Seattle Times Puts Our Nation's Gun Culture in "Perspective"


'Crass' is the word of the day on my vocabulary calendar. Can someone help me use it in a sentence?
Yup, keep focusing on assault weapons. How many people were killed by handguns yesterday?
Because nobody ever in the history of the world killed someone with a knife. Or a pipe wrench. Or a brick. Lame.
The AR-15 rifle itself was never banned. Models with certain features were banned (flash suppressor, bayonet lug), but Colt made many after the ban that were identical weapons, but without these mainly cosmetic features.

The assault weapons ban would not have stopped these incidents, because it only banned a very narrow amount of models, and other models were easily obtained.

This is what happens when you pass legislation with no teeth.

Your comment may be techinically correct if the shooter used one of these banned models (unlikely), but it is still pretty misleading, as he could have just as easily gotten a rifle just as deadly, which was never banned.
It was actually an AR-15, which is the civilian version of the M-16.
Fuck Goldy....get your facts straight before you start whining. The AR-15 is NOT a semi-automatic variant of the AK47. You are probably thinking of the M16 of which the AR-15 has many variant configurations and styles.
Yeah, Goldy! Gun control is bullshit because you don't know the specific details of exactly which type of gun was used. It makes a really, really big difference, evidently.
I have a problem with the concept of a "civilian version" of an assault weapon.

Next up: consumer-grade hand grenades?
The ban did limit magazine capacity of all rifles to 10 rounds. That's not exactly cosmetic.

Of course, all the pre-ban magazines were still out there. It was just illegal to make new ones, so that was pretty weak. If they'd tried to confiscate old magazines, SHTF.
@7, I don't think I am claiming gun control as bullshit. But if you are going to vilify the gun, at least be correct in what you are calling it.
> Nothing to worry about. And nothing to talk about, apparently, either.

Quote for truth.
Shut up everybody! It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is: We shouldn't be talking about the gun at all, because that would be exploiting a tragedy! Show some decency.
Would you prefer they instead tell everyone that the mall is a dangerous, deadly place?
14 we go again.
"Also, never imagine how a shooting in a crowded sports palace might play out, or stop going to games. That's the one section of our crappy paper that's profitable."

I guess they edited that sentence out due to a shortage of column-inches.

So, when was the last mass stabbing or mass bludgeoning?

Using a gun that can squeeze off hundreds of rounds per second is a little different than chucking a brick at one person and MAYBE giving them a concussion.

The entire purpose of an assault rifle or a hand gun is to kill people with maximum ease. That's it. Self defense or not, they're for killing people really, really quickly. The case can be made for hunting rifles, but every American does not need a hand gun. Every American does not need an AR-15 assault rifle. Every American does not need a machine whose sole purpose is to efficiently blow people's brains out before they've had a chance to think about how maybe that's not such a good--BANG!

OTOH, the bans on automatic knife throwers, assault pipes and multi-brick clips DOES seem to keep the fatality rate for those particular weapons down to about, oh, one per item...
@3 - yes, who among us will forget the great lead pipe massacre of 08? Or the school brick-throwing rampages that seemed everywhere in the late 90s?

These comments are knee-deep in unmitigated bullshit and there are only 15 entries. You people are fucking insane.
*Hundreds of rounds per minute. Dang. You get my point, though.
@3 - I'm unaware of anyone killing someone else with a knife, a pipe wrench or a brick *from across a crowded shopping mall*. But perhaps I'm wrong about that, so enlighten me, ok? Lame response, buddy.
For a while there were common shootings at Southcenter, but they were internecine, gang related shootings.

Now it seems the shooters are becoming that of the Holmes type. The hip loner. Is it a sign of the urban mind unable to adapt to the 21st century suburb and striking out as he sees his culture head toward extinction. Is this the real reason behind Occupy and black bloc's smashing of American Apparel windows.

Yes, its the last of the smug, ironists, who thought they were still in control, but have been out done by a Vietnamese girl, working for minimum wage at the atrium cart selling sunglasses. Happily.
BTW - if your main argument against Goldy's post is that he somehow mis-characterizes the nature of a gun (which is one of the main derailing tactics of idiots like you on these threads) you are literally too stupid to insult. That whooshing sound you hear is the point flying over your head. Maybe you can take your 'assault weapon' and shoot it down.
@3 - You're boring. Be more interesting. Okay, I guess we're doing this who's-on-first routine...

Yes, people have been murdered with non-gun things, but the Clackamas Mall incident wouldn't have been nearly as bad if it had been a guy with a pipe wrench running around bludgeoning people. He'd have bonked one person on the head before being tackled and punched stupid, and that one person would have better chances of survival.

Oh, and pipe wrenches have very positive, useful, non-murder applications, so before you start down that stupid road, fuck you.
Maybe the only way to change the way we control guns is to boycott shopping malls until something gets done.
I'm curious what specific fixes Goldy and others would suggest to do about this. Is violence a problem? Obviously. Are guns a factor in that? Of course. But short of "Let's make crime illegal!" I'm not seeing any meaningful suggestions on how to prevent this kind of thing from happening. You can't make so many laws that bad things stop happening from time to time.

The federal AWB had no significant impact on crime while it was in effect, and primarily banned cosmetic features. Watch this video for example:…

The Columbine massacre happened while the AWB was in effect. The guns used in the Virginia Tech shooting were legal under the AWB. The gun used in the 2011 attack in Norway which killed 67 people (not counting the bomb) was legal under the AWB. So let's here some specific proposals.

Want to reduce gun violence? Focus on poverty, education, mental health, and ending the war on drugs. But you can't just pass a law and assume bad things will never happen again.
Why might the mall be dangerous? b/c a lot of people are there, and these glory seekers want to kill a lot of people. How can they do that? With an assault weapons for civilians. What is their legitimate purpose that outweighs the public risk and merits protection under the Second Amendment?
Businesses in shopping malls buy ads in newspapers. Online merchants do not.
I take this editorial as proof positive that the Ed. Page of the times is written by Kemper freeman.
@22 FTW
Sorry, the sad fact is there isn't ever going to be a big enough shooting for gun nuts to pull their fingers out of their ears for a reasonable discussion.

Guns are as American as Apple Pie and Baseball.

@5 arbek:

It was actually an AR-15, which is the civilian version of the M-16.

Yes. The AK47 is the civilian version of the AK47.

And, Goldy, if we stop shopping, the terrorists win. 'Merica, bitch!
Just so I'm clear on the rules: what IS the proper amount of time that should pass after a mass shooting incident before we have an adult conversation about guns? And what if, in the immediate aftermath of that time there's another mass shooting? Do we have to wait for another period of time to pass or are we grandfathered in from the first shooting?
No one needs an assault weapon. Period. It's not necessary for protecting your home and it's not necessary for hunting, either.

I was in the National Guard. I shot an M-16 and an M-60. They don't belong in the hands of civilians.

End of story.
"To save the economy, we must buy, buy anything!" - Dwight Eisenhower.

@33: My mom would disagree with you. She owns an AR-15 specifically because she needs it to protect her home, and her Glenn Beck gold coins, from Obama. She also owns an undisclosed number of handguns. She is, without a doubt, the most mal-informed and heavily armed woman in her retirement community.
The Times editorial and all the gun apologists remind me of the early days of AIDS when the blood bankers were telling people, "Don't worry, blood's safe, you have only a 1 in a million chance to get AIDS from blood."
@33, we either accept weekly massacres as the price we pay for this as a society or some restrictions are put in place to try to prevent these incidents. Obviously, nothing is going to be 100% effective, but that is not an argument for doing nothing.

If nothing is going to be done, then the maudlin media circus needs to end. If people don't care enough to make some change, then they are just gawkers who are enjoying the drama.

If knives and pipes and bricks are just as deadly as assault rifles, then what difference does it make to you if we ban assault rifles?

It does give one pause to realize that if everyone in that mall had been carrying a brick, this never could have happened.
@9: it was only a ban new magazines. If you had a pre-ban 30 round magazine, you could continue to own and sell it as you pleased. Thus, the larger magazines were more expensive, but still widely available.
@33 The Constitution does not mention hunting. It's pretty clear that the RTKBA meant military-grade weapons to use on people.

Gun nuts are less likely to mention the "well-regulated militia" clause. IANAL, but that would seem to be pretty elastic in what constitutes "well-regulated." However, it presumably doesn't mean "all weapons may only be kept in a militia armory," since that's not what the people who wrote the fucking thing enacted after forming the government.

Moving further out, at the time, private owners were allowed to arm their ships with cannon identical to those on government vessels. When did billionaires lose the right to buy guided missle destroyers?
@39 Which is what I wrote.
@12, 22: People are correcting the mistakes in this post not because they are against your basic political point (some may be, I dunno), but maybe because it contains glaring inaccuracies, and has clearly not been fact checked or even edited.

This is especially true when one of the main points is how the assault weapons ban would have prevented this, which is simply untrue, as it did not necessarily ban that type of gun.

You were completely wrong about several of the facts that informed this positon, and when your readers point them out, you have a sarcastic hissy fit. Very professional. You "real" journalist you. Try researching first, posting second.
I'd just like to throw into the mix here: The main reason for the Constitution to allow the citizenry to "keep and bear arms" and "maintain a well-regulated militia" was to thwart authoritarian power grabs.

In the era of mass communications, police "less-lethal" weapons, and financial warfare-- the ability of armed citizens to stop a takeover has been rendered totally ineffective. We just aren't playing by the same rules as when the holy Constitution was written.

Just imagine for one second a Syria or Libya style rebellion in the USA. The (far, far better armed) US military would put that shit down post-haste. A bunch of citizens, even with AR-15s and grenades, will get blown asunder quite rapidly.

No, for effective rebellion you will need a large non-violent opposition. And that requires movement building. And that will never happen in the USA because we're too goddamn big and divided already.

So your tiny little insurrectionist milita troupe has exactly zero chance of political change. And we have little chance of a mass, non-violent, revolutionary movement either.

So why again are people keeping assault weapons in their homes? Paranoia, you say? Great reason.

I'm for a ban on automated, ranged weaponry.
Let's just stick to melee weapons.
@38 That's really funny. I've also somehow never seen 3's argument turned on its head so simply.
If everyone in the mall were packing heat and just started firing instantly, none of this would have happened.
Just imagine for one second a Syria or Libya style rebellion in the USA. The (far, far better armed) US military would put that shit down post-haste. A bunch of citizens, even with AR-15s and grenades, will get blown asunder quite rapidly.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. It really depends on what the revolution would be about. Also, don't just assume the military would go full on, no-holds-barred vs. its own citizens. Look what happened in Egypt.
Superior weapons don't necessarily translate to easy victory either. Afghanistan held off the U.S.S.R. for a decade using much more primitive weapons.

It's just way more complicated than "we have nukes and aircraft carriers and you don't - therefore it's 100% guaranteed we'll win quick."
"It's inappropriate to have perspective."

Right. At times like this we should be full of knee-jerk outrage and thoughtlessly emotional.

Look how well that worked out after 9-11.
Can't we all just get along, and bash the Times harder?
@43 I think you make an excellent point. In a largely agrarian, 18th C. society, the citizenry would have just as much, if not more, military intelligence as any emergent authoritarian government would. Combined with widespread small arms, an oppressive regime could be held off or even put down.

From a military standpoint, and a military intelligence standpoint, our government today is a much more formidable entity, if it ever went over to the dark side. Our society, unlike say late bronze-age Afghanistan, is almost entirely "on the grid". How would our citizen-soldier-patriot-resistance fare without power, water, food, or gasoline? If some city or town was held by a resistance force, they'd find out pretty quickly.

While it's certainly romantic, the notion that citizens with guns could resist a truly totalitarian regime is laughable. Another scenario, of a sectarian war like they had in Northern Ireland, might be possible, but what did that accomplish?

Too many guns, too much fear and paranoia and too little sense of perspective adds up to a very large and avoidable problem.
The Seattle Times stepped on the lead here.

On a percentage basis, even those purportedly unlikely victims more mostly not-shot. Pound-for-pound, the corpses were largely undamaged, the physical trauma being limited to a relatively small area around each bullet wound.

Round up, and it could be argued that effectively, nothing happened.

You're going to have to stop making thoughtful, articulate posts.

It doesn't fit the redneck knuckle-dragger narrative of my fellow liberals and they don't like that.
@25 Everyone of these threads, someone says "Just what would you do?" or "I''m a liberal. Just what would you do?" or "What would you do? This one particular law wouldn't have stopped this...."

Then I add 4 new reasonable laws or regulations to the list of 100 hundred I can name off the top of my head without even being an activist. And they are all opposed by the NRA and the gun nuts. And my experience, elsewhere and here in Seattle, is that the "reasonable" gun nut here in the end will have more solidarity with the worst of the NRA platform than with their own friends and family's lives.

Well, fuck it. If you are incapable of understanding that we are able to reduce or limit traffic fatalities with package of policies, laws, regulations, and education, than you are and ignorant fool. I recognize that laws banning drunk driving won't stop sober people from burning through unmarked intersections, which is why we require functional breaks on cars, use stops signs and yield signs and lights, and require some minimum education about how the rules work. A package. Sheesh.

Howabout this? A law requiring assualt weapons be locked in cabinets to make them harder to steal, or an educational campaign explaining the possible ramifications of having weapons in the house that can be stolen? Or trigger locks, or etc. etc. Why bother? The gun nuts are so crazy they think the only way to stop gun violence is to carry your own gun at all times!
@49 while I agree there are far too many people walking around packing guns your other thesis of the invincibility of modern government military might is simply not borne out by facts or history. As evidenced by our occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the later our massive military empire was fought to a stand still by unemployed arab teenagers with small arms and home made shaped charges. In Iraq, a modern "wired" state, we were forced to expend nearly a trillion dollars to occupy an subdue a country with less than one quarter our population.

And this replaying itself in the less much modern Afghanistan. Not to mention what just took place in Libya and what will take place in Syria. Not to mention Vietnam. And on and on.

The point of asymmetric insurgency warfare is not to stage D-Day landings or see the enemy driven away. It's to keep the occupier from ever getting a clean cheap victory. It's bloody. It's dirty. It can take decades. It incurs a terrible price. But it works. And why Governments the world over take the potential for getting involved in such a swamp very seriously.

BTW: The 150 year insurrection in Ireland, no matter what terrorism it evolved into, prevented the British from slaughtering the entire population of Ireland, led to the sovereign state of Southern Ireland and eventually, after many decades of blood, forced the British to negotiate with the political representatives in Northern Ireland.

Small arms insurgencies may not all "do good" but they can achieve ends.

I gotta ask? What are the arguments against banning pistols except those tiny sharp-shooter pistols they use in the Olympics? Those and revolvers and all automatic weapons?

I mean I get why you need a tool like a rifle if you are a hunter, or a shotgun, but pistols and automatic weapons are tools designed to kill humans. If the idea is that you are to defend yourself against an unjust government (which is a brilliant idea btw, not really easily applicable, but cool) what are you supposed to do with a pistol? I mean I would get fully armed drones and stuff like that. But a pistol or some shitty assault weapon? That wont really turn the brits away at the door.

The reason why you can for example have a spree of knife killings without banning all knives is that it is a tool designed for more things than killing humans. Unlike pistols and Assault rifles (unless theres like a large gang of elks hanging around in the same spot I guess). You can ban people from carrying knives on them - which exists btw, that kinda law is not uncommon anywhere. Same with bricks, gasoline, cars and tennis rackets.

Anyway: why pistols or assault rifles? What the hell are you going to do with them? Is it like a collection thing? Because that can hardly be justification enough for having them legal...
Shootings are tragic, but as with every other time Goldy and the lot of you scream for the great government to help with more laws, they aren't very common, and they are not even in the top 100 causes of death in this country. ( according to the CDC )

This times article was right next to the txting while jaywalking that reveals:

"Vehicle-pedestrian accidents injure 60,000 and kill 4,000 people every year in this country"

That's way way more than all the guns violence combined, even when you salt the figures with suicides, cops shooting people, and soldiers in active duty. ( which they love to do ).

I see no call to arms to restrict driving, car ownership or even licenses.

Prohibition didn't work in this case, the shooter stole a gun. So more rules will somehow work? That's turned out really great with drugs, but that's different somehow right?

You can have whichever uninformed liberal parrot opinion on firearms you want, but until you have a large enough majority to amend the Constitution, its all just pissing in the wind. Use that energy to fix mental health, or making abortion legal and accessible again. Running around screaming and trying to villainize inanimate objects, that 99% of ( 200million ) are owned and used safely and legally, just makes you sound crazy.
amnt and others are so full of bullshit. they say "I'm curious what specific fixes Goldy and others would suggest to do about this. Is violence a problem? Obviously. Are guns a factor in that? Of course. But short of "Let's make crime illegal!" I'm not seeing any meaningful suggestions on how to prevent this kind of thing from happening. You can't make so many laws that bad things stop happening from time to time. "

here's the suggestion:

1. BAN assault and military type rifles.
2. ban handguns unless a tiny few percent of the population gets licensed to have one based on real need, e.g., a shop owner in the ghetto, someone carrying lots of cash.
3. all guns registered and all owners liable strictly if they are stolen; also, insurance to be required in the amount of ten million dollars.
4. survey germany japan france england wales canada and implement here all the bans, regulations, restirctions and other fucking gun control measures they got there.

that fucking specific enough for you? if not, start by banning these repeating guns which are not useful for hunting. england has about 4% gun ownership, that sounds about right to me. require every one else to turn in their fucking guns. that specific enough for you?
Damn that pesky constitution and those liberal activist judges in Miller, who said that the (federal) government may only act to restrict weapons that serve no reasonable relation to preserving a militia, and the ones that said in Heller that it was an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that said in McDonald that such a right is incorporated via the 14th to the states.

We should just throw the whole thing out. TSA patdowns for everyone on entering any public building!
@55 and 5280, it's morons like you who cause deaths like these with your lies and stupidities. France Germany England Wales IReland and about 30 nations have gun controls that work, proving they can work, and in those places (a) they have lower death by gun rates, by far far far (b) they are not subject to crazy shooters in malls by far far far far despite one or two cases you can cite (d) in fact THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTION EFFECT YOU DO NOT SEE DEATH BY KNIFE RATES RATCHETING UP duh! and (e) they do NOT have vast swaths of their public realms plagued by gun violence to the point that moms tell kids not to play outside, the way we have in our gun plagued neighborhoods. So fuck you and your faux concerns, your faux logic, your stupidity based on love of your own guns. Gun controls works. What doesn't work is you and your ilk, with your stupidity, denial, quibbling, lack of compassion and utter moronic senselessness. You're like climate change deniers or folks who deny that SEWERS work, or having an electric system. Fuck you all. These deaths are your fucking fault. meanie, same at you, too. go to paris, go to ednomton, go to rome, go to ireland, you can (a) walk around safely, (b) you don't find the drug and gun plagued neighborhoods and (c) you won't get fucking shot in a mall by a crazy. so yes we will piss in the wind and we will piss all over you and your stupidity, your meanness, and your ill educated nature till it changes. fuck you. you're responsible. here we have a case where the weapon wa banned, the ban was lifted, so someone had one, so it got stolen. QED, this is on you and your ilk, so fuck you again.
I don't care if people want to keep guns in their homes. Even if they are high capacity semi-autos like the AR-15 (the use of these weapons in crimes pales in comparison to handgun abuse).

I just don't think the average person needs to be walking around with concealed weapons.Not without some sort of extreme justification, community oversight, AND high levels of training. Clearly Americans can't handle that particular freedom.

There are sensible ways we can monitor and supervise gun ownership that won't infringe anybodies perceived right to own a firearm. Other countries seem to manage it. But the extremes of both sides - which dominate the discussion - seem to want this All-or-Nothing solution. So we get no where.
hey gun nuts, nukes are arms, right? so do you claim the right to keep and bear nukes?

if yes: you are fucking crazies.Lunatic. Idiots.
if no: that would mean we can ban nukes, also assault weapons, also any class of arms deemed to be properly banned by our legislative branch, correct, so thus and therefore, the second amendment is not a barrier to effective gun controls.


Please respond. Which is it?

@56 & 58

FINALLY. I got someone to finally admit that the only solution that they seriously think will work is a total ban on firearm ownership, because lesser laws clearly aren't working.

A total ban is the mindset and ultimate goal of my fellow liberals, which is precisely why the NRA exists and why I'm a liberal gun owner with a lifetime NRA membership.

Aside from that pesky Bill of Rights that #57 articulately points out, just how would your mechanism of a total ban work? Please, spell it out for me.

Would simply passing a law make gun owners line up and gleefully turn in their firearms to the government? Or should the police or military simply go door to door searching everyone's homes? Do you think this would be a peaceful solution or do you think it would be a bloodbath? Would you like to be the first cop to volunteer for the job?

It seems to me that a total ban is precisely the sort of government tyranny that our second amendment is designed to prevent.

Let's then say every house in America got searched by the government and your utopian vision was achieved. Would that finally be the end of gun violence? You know, because prohibition has been so successful with alcohol and drugs in the past.

These are just some of my thoughts as a gun owning, knuckle-dragging redneck liberal...
@55: again with the false equivalencies. go read @52. we go to great lengths to regulate car ownership, mark road crossings, and prevent pedestrian fatalities.

anything that might reduce amoklauf shootings, not so much.

@59 Actually, I haven't heard one voice here saying ban guns altogether, so you are being a concern troll with the "extremes of both sides". And your call to sharply limit concealed weapons is considered by the gun nuts to be the same as a call to ban all guns. You can get bills expanding concealed weapons freedom on to the floors of our legislatures right now. Good luck finding a politicians who wants to go up against the gun nuts to roll back concealed weapons. There is simply no gun control lobby to balance the NRA and the gun nuts politically.
@54 you don't see why arguing to ban objects based on their "intent" is problematic?

There are many technologies we have that are very dangerous by their very nature, so we regulate aspects of their use. Some of those things intended uses are for everything from household bleach to fuel for cars. But none the less they are very dangerous. In fact we are only now just coming to terms with the fact there are some things whose intended purpose we thought benign but in fact the UNINTENDED purpose is killing the entire planet. Fossile fuels for one.

Guns shoot bullets into things. They shoot bullets at anything they are pointed at. Sure, they are designed to kill living things including people. But I've shot guns thousands of times and never once killed anybody. My intent for the gun is to have fun with it. That is all.

While I don't own a gun and I have no desire to I also don't imbue them with this magical intent. The intent is mine.

Rather we should regulate dangerous things based upon a very close rational examination of how people who use them actually intend to use them, their unintended use, and the consequences of both.

Some people want to ban guns purely based on this emotional idea that they are tools for deliberate killing - the very idea of humans wanting to deliberately kill other humans is so profoundly shocking. Understandable.

But dealing with why humans kill other humans is more likely to yield better and long term preventive results than how humans kill other humans. Other countries have high gun ownership rates guns but not near the gun violence of the US. Or any other kinds of violence for that matter. There is something wrong with our society.

Besides bans, prohibitions, as history as shown repeatedly, don't really work for things people actually want.

Change them wanting those things.
"I'm curious what specific fixes Goldy and others would suggest to do about this."

Every time Goldy posts something like this I ask that exact question.
With one caveat. The proposed law(s) MUST have a possibility of passing.
And then Goldy ignores the question.
And no one else can provide any suggestions, either.

And, as others have noted, private ownership has been effective in Iran and Afghanistan.

For all the gun control advocates who are tired of losing these debates, start learning.
Venting on these forums will not do anything except increase the comment count.
Start by proposing a specific law that would have helped in this specific case and support it with specific facts so that it has a chance of passing.
@55 You are clearly delusional at this point. "I see no call to arms to restrict driving, car ownership or even licenses."

We have a huge package of laws, regulation, policies and education designed to balance safety with driving freedom. We have a never ending discussion and debate about traffic safety. You can bring it up in the state legislature; there are debates; monitoring of what does and doesn't work. Right now the gun nuts are so in control of the policy debate that a legislator simply cannot get a bill passed that restricts guns and risks being blown out of the water financially by even bringing up the subject. They are still getting bills passed to expand the presence of guns everywhere in our society and bills to expand the defenses available to shooters who kill (especially white people who kill black people), but regulations and restrictions? Not so much.
@63 I realize there are these knee-jerk default positions people take on the internet when any idea get's too challenging for them. The indiscriminate use the term "concern troll" is one. But at least attempt to take a more charitable reading before you resort to that level of inanity.

BTW #54 did kind of called for bans; at least he hints heavily that handguns and assault rifles should be illegal. Regardless I never mentioned before that anybody in this thread called for a ban. But there have been people on SLOG, like Fnarf for example, that resort immediately to labeling every gun owner as an idiot, mentally defective, or a nut - who call for their shunning and banishment. That is the type of extreme of which I speak.

I see no call to arms to restrict driving, car ownership or even licenses.

Wow, you're fucking ignorant on top of being fucking stupid.

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on road safety, regulation on the safety performance of cars, tires, lighting, road markings, signage, speed limits, school zones, bad-weather mitigation, etc. etc. We also spend an enormous amount of money on traffic enforcement, driver training, licensing requirements and renewals (including specific requirements for vehicles that are more dangerous for the driver or others [motorcycles, CDLs, buses, etc]). We also require that every driver of a motor vehicle be insured for damages and injuries of themselves and others.

You don't call any of that a RESTRICTION on the freedom to drive?

Do we require gun owners to carry insurance? NO
Do we require gun owners to pass a safety test? NO
Do we require gun owners to pass a test demonstrating their understanding of the law? NO
Do we require gun owners to register their firearm with the state? NO
Do we regularly require gun owners to submit to safety inspections? NO
Do we require gun owners to hold and renew a license in order to own and carry firearms? NO
Do we require additional safety and handling tests for more dangerous militaristic ('assault') weapons? NO
Do we regulate the sale of firearms between private individuals and require registration and transfer of title with the state? NO

I'm a gun owner, and I believe people should be able to own and carry guns for their protection. But the idea that what we currently have in this state and most others is a WELL REGULATED system to ensure the SAFE ownership and use of firearms that is in ANY WAY comparable to the rigorous laws and enforcement and investments in driving is absolutely fucking bullshit.

You can have your fucking ARs and AKs the day we dismantle our standing US Army. Until then, assault weapons and high-capacity mags should be ILLEGAL. You can protect yourself just fine with a revolver, a pistol, a shotgun, and a semi-auto rifle. And the state should require a safety class, a shooting class, registration, AND insurance.

This insane right-wing NRA paranoia needs to stop.
@65 So, you are suggesting that since gun regulations of any kind can't be passed because NRA money and fanaticism has a hold on state and federal legislatures, that it is therefore irrational for reporters and citizens to make strong condemnation of the results that arise from the free-for-all advocated by the gun nuts.

In all of these threads people bring up some minor to major regulations that might have some incremental effect, but concern trolls like you you act as if they are calling for all out bans on everything down to the last duck hunting gun, or you join the gun nuts in saying that one particular policy wouldn't have stopped one specific set of killings.
@68 Well laid out Captain.

I particularly note your parting comment. It isn't just the lobbying for firearms free-for-all that makes the NRA so dangerous and crazy, it is also how they foster and encourage an overarching sense of paranoia about the world around us and the idea that the gun is the great equalizer. These are exactly the kind of paranoia and "great equalizer" solutions that so many "crazy" or "evil" or simply "mistaken" shooters bring with them into the street, the theater, or the shopping mall.
Try to address the issue I've raised instead of the straw men that you prefer.

Also, learn what a "concern troll" is. Because you are using the term incorrectly.

But feel free to post again.
Because each time you do WITHOUT proposing an effective law is just providing more support for my position that you CANNOT do so.

If Goldy was actually interested in effecting a change, he'd have a specific outcome that he referenced every time he posted one of these articles AND he'd skip the articles that did not support that outcome.
@66 adhomin doesn't help your stance, but name calling sure is fun.

Driving isn't a freedom, its a privilege. That's false equivalency. Deaths from drivers are considered the cost of doing business, that's really messed up. Drivers can *only* be charged if their actions can be proven beyond a doubt were malicious. That's also really messed up. All you have to do to get your license back from DUI or any accident, is say you need to drive to work.

Calling firearm deaths like this one a *massacre* or * epidemic* is hyperbolic nonsense

Firearms are already tightly regulated, the BATF has hundreds of rules that the breaking of which will land in in federal prison, some are as simple as adding the wrong accessory to the wrong firearm.

In this specific example, the shooter stole the firearm used. Making it double triple illegal would not bring back the people he killed.
@68 et al

unfortunately for your opinions, gun ownership is a civil right in this country.

choosing to demonize over educate won't fix this issue, but let me know when you have enough votes to alter the constitution.
@71 I have repeatedly proposed commonly known regulations to have an aggregate impact. It is you who is implying that nothing can be done because nothing can be passed.

However, you should note that Goldy is doing exactly what YOU have said needs to be done, trying to create a more receptive environment for debate and gun regulation, by fostering as sense of outrage in the citizenry toward the gun nut coup over how we handle guns in our society. If citizens are outraged enough by the killing and direction we have been heading in, then legislators can actually bring up things like trigger locks, magazine restrictions, etc. without risking having their reelection totally derailed by an NRA campaign against them.

I use the term concern troll toward posters who encourage a sense of helplessness and powerlessness while professing to care.

I say anyone who thinks colleges should be FORCED to allow ALL their students and faculty to carry concealed weapons is frickin' crazy and should be called a gun nut. And if those same nuts want 30 or 40 or 60 round clips, I'm not going to sit back and marvel on how constitutional they think it is if I think it is just plain nutty. So, yes, how about a restriction on the sale of concealed weapons permits across state lines , or a restriction on the size of clips, or mandatory trigger locks, or fuck, you aren't even listening.... But there are a lot of people who are starting to listen again, because they don't like being powerless against crazy bastards with 20 round clips on semi-automatic assault weapons or mentally unstable vigilantes with concealed weapons permits.
@68 Just to pick nits: The difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a (semi-)automatic assault rifle is the color of the stock. Compare a Ruger Mini-14 and an AR-15. They are functionally the same. Regulating based on a fashion statement is stupid.
@73 you are the one who invited us to compare gun restriction to driving restrictions, but now you don't like the outcome when someone does an honest comparison. Typical gun nut smoke screen tactic.

Can you please explain to me how banning concealed carry of firearms on a college campus would prevent a madman from shooting someone on a college campus?

I would really like to know. Please explain so I can understand.
@ 77, just to wade in for a moment... Can you please explain how allowing concealed carry of firearms on campuses would prevent a madman from shooting someone on a college campus?

The idea seems to be that concealed carry is a disincentive to crime, but I sure haven't seen any data that proves that.
"I have repeatedly proposed commonly known regulations to have an aggregate impact."

And you provide more support for my position.
You CAN claim that you HAVE proposed specific laws.
But you CANNOT post specific proposals.
The same as Goldy has not been able to even after dozens of his posts.

"It is you who is implying that nothing can be done because nothing can be passed."

I am saying that YOU (gun control advocates) will keep LOSING because YOU cannot address the specific issues with specific laws that can pass.

"So, yes, how about a restriction on the sale of concealed weapons permits across state lines ..."

Two items of support for my position from a single post of yours. Nice!
Concealed weapon permits are not sold "across state lines".

"...or mandatory trigger locks..."

How would that have affected this incident?

"... or fuck, you aren't even listening"

I am listening to you.
But you aren't capable of formulating a coherent thought on the issue.
A trigger lock would have had no effect on this specific instance.
You don't even know if there wasn't a trigger lock on the gun BEFORE he stole it.

You (and Goldy) are good at the generalized wailing about "gun violence" but you completely fail at specific proposals to address specific issues in specific cases.

Which is why the NRA has been and will keep winning these debates.
Stick to your straw men if you want to.
You will just keep losing.
@79: Was that a poem?

I'm happy to address your question.

I can't say that allowing concealed carry of firearms would prevent a madman from shooting people. I'm saying that allowing concealed carry on a college campus could prevent a madman from shooting ME.

Truthfully, I don't give a rat's ass about someone else's gun rights. I care about my own rights and my own ass... and my ability to equalize my odds against a madman with a gun who decides I'm next.

As an owner of guns, I resent the notion that someone else demand that I abdicate my right to personal safety. I, like every other person with a shred of humanity, abhor all gun violence.

I hate it. I hate violence. I hate war. I hate gun crimes. But I'll be damned if I'll let someone else dictate to me the terms of my own safety and the safety of my family.

When someone is going to kill you in the next few seconds, the police are only minutes away...

But what do I know? I'm just another illiterate and deluded gun nut, bitching about why I can't have a grenade launcher.

unfortunately for your opinions, gun ownership is a civil right in this country.

choosing to demonize over educate won't fix this issue, but let me know when you have enough votes to alter the constitution.

Fucktard, unfortunately for your INABILITY TO READ ENGLISH, I exercise that right by owning and and carrying guns.

Did I advocate amending the Constitution to eliminate that right? NO. Has anybody here advocate that? NO.

What I did was rail against the completely batshit paranoia that the REGULATION of firearms either exists today (bullshit), or is equivalent to their ERADICATION. It isn't.

It is entirely sensible and reasonable to enforce strict purchase, ownership, safety, and insurance laws without infringing on or eliminating the right to be armed at home, or even the right to carry. It is entirely reasonable to restrict high-capacity mags and re-instate the assault weapons ban, and still allow citizens the right to bear arms. Military weapons are not needed when we HAVE a military. If you want to be a fucktard Constitutional originalist, then I want to see the NRA out on the streets EVERY FUCKING DAY protesting the existence of our (bloated) standing army. If that goes away, THEN you have an argument for firearms anarchy and people with a legitimate reason to possess military weapons.
@75: @68 Just to pick nits: The difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a (semi-)automatic assault rifle is the color of the stock. Compare a Ruger Mini-14 and an AR-15. They are functionally the same. Regulating based on a fashion statement is stupid.

I acknowledge that, which is why I support high-capacity mag bans. Nobody needs 30-round mags to hunt, protect their home, or target shoot with a rifle. Nobody needs a glock with a 30 round mag for self-defense. Even the crazy 'liberty' militia mother fuckers can't justify the combat usefulness of such a stupid monstrosity.

If it were all about self-defense, I think revolvers, pistols, and shotguns are enough. Yes, you can hurt a fair amount of people with these tools if you wanted too, but you can't walk into a theater and unload 100 rounds in a minute or two like you can with an AR, an AK, and a drum magazine. But rifles being what they are, I think you can make some rather arbitrary choices about what constitutes an assault rifle that civilians don't need. I think rifles that civilians should be able to access should basically stop at the M14. There's really very little reason for anything beyond that. Is that rather arbitrary? Yeah, sure. So what.
I can't say that allowing concealed carry of firearms would prevent a madman from shooting people. I'm saying that allowing concealed carry on a college campus could prevent a madman from shooting ME.

Truthfully, I don't give a rat's ass about someone else's gun rights. I care about my own rights and my own ass... and my ability to equalize my odds against a madman with a gun who decides I'm next.

As an owner of guns, I resent the notion that someone else demand that I abdicate my right to personal safety. I, like every other person with a shred of humanity, abhor all gun violence.

This is the primary ideological problem with your line of thinking. It is entirely individualistic, and ignores any societal impacts. It is, essentially, a gun-based tragedy of the commons, which is where we basically are in the United States.

Just as you are worried about your own personal safety, so too are millions of other Americans who are endangered by the torrent of guns that are available and floating around this country. There is a tradeoff between what we do to make ourselves as individuals safer, and what we do to make our entire society safer.

Many other people resent the fact that people like you, in your rush towards individualistic self-preservation, wish, essentially to have the greatest availability and presence of firearms for the most amount of people at all times. The consequences of that, however, is greater societal danger by greater access to firearms, and an increase in the likelihood that a petty criminal and the like might have a gun.

We as a society make a choice that it is safer in the AGGREGATE that you shouldn't be able to carry a gun into a bar. Why? Because the likelihood that a madman walks into a bar and shoots up the place, including your defenseless self, is much smaller than the risk of having a bunch of drunk idiots with guns in a bar.

To be honest, I'm not terribly opinionated about concealed-carry on campuses. It is, at most, an irritant, mostly because there are so many campuses around and they're large and not always clearly marked. But as with you, it's a selfish perspective. It is annoying to ME if I'm carrying, but to be honest, I really would feel less safe on a college campus that allowed college kids to keep and carry guns everywhere.

I understand your notion of collective safety vs. individual liberty. Which is why, in my opinion, the gun nuts on this blog ask not for a limp-wristed, lilly-livered 'Adult Discussion About Gun Control,' but instead ask for specific answers about specific legislation and, most importantly, how said legislation would have prevented the latest gun crime du jour.

My fellow liberals always fail to articulate how whatever solution they're proposing would have prevented the tragedy of the day.

I'm not interested in feel-good bullshit and, guess what? There's been an 'adult discussion about the issue, raised by my fellow liberals, every goddamn time somebody gets shot. So I ask again, what specifically is your answer?

For me, it's not so much as what the answer is, but why the hell are my fellow liberals so freaked out about guns? The left-wing's visceral hatred of guns is really no different than the right-wing true believers stance on abortion.

I just don't understand it. I'm from Alaska and shot my first semiautomatic pistol on my grandfather's homestead when I was five years old. For me, a gun is the same thing as a screwdriver. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less.
P.S. To Captain Wiggette:

When I posted my previous note, several hours had passed between when I started composing my post and when I returned to complete it. (There were people trapped in my elevator and the fire department was involved... Much drama and bullshit.)

You raise a number of reasonable points in your last few posts. I suspect this is about the end of this thread, so let's take it up the next time the SLOG pisses and moans about guns, which should be a matter of hours...
@83 actually I disagree with you

Your anecdotes are as idiotic as they are specific and you don't represent anyone but yourself. ( nor does anyone really )

good day.
Canadian gun related deaths were recently reported as 3 times lower for men and 7 times lower for women. On this side of the big line we have mandatory registration, and nobody really bitches about it, since there's much more important things, like getting rid of the most conniving, can't-think-of-a-bad-enough-word government on the planet.
The worries I would have would be that if your government is truly supposed to be reflective of the dominant ideology of your populace, if indeed it is supposed to be a government for the people, of the people etc, I would not want to be lacking in gun registration, just as I wouldn't want to be purposefully ignoring scientific evidence of danger, or lacking constructive critique of education systems, or neglecting anything else on the pragmatic side while there was, oh I don't know, a good chance of parts of the country being under water in 50 years. I would worry about what goes unsaid in a society where there is a discussion at all, what is assumed about one another as a result of fear or simple apprehension. It's not really any the less dangerous than an (admitted cultural stereotype, don't kick me) Arab holding a scimitar, but it's certainly a cowardly way to protect yourself from politics, indicative of a sense of cultural divisiveness that might be doing things you don't even know to your society that are far more relevant to your well-being. Paranoia and defensiveness can be just as sinister in effect as threats of violence. Just wait until the environmental effects of a gun-toting invasion of the continent hit the fan and tell everyone that you were worrying about whether or not gun-regulations would do anything. Say at that point that your society did all that it could! I take pride in our gun regulations because I'm happy that the people in my country *think* they're mature enough to do that. They aren't after all - many of them voted for Stephen Harper, but it's the thought that counts.
Our government does, indeed, reflect the will of the people — 65% of whom like things exactly the way they are right now. You can't argue with those kinds of numbers.
@88: Let me know when you learn to speak English. Anecdotes? What the fuck? Where did I tell any anecdotes?

You have no arguments, thought, or literacy. There are people who should be banned from owning guns. People like you.
@90 There was a time that many people wanted slavery, were against gay rights, and opposed women getting the vote. Yes. You very much CAN argue against those numbers.

Violence in this country, while steadily declining overall, is abhorrent and simply doesn't exists in any other western democracy at the insane rate it exists here. So far our only solution has been to lock people up forever. Which is expensive and it is culturally destructive. There is something wrong. However things "are" now is clearly not working.

I think it's reasonable to attempt to first pass better regulations that restrict, delay, and control access to military and easily concealable weapons, mandate and fund more thorough background checks and finally fund a large scale cultural effort to address why people feel they "need" guns and prove to them that they do not in fact need guns. They may want them. But we can construct a safe enough society that a rational person can feel he/she doesn't require a gun to survive.

All of that is reasonable, doable, and does not abridge any rational persons right to self defense or firearm ownership.
Uh, the posters on this site do know that a gun is an inanimate object right? It can't walk anywhere. It doesn't kill, it doesn't shoot itself, it can't even pull it's own trigger. To blame guns for violence is like blaming a knife for stabbing someone. The logic behind blaming guns is idiotic at best and downright lazy thinking. People kill people. Whether it is with a brick, or a bat, or a bomb...people killed people before guns were invented and will continue to kill other people if they should be taken away. The only thing then will be that only criminals will have guns and good people won't be able to protect themselves or their families. This world will never be perfect and no amount of laws will change an evil heart from doing what it sets out to do.
Comment comment comment, comment comment comment comment. Comment comment comment? Comment comment! @Comment comment comment comment! Comment comment comment. Comment, comment, comment, comment comment, comment, comment comment comment.
Comment comment comment.

Comment. Comment.

That's all I see. Why is there even a section for this? Sometimes on issues, one side is right and the other doesn't deserve to have an opinion because it's wrong. Sometimes there are multiple sides like an octagon, or a triangle (that has THREE sides, woah), or even a RECTANGAL. Those issues are cool and fun to discuss (yay!!). This issue has one side. Look at examples around the world, use logic, and think for a moment. Do other countries without lots of mass shootings have armed teachers? Or millions of guns in circculation?

Chances are no one gives a fuck what I think, which is warranted because that's often how I feel. Feel free to skip past my comment and continue argueing with each other.