk to me about how I should act in protecting my family and neighbors.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on December 25, 2012 at 4:23 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 61
It's really a damned shame the Democrats can't back off this whole gun-ban schtick. They have the Republican Party on the run right now; if they played their cards right, they might be able to finish the job. But no, they've immediately got to turn around and start screaming and yelling about an issue where the majority of Americans won't follow them. Pity.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty on December 25, 2012 at 4:38 PM · Report this
While I realize that the correct liberal response appears to be hysterical, "BAN ALL GUNS" and the correct conservative response appears to be hysterical, "THEY ARE GONNA TAKE MY GUNS". The fact is that gun control alone is not very effective at all. And no, you can't look at Australia or England and say, "Look how effective it is there" - A) you are never going to get the hundreds of thousands of gun owners to quietly turn their firearms in and B) although we are rapidly approaching the loss of civil liberties, we do not yet have the level of nanny state found in many countries that are often pointed at as having effective gun control.

To see how effective gun control is, take a look at murders in Boston..…

38 out of 50 were committed with a firearm, even though illegal possession of a firearm outside of home or place of business has a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 18 months. Additionally, unlike New York City, where it is pretty easy to go to another state to purchase a firearm, except for Vermont, most nearby states also have very strict gun laws.

The majority of Massachusetts's major gun laws were established in 1998, in 1997 there were 43 homicides, 1998 - 35, 1999 - 31, seems to be working (yay!) however, between 2000 and 2008, the average was over 60 per year, with a max of 75 in 2005 and a low of 41 in 2003.

For a breakdown by date, district and more, including weapon type, see here:…

There is certainly no clear-cut correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer homicides-by-firearm.

The perpetrator identified in the article that started this should NEVER have been out on the streets. You kill someone with a hammer, you get 18 years and a pat on the f-ing back???

You want to greatly decrease gang violence and a significant amount of burglary/theft - legalize drugs, make it possible for addicts to get treatment..etc..etc. You want to reduce incidents of crazy people killing random bystanders? Get us single payer healthcare and some decent mental health treatment.

You want to keep violent criminals off the street? Stop filling up prisons, and ruining the lives of many poor people by charging them with bullshit drug related charges.

I know.. I know.. Bbbuuuuuuttt Those Things Are Haaaaarrrrdd.

Dan - how about posting every day about drug overdose deaths? Or drug crime related deaths?
Posted by randoma on December 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM · Report this
delirian 63
One thing to keep in mind is that a ton of criminals and psychotics will be showing up to turn in guns as well
You are such a jerk. You have tied mental illness in with evil and violence, when in fact those that have mental illnesses are no more violent than the general population. But you need a scapegoat. If increasing the stigma and destroying the lives of people who have a mental illness allows you to keep your guns, so be it, right?
Posted by delirian on December 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 64
@63: You're completely right, I apologize. Poor, inaccurate and unfair choice of words.

I have no expertise in the area of mental illness and should have been (and will now be) more careful.

Violent *behavior* is my concern, not mental health issues that many people experience.

I'm sorry.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on December 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM · Report this
delirian 65
@64: I should have given you the benefit of the doubt, so I also apologize as I came off as too harsh. The recent NRA talking points by Wayne LaPierre have prominently included terms like 'lunatics', 'monsters', and 'insane' in order to deflect criticism. The APA, NAMI, and other groups have strongly criticized him for these terms. The NRA doubled down and said that the terms were justified and that their criticism was because these groups wanted to ban guns, not prevent stigma. This is ridiculous. I felt that you were repeating their talking points. It is obvious to me now that you were not. I hope you understand why I was a little sensitive on this.…
Posted by delirian on December 25, 2012 at 7:17 PM · Report this
If only there were an intelligent side in this idiotic argument about guns. If only there were somebody with access to a news outlet who was smart enough to think to move the discussion towards healthcare instead of omgunnnnnz.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on December 26, 2012 at 8:25 AM · Report this
@23 Clackamas Town Centre shooting - the one where the armed private citizen did not and could not shoot the killer to prevent further deaths?…

In his interview the citizen (a highly trained private security guard) lists three separate reasons why it was impossible for him to shoot, despite the killer's gun having jammed and this being an apparently ideal situation for the 'good guy' to stop the 'bad guy'. The reasons: there might have been people behind the killer, there might have been a second shooter, the killer had a bigger, better gun than the citizen. Soooo... the killer wanders off and eventually (after threatening more people) kills himself. And you still want to claim this as a victory for the 'good guy with a gun'? Because the killer was apparently so scared of being shot to death that he... shot himself to death?

All of the interceding factors would be absolutely typical in inhibiting defensive action against a prepared, strategic offender. That's why when armed defenders go in they go in heavily armed, in groups, with a plan. Arming bystanders (or even guards) as defence is a nonsense based on fantasy.
Posted by diner mo on December 26, 2012 at 9:21 AM · Report this
Posted by jayme on December 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
sissoucat 69
@67 Agreed. So why do the NRA tout "arming bystanders as defence" - after all, knowing guns as well as they do, they must have known this for decades ?

Answer : In order to sell guns.

America, the land where money always has the last word. Time for it to change...
Posted by sissoucat on December 27, 2012 at 3:15 AM · Report this

Add a comment