(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Shame on people for talking about gun control right after yet another avoidable gun tragedy, because that would just be politicizing it

12 Dec 2012 12:34 PM   |   4393 clicks   |   Twitchy
Showing 1-50 of 619 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
give me doughnuts     
Only two dead and one injured after dozens of shots.
That guy needs to learn some gun control.

12 Dec 2012 09:43 AM
doglover    [TotalFark]  
It's a kneejerk reaction.

If you go around banning things every time they're used to kill someone, pretty soon we'll all need our hands and feet cut off at birth. But don't worry, you won't need them because everything else in the world will be prohibited, even water, so you'll die fairly quickly.

12 Dec 2012 09:45 AM
BunkoSquad    [TotalFark]  
I don't think I can take this society getting much politer.

12 Dec 2012 09:46 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

doglover: If you go around banning things every time they're used to kill someone, pretty soon we'll all need our hands and feet cut off at birth.


I think that's a broad generalization. We're not talking about "potentially dangerous things" here, we're talking about things designed specifically to be dangerous.

This whole argument about "politicizing" tragedy is silly, it's a deflection mechanism for the right to try and stave off gun control debate. First of all, discussing an important issue isn't "politicizing" it. It's not like politicians running for office are just using this tragedy to get reelected. Second, after a tradegy involving guns occurs, that's precisely the time to discuss it. When else is it appropriate to discuss? Exactly X days after the most recent shooting? And who decides what X is?

12 Dec 2012 09:50 AM
doglover    [TotalFark]  

Trivia Jockey: we're talking about things designed specifically to be dangerous.


Things specifically the right of an American to posses. In fact, I'd consider it the DUTY of any sentient being to bear weapons because humans lost the draw and our bodies aren't enough to defend ourselves and others.

The debate that SHOULD be taking place when a mass shooting occurs is not how to end guns, because next time it will be a bomb or a fire or just beating some kids to death with a giant hammer like Gallagher. There will be killings. The debate we should be having, and never do, is the despicable state of mental healthcare and the lack of options families have in dealing with these people and the lack of responsibility their families have when they didn't exercise the options available.

The guns are dangerous, but there's other things that are dangerous, too. The real problem is crazy people. Very few snap without warning.

12 Dec 2012 10:01 AM
jbc    [TotalFark]  

Trivia Jockey: And who decides what X is?


NamRlA.

12 Dec 2012 10:01 AM
vpb    [TotalFark]  

doglover: It's a kneejerk reaction.

If you go around banning things every time they're used to kill someone, pretty soon we'll all need our hands and feet cut off at birth. But don't worry, you won't need them because everything else in the world will be prohibited, even water, so you'll die fairly quickly.


It's not like it's a guns are used to kill people any more than any other randomly selected object.

12 Dec 2012 10:03 AM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  

doglover: Trivia Jockey: we're talking about things designed specifically to be dangerous.

Things specifically the right of an American to posses. In fact, I'd consider it the DUTY of any sentient being to bear weapons because humans lost the draw and our bodies aren't enough to defend ourselves and others.

The debate that SHOULD be taking place when a mass shooting occurs is not how to end guns, because next time it will be a bomb or a fire or just beating some kids to death with a giant hammer like Gallagher. There will be killings. The debate we should be having, and never do, is the despicable state of mental healthcare and the lack of options families have in dealing with these people and the lack of responsibility their families have when they didn't exercise the options available.

The guns are dangerous, but there's other things that are dangerous, too. The real problem is crazy people. Very few snap without warning.


Lucid and conscientious point. I'm amazed at how we miss this over and over.

12 Dec 2012 10:04 AM
Jackson Herring     
fark twitchy

12 Dec 2012 10:08 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

doglover: Things specifically the right of an American to posses


That's debatable (the whole "militia" argument). But even if that were a settled issued, that doesn't mean it should be changed. I seem to recall we've had a few amendments to the Constitution after people decided that some of the things in it were not the best idea.


The guns are dangerous, but there's other things that are dangerous, too.


Technically true, but guns are a hell of a lot more dangerous than most things. It's harder to kill multiple people with a knife than a gun. A bomb is difficult to construct and you need the requisite knowledge and components. Etc. etc. A gun is easy to get, easy to use, and entirely deadly in even inexperienced hands.

I'm not even sure I side with the "no guns" argument, I have some conflicting thoughts on the issue. But I am pretty sure that unfettered right and access to guns is going to result in a LOT more gun-related murders and crimes than in countries that have more restrictive laws. The NRA lobby needs to be taken down a notch, and we need to start thinking logically about the need for unfettered gun ownership, rather than reacting emotionally with "they want to take away our guns!!!"-type derp.

12 Dec 2012 10:08 AM
vpb    [TotalFark]  

doglover: Trivia Jockey: we're talking about things designed specifically to be dangerous.

Things specifically the right of an American to posses. In fact, I'd consider it the DUTY of any sentient being to bear weapons because humans lost the draw and our bodies aren't enough to defend ourselves and others.

The debate that SHOULD be taking place when a mass shooting occurs is not how to end guns, because next time it will be a bomb or a fire or just beating some kids to death with a giant hammer like Gallagher. There will be killings. The debate we should be having, and never do, is the despicable state of mental healthcare and the lack of options families have in dealing with these people and the lack of responsibility their families have when they didn't exercise the options available.

The guns are dangerous, but there's other things that are dangerous, too. The real problem is crazy people. Very few snap without warning.


Yes, the crazy people with guns mainly. All we need to do is decide who is going to go crazy before they actually do and then execute them preemptively. That would be much easier than keeping them from having access to guns in the first place.

just put me in charge of deciding who is going to snap and I will have the problem taken care of quickly

12 Dec 2012 10:10 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

ITGreen: doglover: The real problem is crazy people. Very few snap without warning.

Lucid and conscientious point. I'm amazed at how we miss this over and over.



I agree with this, but let's be realistic...for every gun crime committed by a mentally ill person, there are several committed by a completely sane person. See, e.g., shootings during the commission of a robbery, crimes of passion like the recent Kansas City Chiefs incident, etc.

12 Dec 2012 10:11 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

vpb: Yes, the crazy people with guns mainly. All we need to do is decide who is going to go crazy before they actually do and then execute them preemptively. That would be much easier than keeping them from having access to guns in the first place.

just put me in charge of deciding who is going to snap and I will have the problem taken care of quickly


Excellent point...gun restrictions are a lot more likely to work than trying to predict and treat mental illness.

Yes, both need to be addressed, but let's not pretend that focusing on the mentally ill all by itself is the answer to gun violence.

12 Dec 2012 10:12 AM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  

Trivia Jockey: ITGreen: doglover: The real problem is crazy people. Very few snap without warning.

Lucid and conscientious point. I'm amazed at how we miss this over and over.


I agree with this, but let's be realistic...for every gun crime committed by a mentally ill person, there are several committed by a completely sane person. See, e.g., shootings during the commission of a robbery, crimes of passion like the recent Kansas City Chiefs incident, etc.


A grown man who shoots the mother of his child before killing himself is not right in the head, passion or not.

"Jovan was a happy, proud father, with pictures of his baby on his Facebook page," Linta told SI.com's Peter King in a phone call Saturday afternoon. "This is shocking. Something went crazy wrong, and we'll probably never know what it is."

I think there's a lot more to this than anyone close to Belcher will admit, and I'm not ready to declare him some fallen angel.

12 Dec 2012 10:17 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

ITGreen: A grown man who shoots the mother of his child before killing himself is not right in the head, passion or not.


Maybe. But I still think it's way off the mark to say that everyone, or even most people, who commit a horrible gun crime is/are mentally ill.

12 Dec 2012 10:19 AM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  
I'd go so far as to agree. But dialogue like this is the way forward, not swatting at the problem blindly with over-reactive laws or untimely preaching, of which BobCostas was guilty a couple of weeks ago.

Law-abiding citizens use legal means to obtain legally-acceptable firearms. Criminals will always obtain firearms (including assault rifles), whether non-criminals are able to do so or not.

I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.

12 Dec 2012 10:24 AM
jbuist     

ITGreen: I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.


'Assault Weapons' are used in something like 1% of gun crimes. Yes. Seriously.

12 Dec 2012 10:37 AM
jbuist     

Trivia Jockey: But I am pretty sure that unfettered right and access to guns is going to result in a LOT more gun-related murders and crimes than in countries that have more restrictive laws.


... and you'd be wrong.

If you don't believe me go look up the violent crime rate in a place like Finland or Switzerland where gun ownership is common. Hell, in Switzerland men are required to keep a friggen machine gun at home. Low violent crime rates.

Now go compare them to Mexico with restrictive gun laws. High violent crime rates.

And then there's the US, in the middle of the two with a lot of violence and buttton of guns.

Gun access has basically nothing to do with violent crime rates. Poverty rates on the other hand...

12 Dec 2012 10:40 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

ITGreen: or untimely preaching, of which BobCostas was guilty a couple of weeks ago.


Why was it "untimely"? What are the rules for 'timeliness' of gun control discussion? (By the way, Costas was just reading from an article written by someone else, he wasn't issuing his own opinions.)


Criminals will always obtain firearms (including assault rifles), whether non-criminals are able to do so or not.


I am so sick of this argument. No, outlawing firearms won't prevent all criminals from obtaining and using them, but it would prevent a lot of them from doing so. If you make it a lot harder to obtain firearms, it will be a lot harder for everyone. There would be less guns in "circulation" if you will.


I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.

Assault weapons aren't the problem, as my esteemed colleague pointed about above, they're used in a tiny fraction of violent gun crimes.

12 Dec 2012 10:41 AM
R.A.Danny     

jbuist: ITGreen: I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.

'Assault Weapons' are used in something like 1% of gun crimes. Yes. Seriously.


Very true, but about 99.999% of the headlines, and Farkers know that when it leads, it is really what needs to be addressed in this country.

12 Dec 2012 10:42 AM
HeadLever     

jbuist: ITGreen: I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.

'Assault Weapons' are used in something like 1% of gun crimes. Yes. Seriously.


Correct. The vast majority of 'crimes of passion' are commited with handguns. Not Assault weapons.

12 Dec 2012 10:43 AM
give me doughnuts     

ITGreen: I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.


No, it won't.

12 Dec 2012 10:44 AM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  

Trivia Jockey: ITGreen: or untimely preaching, of which BobCostas was guilty a couple of weeks ago.

Why was it "untimely"? What are the rules for 'timeliness' of gun control discussion? (By the way, Costas was just reading from an article written by someone else, he wasn't issuing his own opinions.)


Yeah, Whitlock, I know, which came across as half-assed journalism. Bob just grabbed an article and let it speak for him on national TV during a football game, that is untimely.

I'm not sure what everyone's arguing for here. A ban on assault weapons? A ban on all firearms? A ban on compound bows? What?

12 Dec 2012 10:56 AM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  

give me doughnuts: ITGreen: I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.

No, it won't.


Oregon seems to have been an assault rifle. That's one.

12 Dec 2012 10:59 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

ITGreen: I'm not sure what everyone's arguing for here. A ban on assault weapons? A ban on all firearms? A ban on compound bows? What?


I'm not sure, and that's why we need a reasoned discussion. I'm still caught up on the fact that the Second Amendment was most likely misinterpreted by the Supreme Court, but I am realistic and realize that changing that interpretation is probably never going to happen.

I do believe, however, that any focus on assault weapon is misplaced; assault weapons are the problem per se.

12 Dec 2012 11:00 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

ITGreen: Oregon seems to have been an assault rifle. That's one.


Is "semi-automatic rifle" the same thing as "assault rifle"?

12 Dec 2012 11:01 AM
jehovahs witness protection     

jbuist: ITGreen: I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.

'Assault Weapons' are used in something like 1% of gun crimes. Yes. Seriously.


I have never opened fire on anyone with any of my "assault rifles", but I did have to shoot an attacker with my personal protection handgun.

Take an angry man's gun away and he just may kill someone with a rock.

12 Dec 2012 11:03 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

jehovahs witness protection: Take an angry man's gun away and he just may kill someone with a rock.


One of those is a helluva lot easier to do than the other.

12 Dec 2012 11:05 AM
jehovahs witness protection     

jehovahs witness protection: jbuist: ITGreen: I admit that making assault weapons less available will cut down on the "crimes of passion" and "he just snapped" occurrences of gun violence.

'Assault Weapons' are used in something like 1% of gun crimes. Yes. Seriously.

I have never opened fire on anyone with any of my "assault rifles", but I did have to shoot an attacker with my personal protection handgun.

Take an angry man's gun away and he just may kill someone with a rock.


WTF?
"angry" was supposed to be a description of the attacker.

/I hate the touchpad on this laptop.

12 Dec 2012 11:05 AM
Frank N Stein     
3 dead (including the shooter offing himself) in this "mass" shooting

Meanwhile, 20 black kids were shot last night and you don't give a fark.

12 Dec 2012 11:09 AM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

Frank N Stein: Meanwhile, 20 black kids were shot last night and you don't give a fark.


Says you. Don't presume to know what I'm thinking.

12 Dec 2012 11:17 AM
SlothB77    [TotalFark]  
That was a Jon Stewart Daily Show segment from yesterday. Basically making fun of FoxNews for saying we are not allowed to talk about gun control right after a tragedy. The show aired on the East Coast right before the Portland shooting.

12 Dec 2012 11:32 AM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  

Trivia Jockey: ITGreen: Oregon seems to have been an assault rifle. That's one.

Is "semi-automatic rifle" the same thing as "assault rifle"?


Sorry, I go with what I have, since I wasn't there.

CNN (yea yeah I know): "A woman told CNN affiliate KOIN that she saw a man wearing a hockey mask jogging through Macy's and wielding an assault rifle."

12 Dec 2012 11:32 AM
SlothB77    [TotalFark]  
Oregon gun laws are middle-of-the-pack. They aren't as lax as Alaska, Arizona or Vermont. They aren't as strict as New Jersey, California or New York.

12 Dec 2012 11:40 AM
ITGreen    [TotalFark]  
Funny how this is more dialogue in one morning than we can get out of Congress on any particular issue in one session.

12 Dec 2012 11:47 AM
maxalt    [TotalFark]  
I guess the constitution doesn't matter anymore.

12 Dec 2012 12:03 PM
BillCo     

Frank N Stein: 3 dead (including the shooter offing himself) in this "mass" shooting

Meanwhile, 20 black kids were shot last night and you don't give a fark.


Most of them were probably killed in Chicago or D.C., which have some of the most strict gun laws in the country. Hows that working out?

12 Dec 2012 12:21 PM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

BillCo: Most of them were probably killed in Chicago or D.C., which have some of the most strict gun laws in the country. Hows that working out?


Strict gun laws in an individual municipality are worthless, as long as all the surrounding land does not have said restrictions.

12 Dec 2012 12:28 PM
Trivia Jockey    [TotalFark]  

maxalt: I guess the constitution doesn't matter anymore.


Care to expand on that?

If you're referring to the 2nd Amendment as being absolute and unambiguous, it's not quite that simple.

12 Dec 2012 12:29 PM
Frank N Stein     

BillCo: Most of them were probably killed in Chicago or D.C., which have some of the most strict gun laws in the country. Hows that working out?


Hey now. I'm from Chicago.

I just wanted to point out that these "mass" shootings and other high profile murders (i.e. that NFL player that killed his wife and himself) are sensationalized headline grabbers that the proponents of gun control hollowly latch on to. The real problem with gun violence is with gangs, and gang violence is usually not violence for violence sake. It typically involves drugs, territory, or revenge.

The reason gun control advocates like to point to these types of shootings is because it's easier to blame access to a gun for these crimes. They know guns aren't at the heart of gang warfare, and they know that addressing the root of those issues is a complex and tough nut to crack. Instead they want to focus on these types of random shootings, which accounts to a drop in the bucket in terms of homicides, and paint a picture that anyone could be a potentially dangerous individual waiting to lash out at society, thus guns should be restricted because. Some do this on purpose to further their agenda, others see the talking points from those people and run with it because they lack critical thinking.

As I mentioned, I'm from Chicago. I support concealed carry in my state/city. And low and behold, looks like we're going to get it

12 Dec 2012 12:35 PM
super_grass     
It makes as much sense as talking about prohibition every time you hear about drunk drivers.

12 Dec 2012 12:37 PM
VTGremlin     

ITGreen: CNN (yea yeah I know): "A woman told CNN affiliate KOIN that she saw a man wearing a hockey mask jogging through Macy's and wielding an assault rifle."


So you're trusting a woman to accurately identify the type of rifle being used? And then a news outlet to not hype the shiat out of the type of firearm because ASSAULT RIFLEEEEEEEEEE! I think I see your problem.

12 Dec 2012 12:38 PM
robertus    [TotalFark]  

doglover: If you go around banning things every time they're used to kill someone, pretty soon we'll all need our hands and feet cut off at birth.


You can have my hands when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

12 Dec 2012 12:40 PM
Frank N Stein     

VTGremlin: So you're trusting a woman to accurately identify the type of rifle being used? And then a news outlet to not hype the shiat out of the type of firearm because ASSAULT RIFLEEEEEEEEEE! I think I see your problem.


Watch it be Ruger mini-14 with a synthetic stock

/It's like calling a riced out civic with a body kit and a fart can a "race car"

12 Dec 2012 12:41 PM
AliceBToklasLives     
Gun thread. Ok, time to lay down the rules.

Two possible points of view (nothing else is allowed):

1) Guns are a menace to society that cannot be properly used. All guns should be banned. Gun owners are all crazy rednecks who shoot at black people for kicks. If you personally own a gun, you are a terrorist.

2) Guns are more precious than the baby Jesus. There should be no restrictions on gun ownership or gun use. If you don't personally own a gun, you are a coward.

12 Dec 2012 12:42 PM
WizardofToast     
Fine. Let us talk of managing mental healthcare, then.

12 Dec 2012 12:43 PM
IlGreven     

Trivia Jockey: The NRA lobby needs to be taken down a notch,


The National Republican Association no longer cares about actual gun rights. If they were, they'd be excoriating Republicans over the Sportsmen's Act, instead of being mealy-mouthed about it and allowing their membership to come to the delusion that Democrats killed it. Because Republicans are always better than Democrats on guns. Even though the Sportsmen's Act was drawn up and submitted by a Democrat.

12 Dec 2012 12:43 PM
Trilithon     
I'll just leave this here ....

Gun Free Zone

12 Dec 2012 12:43 PM
vegasj     
So the DOJ & Eric Holder's plan is still working...

Fast n Furious failed, so they now will push it with these.

Makes one wonder if they are behind "mass" shootings recently, after all... we've had quite a few under Obama.

12 Dec 2012 12:43 PM
snocone    [TotalFark]  
Yea, well, I still have my P-38 Assault Can Opener from the Nam.
Just try me.

don' need no farkin' panzy gunz

12 Dec 2012 12:44 PM
Showing 1-50 of 619 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined