Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • Only two dead and one injured after dozens of shots.
    That guy needs to learn some gun control.
  • 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.
  • I don't think I can take this society getting much politer.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • Trivia Jockey: And who decides what X is?


    NamRlA.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Load 25 of 594 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.