Reports of a School Shooting in Colorado

Comments

1
I can't even make smart-ass remarks about the NRA anymore. If Obama had balls he'd declare them a terrorist organization and drone their asses at their next convention.
2
Well fuck. Current reports say at least 2 injured, one critically. Hopefully nobody will die from this one.
3
It never ends, does it? Let's not do anything about male violence, let's not treat the mentally ill, let's not have background checks for firearm purchases...
Whoa! A Shooting! Why do these keep happening I wonder?
4
@3 - Well as long as they happen with enough frequency, it will always be too soon to talk about it.
5
Is this a DV event that just happened at a school?
6
@4, ain't that the truth. The Denver affiliate says the shooter "apparently has killed himself."
7
@5: Based on the rest of the update, I'm guessing probably not.

@1: Hyperbole doesn't help anybody. Go take a walk and come back.
8
@5 - I'm wondering the same thing. I'm so tired of this happening.
9
Lets skip the gun fight ( colorado has strict gun control already ) and skip forward to the correlation people are making to altitude and suicidal/homicidal tendencies.

Its totally anecdotal, but they might be on to something here:

http://www.vice.com/read/colorado-suicid…
10
My daughters' school is in that same district and is on lockdown right now.
11
@1

I agree completely. It is totally the NRA's fault that a crazy kid walked into a school with a shotgun and wounded two students before killing himself.

If only Colorado had passed some stricter gun control laws after Aurora.

Oh, wait...
12
@ 11, you can go fuck yourself.
13
The teacher hunted by the suspect safely exited the campus.

If the reports claiming the gun-totin' whackjob was a student are verified, the student was likely under 18, and therefore ineligible to legally possess a firearm. The firearm was probably either stolen or not locked up away from Junior Whackjob. And I use Whackjob because I'm 99.99% certain the understandable excuses of government tyranny or self-defense couldn't be claimed by the gun-toter.
14
hey parents -
when your angry, suicidal teen age son leaves for school with the family shotgun, you might want to ask him about it.
15
But, but, Joe Biden told me to get a shotgun! It's so much safer than those dreaded black rifles. If Joe said it, it must be true.
17
@ 16, he's the last thing you'll ever see

@ 15, maybe they are. One dead, two wounded versus dozens of each.
18
@16 that's truly the lamest thing posted this week. Bravo.
19
@1 +1

Since Newtown, there have been 27 school shootings in America.
Since Newtown, (many) more than 700 children have been killed by gun in America.
Since Newtwon, (many) more than 11,000 people have been killed by gun in America.

How many civilians were killed by terrorism on 9/11? If their lives were were worth the wars that followed, certainly 11,000 people are.

And: how many American soldiers have been killed this year at war? America is a far more dangerous place with all of our guns than war zones. Congratulations.
20
@17 good point. The shotgun I inherited from my dad holds three shells, maybe four. Been so long since I shot it I can't remember.

No banana clip. No extended 30 round magazine. It has to be loaded manually, one shell at a time.
21
Always fun to see the NRA supporters out on Slog....

NRA: Killing more Americans than the Terrorists! Wonder if they can put that on a bumper sticker?
22
The last thing I will ever see is an old chymo prick with his fisting poodle? Weird.
23
Nah, Matt. Biden's an imbecile. Shotguns are immensely more dangerous than "assault rifles" in the hands of someone who knows what he's about.
24
@19 Why refer to Newtown? Just two months ago a 12-year-old Sparks, NV boy took to school the Ruger that belonged to his parents, wounded two schoolmates and killed a teacher. Earlier this year 15-year-old Nehemiah Griego of New Mexico shot his parents and three of his siblings with one of the arsenal of weapons his father kept.

These shootings happen partly because of common and widespread ignorance and negligence of parents and guardians, and their shared misguided idea that children, preteens and teens would refrain from using easily accessible firearms except for hunting animals for food, self-defense or as part of a well-regulated militia fighting government tyranny.

No one asks the parents "Why do you keep your guns where your child can get at them?"

Let's not even limit this to guns: in October of this year a 14-year-old boy who'd moved from TN to MA slashed his teacher to death with a box cutter. Too many Americans do a lousy job of bringing up kids. How many of those kids have never been taught impulse control or conflict resolution skills? What values are these kids learning? Why should those of us who don't keep guns loaded and accessible to children risk losing our offspring attending the same school of the children of parents who do?
25
#3

..male violence...

Emotions ran high Tuesday at the trial of a Montana woman charged with pushing her husband off a cliff eight days after their wedding, with her teenage brother breaking down in tears on the stand.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/…
26
@24 I used Newtown because it was one year ago and it was declared one of the most heinous shootings (babies, after all). Personally, Newtown left me reeling far more than other mass shootings.

Children the ages of my children. Just before Christmas. The thought of the parents in that firehouse, waiting to see their children, those last parents being told no more children were coming.

Columbine, Aurora, so many others, those were tragic and upsetting, yes, but as a mom, Newtown is my nightmare. Every time my kids tell me about the lockdown drills, my heart clenches.
27
@ 23, then I can relax because most of them don't know what they're about.

Got the girls home safe. Thanks for asking.
28
@25 yes, the frequency with which women push their new husbands from cliffs is alarming. Women are a menace to society at large and must be stopped.
29
@27 I'm glad to hear, Matt.
30
@ 29, thank you.
31
@24 I feel differently. It's not the size of the fatalities in the shootings but their frequency that has me spooked. The Sparks one has me spooked because a 12-year-old student was the shooter. And all shootings where a student was the one firing the gun freak me out. I want my kid to go to a public school, not a shooting range, and I don't want the people who can't tell the difference anywhere near me and mine.
32
@31 I do understand. Completely. I used Newtown as a point of reference. 20 kids were killed there and we were all shocked. Yet more than 700 other children have died since then. That is far more shocking.

Just within this last year, we've managed to kill 35 times as many children as Newtown. That's equivalent to a massacre every school week.
33
@1
Thanks for reminding us why we need the Second Amendment.

MOLON LABE
34
@33, I'm really looking forward to the cold, dead hands part.
36
@35: yeah, gun owners don't shout about murdering. gun owners never threaten, directly or implicitly. they just go out and do it, quietly and efficiently. they have ethics - they carry out their own violence.

that, or leave their guns laying around so their crazy kids can do it.

let's face it: to be a shooter, you have to have a gun. otherwise you're just a stabber or a bludgeoner.
37
@ 35, multiple choice question, only one answer is correct. The brave man is:

a) armed.
b) unarmed.

Please note that the personal quality under discussion is bravery, and ONLY bravery.
38
"Emasculated cowards." Hmm. I like that. You just described 90% of the commenters here.

But when your primary interest in life is in getting butt-fucked, I guess it shouldn't be too shocking.
39
@37
Spare me your bullshit. Anyone who is ACTULLY experienced violence knows it is better to be armed. Bravery doesn't mean shit when your skull is pounded into the sidewalk by multiple attackers, or you are bleeding out in the back of the rig from a knife wound on the way to ER.

Besides we are talking about chicken shits like yourself who want other people, i.e. police/military, to carry out their draconian political ideals.

@36
The most violent comments on this board are not coming from run rights advocates.
40
@36, I fully expect the shooter who takes your life to be you. You are certainly headed in that direction.
42
Yes, but what will become of the gun?!
43
@ 39, it would have saved time and effort to answer B, but your response is dripping with fear, so thanks for being illustrative.
44
@40: I don't think you meant to refer to @36. Typo?
45
Don't forget guys:

http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=3630

Come on down and spend some money, and lend your support. It'll be a great day!!
46
@35: You're the guy who carries a weapon capable of accelerating a small metal slug to supersonic velocities with the single twitch of a finger. I'm the guy who carries a small folding knife or makeshift cudgel (weapons that require strength and intent to use) or goes unarmed, because I'm not constantly terrified that someone will attack me. Who's the coward here?
A firearm is a dishonorable weapon. Don't get me wrong; in war it is the right weapon to use, because honor means nothing on the battlefield. But nothing gets around the fact that a firearm makes killing too easy, both physically and psychologically.
@39: I'm sure you want dangerous criminals behind bars; do you intend to put them there yourself? Are you a chickenshit like us, or are you a wacko vigilante?
Perhaps you haven't fully grasped the concept, but division of labor is the foundation stone of civilization.
47
@39: Most of us manage to live our lives without allowing the fear of being suddenly assaulted by superior forces to blot out reason in our minds. You can't let yourself be ruled by fear, Five Large. For me, every day is a battle with pathological anxiety, with my own fear, and I will tell you right now (and I am trying to help you here) that the Bene Gesserit had it exactly right.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
48
@49
Dripping with experience shitstain. But you are another sheltered liberal, hopefully your daughters will hook up with a real man, rather than some clone of their pantywaist father who would deny them the means to fight off a rapist.

@46
Spare me the tripe about "honor", its a matter of not going to the hospital. I see the victims of street violence every day. Also being told, "I am going to kill you if I ever see you on the street" by mentally ill psychos like yourself gives me a pretty good reason to carry a fight stopper. I strongly doubt you have ever used your small knife or "cudgle" or you would grasp their ineffectiveness. Once again more advice on fighting from someone who has never been in one, just like Shatt from Denver.

As a small town punkrocker, who later moved to a big city ghetto I have more than enough experience with fisticuffs. Later I spent 3 years as a correctional officer, I can handle myself sans firearm just fine. But as anyone who fights knows, there is always someone more badass than you, and you are not going to win against a group. I don't have fire extinguisher in my kitchen because of constant anxiety about fires, I have it because it is a good idea to be prepared, the same goes for the firearm, I hope I never have to pull the trigger in defence.

Which gets to the point, you gunbanners would rather live in a world where the strong have the ability to exploit the weak, where rapist can prowl the streets with no fear of their victims, where a gang of home invaders doesn’t have to worry about which door they kick in. Not surprising that you also sympathize with pedophiles. There is a reason that Shitcago with it's gun ban has one of the highest rates of violence in the country, it allows criminals to practice their trade unopposed. Chances are you stay out of the violent areas of town, another liberal afraid of life on the democratic plantations that lie across the tracks.

Spare me the drivel of "but the guns come from outside the city" because those areas don’t have the crime rate of Barack Hussein Obama's home shithole.
49
@ 48, correction - "As a small town poseur..."

I'm sure you have plenty of experience in fisticuffs. Trouble just finds you, doesn't it Five Large?

Guns aren't necessary for self defense. Sense and a few good moves do the job just fine. Something every real man (those brave enough to go without weapons) know.
50
@45
Maybe I will see you in Puyallup Lew.
Also I got invited to a Chistmas Party by some industry members who will not be named on the pages of this foul hive of scum and villainy.
52
Cascadian bacon,

In this specific instance, the shooter was not protecting himself from anyone. The gun wasnt used to ward off a home invasion. It didn't stop a rape.

You can argue hypotheticals all day but in THIS instance a gun was brought into a school with a very specific intention.

What is your solution to the problem?
53
@52 I'm waiting for Cascadian Bacon to claim that the shooter was protecting himself from an unarmed 15-year-old girl. After all, the shooter used his weapon on her.
54
@51:
"make like your daughters and just give it up."

Wow, when you make comments like that you completely lose any credibility you might have had. Reading through your comments, it should be obvious to anyone that you are very insecure and fearful. And you obviously have quite a temper.

It scares me that a paranoid nut case like you carries a deadly weapon.
55
look, sillies. Nothing means anything 'cept me. And if I need to shoot you to make sure I'm me then, well, you're fucking shot.

G'day.
56
@51: I know the rules on Slog are a little lax, but isn't attacking someone's children still below the belt?

Cascadian Bacon, you are a piece of shit.
57
@48: You know, I'd started writing out a comprehensive rebuttal to your post, but then I realized you hadn't said anything other than empty blustering and bravado, misleading ad hominem attacks, and wild conjecture intended to deflect attention from the obvious holes in your argument. So I'll just remind you that you are the lowest of the low, and that I unlike you have mastered my fear and anger rather than allowing them to rule me.
58
@50. Yep, I haven't been to a WAC show in a while. It's always fun, but I quit going once the savings vanished, cheap ammo, etc. Should be able to find a Mosin sling though.

59
@58
Yea I haven't gone since before the panic of 2008. I have a few friends that work the booths and I love the book table. A Mosin sling should be easy enough, I kick myself for not picking up a Walther p1 a few years back, simply for historical purposes. Honestly I dont have much I need to buy, though I have been picking up 9mm pistols for friends and family.Check out that Zastava EZ9 (CZ99) its a pretty cool little yugosig, well built and reasonably priced.

@57
Never say I never learned anything from you. Being called low by someone who is mentally ill mudslime sympathizer and pedophile apologist is rather complimentary.

May I remind you that you have an intense fear of inanimate objects, so much so that you want a government ban.

@56
Likewise.
60
@ 56, it's alright. Five Large can't touch me in any way. He can't argue Constitutional rights, he can't impress me with his nonexistent sexual prowess, he knows nothing about mental illness (orderlies aren't psychiatrists), and he's so scarred by the beatdowns he provoked by being an asshole that he has to own a bunch of guns and go around looking for an excuse to use them. He certainly wouldn't have any chance with my daughters, even if they were of age. Why do you think he's going on and on about experience? Like a mantra, he can just believe he has it if he continues to repeat it.

Five Large, you remind me of a kid I knew growing up. He was skinny and smart mouthed, and found himself getting beat up a lot, too. So besides trying to identify as a racist skinhead (a pretty neat trick for a half Asian metalhead to pull), he started carrying mace everywhere. I stopped hanging around with his loser ass around that time and he moved to LA. He tried calling me out of the blue a few years later wanting to hang out. I rebuffed him and he's been out of my life ever since.

Keep having your fantasies of revenge and underage sex, Five Large. But remember that living them out is against the law, and that those laws are Constitutional.
61
I don't know. I guess I'm just happy I'm not one of you guys who are scared to death by an inanimate object.
62
@59: The idiom "from out of left field" likely stems from a old baseball diamond called the West Side Grounds that housed the Chicago Cubs for two decades and which was bordered by a psychiatric institute near the left field wall. To call an idea "from out of left field" was to question the sanity of such a statement.
Now that you have some background, your claims come from out of left field and a couple blocks down the street.

If you think my madness is a weakness or a disability, you may just want to check yourself. A daily struggle with fear is invigorating, in similar fashion to a brisk jog; it has taught me to revel in challenges. And let me tell you, your puny attempts at argument do not present a challenge.
Moving on, you seem to think I am a "mudslime sympathizer". Am I correct in parsing that as a crude slur against Muslims? You may count me in sympathy with any people whose (basically inoffensive) faith has been repurposed by hoodlums like you as a byword for terrorism.
You further call me a "pedophile apologist". I have sympathy for pedophiles who have nothing to apologize for: those who are aware of their illness and take pains to keep themselves away from children. As I have explained many times before, pedophiles who DO abuse children are beneath my contempt.
Finally, I don't fear guns any more than is reasonable, and I certainly don't think we need to ban them all. (Not sure where you got this ludicrous idea.) Simple restrictions (supported by universal background checks) to keep them out of the hands of the wrong sort should be sufficient. For that matter, I'm sure we all support a government ban on certain inanimate objects that we fear. Unless you want to allow private ownership of dirty bombs?
63
@59: Basically, you've lied before and you're lying now. Nobody's impressed or convinced, and my best guess is that even 5280, whose pragmatic positions on firearms are the closest here to you, thinks you're making his side look bad.
64
@ 62, interesting that Five Large advocates pedophilia against my daughters but condemns you for your pragmatic attitude.
65
@61,

Wait, aren't you the type that believes you're safer because people are supposed to be afraid of you because of said inanimate object?

Peace
66
VL, you should definitely not put words in my mouth.
67
@12

FWIW, I am happy your daughter was safe and sound. I may be smarmy at times, but I'm not a complete dick and certainly would not wish ill will upon good people.
68
@46

I'm going to have to take issue with your 'A firearm is a dishonorable weapon' notion.

In my book, violent criminals are dishonorable people. We're not talking about a Victorian duel at twenty paces for besmirching the Queen here.

When protecting myself or my loved ones from a violent attacker, I would have no problem at all dispatching them by any means, honorable or otherwise.
69
@ 67, thank you. But more to the point you were trying to make, Colorado passed no laws, nor ever considered any, that would have banned shotguns. And even if he had had a gun that uses the now-banned large magazine, that law only took effect recently and a whole lot of local nuts stocked up on them, so it's probably a little premature to judge the law ineffective, as you were implying.
70
@65, if you really think the reason I carry a gun is to intimidate people, you don't know me very well at all.
71
@ 66, one can only judge you from what you do say. I've noticed that you never actually join specific debates about Constitutionality and other legal angles, despite your professional expertise in those areas, aside from confident predictions that gun control measures will be overturned by the courts. Maybe you just don't want to go to the effort, which I understand as it's unlikely to change anyone's mind, but I do find it interesting how you don't ever seem to have Five Large's back. Without an explanation, people will decide what that means on their own.
72
Maybe you just don't want to go to the effort, which I understand as it's unlikely to change anyone's mind.

Bingo.
73
Turns out the shooter was a liberal angry at losing the debate.

He's like most of this board.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_247213…

In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as "Keynesian."

"I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn't the market correcting itself?" he wrote. "If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn't it be able to overpower regulations?"

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads: "The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"

Also, Guy's your dime store psychoanalysis is really cracking me up.

Venomlash at least has a clue, and I do congratulate him on dealing with his struggles. He has done more than a lot of people who would give up rather than overcome. He is an intelligent person with whom I often disagree, and I apologize, I of all people should understands peoples struggles with mental illness. I'm sorry.

Further more Matt from Denver is a retard.

Now if you excuse me I have to go plot about this thread with 5280, Alex Jones and and ghost of Ronald Reagan at the secret NRA headquarters.
74
Given that my 14-year-old niece can fire a gun as well as anyone, I find it really amusing when people like 5280 (eg, in post 38) try and package their gun obsession as masculine.

This goes double when you discover that (at least in 5280's case) their gun nuttery is motivated by a crippling fear of their dark-skinned neighbors (there was a thread a while back where he went on about how he needs his guns because of how dangerous black people are).

There are a lot of words to describe people who feel intimidated to walk into their local Stabuck's unarmed, but "brave" and "manly" aren't among them. And let me tell you: it's fucking hilarious to hear people try and spice up that anxiety with a bunch of tough cowboy talk. Who knew John Wayne could be so fucking delicate?

I've had a lot of fun shooting beer cans and eaten a lot of delicious, freshly-hunted meals. For me, that's the purpose that guns serve. I can also understand their use for home defense, but the day I fall under the delusion that I need to feel scared whenever I'm unarmed is the day I lose the right to even a hint of bravado talk.

Argue all you want about how the 2nd Amendment applies and which gun measures are practical about reducing crime; that's all well and good. But don't delude yourselves with a bunch of macho talk: the only thing that stops you from being harmless as a church mouse is a device that was invented and manufactured by others, and that requires nothing more than an easy twitch of your fingers to operate. If this is all it takes to make you feel like John McClane, all it tells me is that your life has been entirely too comfortable.

TL;DR: all your cowboy talk makes you gun nuts sound fucking ridiculous, and you'll never be self-aware enough to recognize why.
75
Goddammit, CB, you weren't supposed to mention the secret bunker. Dick Cheney is going to be pissed.
76
@ 73, he was also Christian. Darn your selective comprehension.
77
Yesterday, I needed some mustard, so I ventured deep behind the enemy lines of "the general public" all the way to Fred Meyer, braved crowds of accountants and soccer moms-- any one of whom could have been a threat to life and limb-- boldly approached the cashier (who, in all possibility, could have been a serial killer), bought my mustard, and went home. And get this: I did all this WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A BB GUN.

Maybe someday, Cascadian Bacon can aspire to be this badass.
78
@74

To be fair, by the standards of the SLOG community, I'm a 'gun nut' and on the occasion when I do carry a gun I do not feel even the slightest bit macho or empowered.

Not even a little. It feels just like carrying my watch and my wallet.

And, to be totally honest, the responsibility of carrying a gun is a real pain in the ass, which is why I generally don't do it outside of work.

But from time to time, there are situations where I'm going to need to carry a gun and and I don't want my ability to do so restricted by people who have no clue what they're talking about and are simply afraid of guns because they're scary.
79
78: I'm not talking about all gun owners. The subtext of my post should have implied that I'm a gun owner myself.

I'm talking about people like 5280 (and Cascadian Bacon especially) who take gun ownership to an obsessive level, view this and this alone as something that makes them badass, and delude themselves into thinking that the only possible motive for disliking guns is cowardice. When they justify their gun passion by talking about how much they apparently have to fear from the public/Muslims/the government/Obama/blacks/mimes/meth freaks/etc, and then accuse others of being fear-mongers... well, hopefully you can see the irony there, can't you?

Also, not everyone who supports gun legislation is "simply afraid of guns because they're scary." They're a highly effective weapon. Even if you disagree on the finer details, any sane and intelligent person should see some practical logic behind the desire to regulate who can get a hold of highly effective weapons, and how easily.

No gun measure is perfect, and not all of them are useful. But there are some that do effectively lower the likelihood that the wrong person will get a hold of a gun at the wrong time. Don't confuse pragmatism with cowardice: I see nothing cowardly about reasonable gun measures that at least lower gun crimes, even if it means I'll have to wait a while (and keep a clean criminal record) if I ever want another rifle.

This intense panic that some people feel knowing they might not be able to fire more than 10 bullets between reloads, however, is something I find extremely cowardly. So you can see where I'd take issue when these people try and claim that they're the "real men" and everyone who disagrees with them is a panty-waist.
80
@79

You forgot my fear of orks and goblins, you can't stop those bastards with anything less than .45.

The only thing worse than a gun grabber is a FUDD who will gladly sell our rights up the river as long as he can keep his durr rifle.
81
@ 80, no, you're much worse. Always lying about your opponents, for example.

Another quiz: What, exactly, are Matt from Denver's views on gun control?

a) support reasonable limits - military grade stuff like AR-15's and high capacity magazines should not be sold to the general public, which is perfectly constitutional

b) repeal the Second Amendment

c) execute gun owners with their own guns while singing the Internationale

d) invent a time machine and prevent the invention of guns

If you answered A, you're right! If you answered anything else, you're Cascadian Bacon. (Who, BTW, lied by implying he was done with this thread, but is obviously still reading here.)
82
Hey CB, I've always been curious about people whose lust for guns is as weirdly intense as yours: do you fuck them? Like, literally?

At this point, I'd honestly be more surprised to hear that you don't. Don Juan didn't give half the shit about women that you do about being able to stockpile more and more guns, right this second.

Sorry I don't give a shit about your right to buy a tommy gun out of a vending machine the day after you finish serving a sentence for assault with a deadly weapon (that's just about where the line is drawn with us "FUDDs" you complain about). Maybe I just don't find baristas as formidable as you do, which I guess makes me the coward here. Guns are just a part of life where I live; not the fucking holy grail that you cushy little suburban boys like to pretend they are when you're trying to look rugged.

But don't worry: as important as you are, I'm sure Obama and his secret army of Black Panthers is just itching to personally come and seize your arsenal any day now, and it'll prove so useful in the ensuing glorious battle that I'll just have to eat my words and admit that by golly, those high capacity weapons really ARE useful in the hands of civilian idiots!
83
I wonder how many perceived suicides are just people like CB who were making out with their guns and forgot to turn the safety off. You be careful, CB. I'm not sure the world could bear such a sudden drop in our average testosterone levels.
84
@79

I can certainly agree with many of your points. What my main problem is with most gun legislation proposed by liberals is useless feel-good bullshit that will do nothing to curb gun violence but it makes them feel like they're 'doing something' or 'this is a good first step.' (Toward what?)

For example, I disagree with you on magazine restrictions. They are useless.

First it assumes that criminals will obey the law and only commit mass-shootings with low capacity mags. Right.

Second, it takes about one second to do a mag change. Ergo, carry more mags.

Third, Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook discarded all of his mags with rounds remaining, probably because he couldn't keep track of how many he'd fired.

Bottom line is this. Laws like magazine restrictions are useless feel-good bullshit, as are many others like the 1994 'Assault Weapons Ban' which stooped to such ridiculous lows as banning guns with bayonet lugs. (So, lots of drive-by bayonettings in California?)

Or the notion that assault weapons are banned in California... unless you are filming a movie. Hypocritical, and feel-good bullshit.

I would prefer laws that increase, dramatically, immensely, mental-health funding in this country.

Mandatory prosecution for negligence involving unsecured firearms.

Education. (I'm a liberal, so I'm big on education.) Mandatory education courses about firearm safety and the laws and responsibilities involving firearms carry.

When I got my first hunting license at 16 in this state, a had to take a mandatory firearm safety and hunting safety course from the NRA (You know, because they're evil.) and it changed me forever. I still remember that cool old-timer who taught me so much. For him, it was a labor of love helping a new generation.

Anyway, this is my longest post on guns ever, but these are my thoughts. I want real solutions, not feel good bullshit that doesn't prevent gun violence and has no practical effect other than to make pro-gun people dig in their heels and hate liberals.
85
84: I actually never endorsed magazine restrictions. I brought them up to make fun of the two assholes here, because while I don't find the restrictions useful, I also don't find high capacity magazines necessary. So your argument that magazine restrictions are ineffective, if accurate, is fine. The gun nut argument that they need to be able to fire more than 10 bullets at once in case they get into some kind of hero situation is flat-out ridiculous (and, as I pointed out before, highlights the crippling fear that motivates their views). I feel the same way about "assault rifles": if they're legal, it doesn't change much. If they're banned, a few people are denied something that only serves as a slightly cooler-looking toy.

The measures that I support are mostly the same as those you list, except I'd include background checks and wait periods (which maybe you only left out because they're pretty standard, but even those are controversial in certain circles). These may not be foolproof, but they do have an effect and I don't find them unreasonable.

And this isn't based on a fear that, without a background check, some schizophrenic will buy a gun and shoot me. It's based on a belief that background checks are useful in reducing gun crimes in general, which I think is a good thing for society. Contrast that with Cascadian Bacon's fear that, with enough gun restrictions, he'll be at a tactical disadvantage when a team of organized special ops terrorists breaks in to steal his stereo.
86
@84 CPN,

"Third, Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook discarded all of his mags with rounds remaining, probably because he couldn't keep track of how many he'd fired."

Because a psychotic loon wasn't capable of keeping track of the number of rounds he shot off while chasing elementary school children (and their teachers), we don't need to limit magazine size for the next psychotic loon to heed the urge to massacre? Really?

I am more than willing to be educated in the real world need of civilians to be able to fire more than 12 rounds before reloading, and I mean no zombie apocalypse hypotheticals or "because the 2nd Ammendment". Otherwise, please...

Peace
87
#86

Either you didn't read my entire post or didn't comprehend it.

Magazine capacity wasn't my point. It was that most liberals know nothing about guns, yet want to willy-nilly enact laws that are useless and serve no purpose other than to piss off lawful, responsible gun owners.

This serves no purpose and does not advance any progress toward reducing gun violence one iota.

You've illustrated my point perfectly.
88
@87,

Because 2nd Amendment, right...

I am asking to be informed of the need for higher capacity magazines. What useful purpose in real life, for civilians, do high capacity magazines fulfill?

Peace
89
@88, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that one shot = one kill. While that's understandable, because it's the way Hollywood always portrays it, nothing could be further from the truth. People, especially those on drugs, can soak up an absolutely astonishing amount of ammo before they go down.
90
@88 your asking to amend a american civil right, the burden is on those proposing the restriction to say *why* its needed.

its fun for people to sarcastically blow it off as "Because 2nd Amendment, right..." but apparently your missing out on what your saying which is that the darn constitution is in the way of *YOUR* opinion. This is the understatement from everyone who proposes or even enacts some form of legislation that is later struck down by the supreme court.

You want to reduce gun deaths/tragedy? try before you suggest some generic sweeping change to remember that most of those deaths occur between urban youth with handguns. second on that list is suicides.

Magazine bans and cosmetic bans ( ASSUALT!) effect neither of those, and sound like stupid answers to the problem, because they are.

This entire debate on this thread is stupid for an even better reason, the perp was a teen with a shotgun, who entered a gun free zone and went on a unsuccessful spree. Nothing proposed here would have prevented access, opportunity or ability to commit this crime.

congratulations your the TSA.
91
@89: If some meth-head is charging at you, will 6 rounds be enough to stop him?
92
@89 5280,

Well that would be a major sad for the designers of the 5.56 NATO round, to not get at least get a 1 round knockdown. But yeah, civilians run into multi-shooter firefights all the time. As a civilian, I wouldn't have associated this situation with a large magazine capable weapon, until someone else did (and they threw in Lanza's poor munitions management).

@90 meanie,

You may not believe me, but I do take the Constitution very seriously. And, in the exception that proves the rule style, some of the rights described in Constitutional Amendments aren't absolute; hate speech and machine guns for example. If, in the consensus of the Courts (and enforcement), more harm than good is allowed by unlimited expression of our potential rights, even our Constitutional rights can be curbed. The circumstances under which that can occur essentially don't effect my everyday life, and therefor don't cause undo burden, but then I'm not a gun lobby shill.

Peace
93
Which of the contributors to this and other guns SLOG posts are paid gun lobby commenters?
Is it plausible that some anti-psychotic induced mental agitation or akathisia or SSRI-induced personality shift (like with that Joel dude in Cap Hill on 4th July) was responsible for the shooter doing what he did?
Why are Americans more interested in using political tribalism to discuss but do nothing about gun violence, than they are in analyzing the common factors in a majority of mass shootings over the past 5-10 years?
94
@88

Here's the terrible truth about the second amendment.

The burden of proof isn't on me. It's on you.

Prove to me that reduced capacity magazines will have any effect on violent crime...
... which, by the way, violent crime is already down 50% in the U.S. in the last 20 years.

Which really begs the question, "If violent crime is down fifty percent in the last 20 years, to levels lower than Western countries with total gun bans, what the hell is your agenda?"

And why aren't both the Democrats and the Republicans clamoring to take credit for a fifty percent drop in violent crime in the last twenty years? Shouldn't one think that's a good platform to run on?

Anyway, I generally don't link to a YouTube video, but this guy provides links and sources and isn't reenacting 'Loose Change.' Take it for what you will, but the numbers from your own government are the source.

http://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0

I'll close with this:
When is the last time you saw someone gunned down in the street? If you haven't ever seen anybody blown away, then how violent is this country really? Or are you just freaking out about what the media tells you to freak out about?

Just askin'

95
VL @91: Probably not, no. Ask any cop. We share these kind of horror stories.
96
Oh, and @92? I'm not even going to respond to that. Not because your ignorance is mind-boggling (which it is), but because you're putting words in my mouth. And for that, you can go fuck yourself.
97
Ok, one more time,

The reason civilians need magazines that can hold more than 12 rounds of ammo, as in the case of AR-15 style rifles that utilize .223or 5.56 mm cartridges is... What/why?

I really don't see why anyone that wouldn't be for gun control would frequent this website. But that is my opinion.
98
@94 CPN,

"Which really begs the question, "If violent crime is down fifty percent in the last 20 years, to levels lower than Western countries with total gun bans, what the hell is your agenda?""

I heard an interesting correlation between that trend and the phasing out of leaded gasoline.

The burden of proof is upon me only because of the prior existence of legally produced and purchased high capacity magazines. Otherwise my argument against is just as valid as that arguing for the need for said magazines. As part of my first Amendment rights, I can state whatever I wish, and none of my livelihood depends upon the sales of guns or ammo (Cancer and neurodegenerative disease research, yeah), so I don't have that inherent bias.

Peace
99
@94 CPN, continued,

"I'll close with this:
When is the last time you saw someone gunned down in the street? If you haven't ever seen anybody blown away, then how violent is this country really? Or are you just freaking out about what the media tells you to freak out about?
"

OK:

I'm the one arguing for gun control and you just made the case for why firearms aren't necessary. I mean, you don't carry an umbrella if it isn't raining (unless you want shade).

Peace
100
@95: My uncle is a police officer. He used to run safety at the municipal firing range, but now he works for state law enforcement. (He's always got funny stories of unruly drunks taking swings at him or the like.) I'll make sure to ask him how many times he's heard of a fellow officer needing to put more than a standard-sized magazine's worth of ammunition into an assailant before the guy drops.

@94: Is there actually such a burden of proof with regard to banning extended magazines, or are you just claiming it to make your argument easier? I think we've conclusively explained the potential harm to be averted, and nobody has come up with a convincing argument against it. If it may or may not help, but it certainly won't hurt, why not try it?
101
@97 - How about this : I don't feel, in any way, the slightest need to justify my ownership of lawfully procured and held property. It's really none of your fucking business.
Peace :)
102
This shit is becoming routine, fucking males, it's not just the aggression, it's the denial. Guns are symptoms, males are the problem. Now watch a bunch of punk ass males post a bunch of bullshit statistics or examples of women committing violence.

Only a fucking male could look at statistics of violent crimes and or guns crimes, or crimes just in general and deny that the real problem is little boys who never learned to be men.

Unfortunately because I speak freely about abuse, I don't feel safe unless I carry, but what are you gonna do about it?

you can't fix stupid, and you can only speak truth, 2x4 upside to the head is only metaphorical and a very very male thing to do.

The funny thing is, nearly every violent inmate could be released from jail if the took enforced medication to zap the testo levels down to nil, perhaps they should look into offering that as an option instead of jail time.
103
@102: You're nuts.
We males have higher levels of aggression, yes. However, just because men are more PRONE to violence doesn't mean that maleness is the CAUSE of violence. You're being every bit as bad as the douchekayaks who think that brown people are inherently criminal.
Also, your last paragraph displays a stunning ignorance of criminology, sociology, and good old neurology. Lurk moar.
104
Yep, always fear the Socialist with a few guns....

http://www.news.com.au/world/two-student…
Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with the gunman, described him as a very opinionated Socialist.