Going full Australia is the only way to stop this

10/3/2015 2:39:56 PM

Or post more armed guards in school and other "gun free" zones. Obama can spin it as job creation.

10/3/2015 2:57:23 PM

Our options are do nothing or extreme response?

10/3/2015 3:15:22 PM

The armed guards idea is unacceptable.

Like, I might actually stop thinking about myself for a second and make a sign to protest that.

I'd also rather not go full Australia.



I've never been religious, but I think we need more church. Apparently, a lot of people don't how to act or have a family or look after each other. They need to go to church and learn stuff.

And bring back The Cosby Show and make sure it's available on every streaming device. Our family sitcoms are too smart and snarky these days. People under the age of 16 should have to watch five minutes of Cliff lecturing Theo every time they turn on their XBox and help Vanessa and Rudy solve various arguments in order to login to Instagram.

[Edited on October 3, 2015 at 3:28 PM. Reason : The Cosby Show is the ONLY solution.]

10/3/2015 3:28:10 PM

I knew that deep down, BridgetSPK condoned alleged date rapist teaching our children life values.

10/3/2015 3:32:53 PM

We'll have to accept his criminal predilections.

It was, uh, a different time or something.

10/3/2015 3:39:57 PM

The sheriff says the shooter killed himself

10/3/2015 3:43:34 PM

Quote :

"skywalkr: And what gun laws other than an outright ban and confiscation would prevent this? No previously proposed legislation would have done anything, the shooter passed background checks and went through all the legal procedures. Passing legislation for the sake of passing something regardless of if it would actually address the issue or not is idiocracy."

Argue with the killer's dad:

Quote :

"'Look all over the world, you don't see these kinds of mass shootings all over the world like you do in the United States,' he said during an interview with CNN. 'So someone has to ask the question, "How is it so easy to get all these guns?" Thirteen guns? I've never held a gun in my life - and I don't want to.' 'How are you able to compile that kind of arsenal?' 'It has to change, how can it not? Even people who believe in the right to bear arms, what right do you have to take people's lives?' 'That's what guns are, they're killers. What do you want a gun for?' "

10/4/2015 7:35:39 AM

Kind of hard to argue with the killers dad since he isn't on tdub, maybe instead of making non-statements like, "we need to do something" you can tell me what that something is. Something that actually has a chance of being passed. Australia gun laws do not have a snowballs chance in hell of being passed here.

And maybe the killers dad should stop trying to blame the gun and look in the mirror and wonder how he raised such a piece of shit. But nah, it was the gun that made him go on a killing spree, nothing else to see here folks.



[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2015 10:25:39 AM

He was a shitty or at least uninvolved father so I shouldn't be able to own guns? Got it.

And sorry but the stockpile argument is bullshit too. Even just one or two guns in the hands of a psychopath can wreak havoc. My brother has over a dozen guns while I have three. Numbers don't mean shit though or necessarily mean you are crazy. Some folks like to collect them, hunt with them, etc.

I also honestly do not see the Australia solution being a solution here. This country has far too many guns in all kinds of hands. Getting rid of them would require SWAT military style raids and in the end would only scoop them up from legal gun owners. They would be on the black market forever and with our proximity to Mexico, permeability of our borders and prevalence of organized crime and gangs, it would not be feasible to rid the country of guns. Plus that whole pesky 2nd amendment. I would strongly support more mental health support and try to remove the stigma of counseling, but if you criminalize gun ownership and mental health, I think you will further push gun owners away from seeking help out of fear that they will have their legally owned weapons seized from them. That is the exact thing that feeds into the paranoia of some stockpiling gun owners.

10/4/2015 10:32:27 AM

^^ most Americans, even most NRA members, support universal background checks for all purchases. Seems like an easy place to start

10/4/2015 11:08:41 AM

^ and we have discussed this before and have come to an agreement on that issue. Also, ensuring NICS has adequate funding is very important and should be done ASAP.

However, while something that would be a good move, it would not have done anything to stop this tragedy. That will continue to be the case when we just try to treat the symptoms.

10/4/2015 11:37:41 AM

but who cares? why does it bother people so much that this could be a catalyst for things that may have an impact on daily gun crime? even if it might not prevent something like this, why is it bad if it becomes a catalyst for beneficial change?

10/4/2015 1:45:18 PM

because it won't do shit and the next time it happens they'll just holler for more gun control

10/4/2015 1:49:18 PM

but it will do shit, it will reduce straw sales



[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM. Reason : you've been brainwashed by the gun lobby, think for yourself]

10/4/2015 1:52:02 PM

I haven't been keeping up with the thread, but do we know when the last straw purchase was linked to a mass shooting?

10/4/2015 2:25:08 PM

Quote :

"because it won't do shit and the next time it happens they'll just holler for more gun control"

This.

Expanded background checks would not have stopped any of these shootings. The only one I can think of that could have been impacted is if NICS was updated appropriately and then the Charleston shooter would not have been able to purchase his gun because it should have shown the felony charge. I did not hear enough about that situation to know it would have prevented it but the takeaway is that expanded background checks would have been worthless in these tragedies.

Say they pass laws with expanded background checks and then another one of these happens, Obama is going to come out and give the same speech and all those in favor of gun control are going to cry that we need to do more. Passing legislation that doesn't even come close to addressing the issue just for the sake of passing something and then expected it to help is laughable. You can say it would help overall gun violence but no one is out in the streets screaming for gun control because a couple of gang banger shoot each other up, mass shootings are the only thing that garner that type of attention from the media and public.

10/4/2015 2:44:07 PM

Let's just make stricter murder laws. That will prevent more murders.

10/4/2015 3:29:53 PM

^^^ no idea, it's one of the main pathways though for illegal guns used in everyday crime

10/4/2015 3:36:03 PM

Quote :

"Australia gun laws do not have a snowballs chance in hell of being passed here."

This is true. Until 2/3rds of Americans realize that the Second Amendment guarantees that gun nuts will run the show in the US, this is going to continue indefinitely. It's a huge cultural problem based on a pretty significant misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

10/4/2015 3:42:38 PM

ahahahaha

10/4/2015 3:59:46 PM

Constitutional scholars ITT

10/4/2015 4:00:03 PM

holy double post.

[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

10/4/2015 4:18:54 PM

Yep, it's definitely a huge cultural problem when less than 1 percent of 1 percent of some random item being used to hurt people means we need to ban every single one of those things or put tighter controls on those things. It's definitely a cultural problem when you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed in a mass shooting, yet we have to do *something*, *ANYTHING* to stop events that are rarer than lightning strikes.

And yes, there is a serious misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but it's the anti-gun-whackos that have the problem. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." That you can't read doesn't mean 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it means. And don't give me this "militia clause" bullshit. That clause is in no way binding on the rest of the sentence. It gives some background, but no part of the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon those arms being used in militia service. The 2nd Amendment could say "Because the moon is made of cheese, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and it would have the exact same meaning as the current one. Now, had it said "The right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of militia service shall not be infringed," then you might have a point. But it doesn't say that. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of sentence.

10/4/2015 4:23:50 PM

The Second Amendment was written so that citizens would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government; not so that people could have unfettered access to handguns and assault weapons. It's cute that you're likening mass shootings to lightning strikes though.

10/4/2015 5:06:12 PM

funny you mention misinterpretations, then throw out the term "assault weapons"

10/4/2015 5:54:08 PM

^^ even huffpo admits the two have about the same odds

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4009112

10/4/2015 6:00:50 PM

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/04/a_final_thought_on_chos_mental.html

About the Virginia Tech Shooter, but relevant.

Quote :

"Forget the Prozac, forget the involuntary commitment (where he was found by the court to be "a danger to himself and others"-- that's standard boilerplate, it is clinically meaningless). Those are red herrings. You may as well blame wearing black t-shirts. He's not mentally ill; he's an adolescent. The difference, the single difference, between us and him is that when we were sulking in high school, we listened to Pink Floyd or U2. He watched Oldboy. We had a battered copy of a Playboy down at the creek under a rock, that was so creased we had to infer the boobs. He had the internet. Maybe we bought a pocket knife, or-- wow-- a butterfly knife. He bought two Glocks. In other words, the difference is this: he decided to shoot 30 people, and you didn't. That's it. I know it's not a satisfying answer, I know we want explanations, but there aren't any. Forget genes, forget DSM. He chose to do something bad, he knew it was bad, but he did it anyway. Don't worry about the mentally ill. Worry about the nut politicians and media outlets who will look to the easy and convenient excuse of mental illness, rather than have to do the hard work of figuring out why our society is melting."

10/4/2015 6:32:10 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/04/students-arrested-shooting-plot/73325610/

10/4/2015 7:28:15 PM

Quote :

"The Second Amendment was written so that citizens would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government; not so that people could have unfettered access to handguns and assault weapons."

Reposted, for all its glorious stupidity

10/4/2015 7:59:14 PM

Quote :

"And don't give me this "militia clause" bullshit. That clause is in no way binding on the rest of the sentence"

10/4/2015 8:02:19 PM

Would you like to show, grammatically, how it matters?

10/4/2015 8:04:41 PM

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In English, typically we begin sentences with subjects, followed by verbs and direct objects (SVO). Given that a "well regulated Militia" is located at the very beginning of the sentence, I'd be willing to wager it has at least something to do with the rest of the sentence. Just because you don't find it relevant doesn't mean it's not grammatically related to the rest of the sentence. There's a reason the meaning of the Second Amendment has been debated and scrutinized to the extent that it has. It's poorly and ambiguously written.

[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2015 8:10:31 PM

So what you're saying is my right to form a militia shall not be infringed. Militias need guns, btw.

lets bust this out for reference as well

Quote :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

this sounds like the President can freely use executive orders to limit freedom of speech, religion, etc, as long as Congress doesn't do it

[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 8:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2015 8:17:00 PM

executive branch =/= legislative branch (and yes, presidents abuse executive orders all the time, although typically not for the sake of violating individual free speech)



[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2015 8:24:03 PM

are you saying SCOTUS is wrong about their interpretation?

10/4/2015 8:36:33 PM

in reality, the interpretation of what was written, or even the spirit of why it was written in the first place, matters very little. until 2/3rds Americans collectively decide that they don't believe that gun ownership should be a constitutional right, nothing is going to change. other first world countries have made that decision and their citizens seem to be OK with it. what is difficult to understand about this?

10/4/2015 8:47:26 PM

Which of those first world countries have something remotely similar in their constitution / founding document(s)? (legit question, I don't know)

Also I think from a national security perspective, we're a lot less likely to be invaded when there's a rifle behind every blade of grass, or whatever that Japanese emperor was all shook about

10/4/2015 9:07:25 PM

Google showed me this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/have_gun_want_to_travel.html

And as far as an invasion, I think we are much less likely to be invaded because we have the strongest military in the world, armed with nuclear weapons if needed; not because so many US citizens own firearms. This is kinda why I think the Second Amendment is a joke today- given the overwhelming might of our military which could just send in bombs, tanks, nukes, etc if they wanted to end a private militia. What good does it really do in protecting us from a tyrannical government that could wipe us off the face of the earth if it wanted to?



[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2015 9:15:04 PM

Quote :

"Given that a "well regulated Militia" is located at the very beginning of the sentence, I'd be willing to wager it has at least something to do with the rest of the sentence. Just because you don't find it relevant doesn't mean it's not grammatically related to the rest of the sentence. There's a reason the meaning of the Second Amendment has been debated and scrutinized to the extent that it has. It's poorly and ambiguously written. "

It does have something to do with the rest of the sentence. It shows their thinking, similar to the long list of "Whereas" clauses frequently seen in laws and resolutions (and we never consider those clauses binding. They are background). It shows why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But that does not mean that it is limited to arms for militia use. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "shall not be infringed." It's as explicit as you can get! You can't infringe upon that right whatsoever!

10/4/2015 9:50:41 PM

Quote :

"But that does not mean that it is limited to arms for militia use."

I never said the Second Amendment is ONLY limited for militia use. All I said was that the Second Amendment was designed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. It was written during a time when muskets and canons were the prevailing weapons of choice. Obviously in 2015, the technology has changed quite a bit. To suggest that the framers intended the Second Amendment to include unfettered access to hand guns and semi-automatic weapons requires a certain wishful type of thinking; it's a popular position parroted by the NRA and gun nuts, who cling to the amendment with unrelenting religious fervor, and sadly, it's what dictates gun policy in America. Any attempt to control guns and keep them out of the hands of crazy, unstable people, and the screaming begins. Absolutely NOTHING will change as long as people treat the Second Amendment as an untouchable, nonnegotiable entity.




[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 10:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2015 10:25:19 PM

Do you think the people who wrote that couldn't have foreseen more powerful weapons? They didn't ban cannons, one of the most powerful weapons of their day. To say "they didn't foresee anything stronger" is first, to assume they were absolutely stupid, and two, to be completely ignorant of the fact that they didn't ban the strongest things they had ever seen. To suggest that the only firearms we have any right to own is limited to the technology available at the end of the 18th century is to also suggest that the only speech we are entitled to is that which was available at the end of the 18th century: letters and newspapers.

The founding fathers had just finished overthrowing a gov't by military force. In what world would you think they wouldn't want the people to have largely the same arms as the gov't which might one day turn against them? If we were to go up against any armed force in the world today with muskets and cannons, it would be a bloodbath. You can't honestly argue that they intended the gov't to acquire newer and newer technologies while the people retained only crude and antiquated weapons.


And I am with you. Nothing will or should change until the 2nd Amendment is reconsidered. It explicitly forbids many of our current gun laws, but we long ago gave up on actually reading the words in the Constitution for what they are. At least we are in agreement on one thing: if you want to change what the gov't is allowed to do regarding gun ownership, you have to modify or remove the 2nd Amendment; and such a discussion needs to actually happen.

10/4/2015 11:20:31 PM

pretty cool T. Jefferson quote:

10/4/2015 11:26:32 PM

As is:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

10/4/2015 11:27:48 PM

Quote :

"Do you think the people who wrote that couldn't have foreseen more powerful weapons?"

No, I agree with the notion that the framers were wise enough to consider advances in technology. The Constitution wasn't a final edition document, and clearly it was intended to be revised and refined over the years. Yet, ironically, by trying to protect citizens from an overbearing government, they created a whole other nightmarish situation: a nation plagued by gun violence. The US has higher gun homicide rates than any other developed nation.

[Edited on October 4, 2015 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2015 11:35:46 PM

^^ gonna need more context with that one, as he's quoting someone else

10/4/2015 11:42:00 PM

Quote :

"I love black pussy brown sugar"

Thomas Jefferson

[Edited on October 5, 2015 at 12:04 AM. Reason : add another note]

10/5/2015 12:03:39 AM

A nation plagued by gun violence? That just so happens to be decreasing, and has been decreasing since the 1990s? A plague of less than 1% of 1% of gun owners?

And why does gun homicide matter as opposed to any other type of homicide? Is it horrific to kill someone with a gun but OK to stab him, poison him, or strangle him? Is a guy any less dead if I run him down in my car or beat him to death with a baseball bat?

Also, it's incredibly dishonest to compare only gun numbers in the US, where guns are largely legal, to gun numbers in other countries, where guns are largely banned. You might as well compare auto accident numbers in the US to auto accident numbers in the jungles of South America among people who have no cars. Based on that, HOLY SHIT, WE HAVE A CAR PROBLEM!!!!

10/5/2015 12:09:18 AM

People think the frequency of everything increases because of the 24 hour news cycle, social media, etc, doing a better job of informing people of things. Therefore people think everything is more of a problem than it used to be, whether or not the frequency of things have actually increased. Because people hear more about the things.

btw, this is a general statement that applies to a lot more than the coverage of mass shootings

[Edited on October 5, 2015 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2015 12:17:07 AM

^Important point!

^^Gun homicide is more problematic because the people rolling around with illegal firearms have a way of taking out 12-year-olds when they do their thing. Meanwhile, twelve year-olds usually don't get stabbed to death by accident. And a group of criminals can't intimidate a community with bags of rat poison.

I thought we were all on the same page that straw sales are bad, and we should try to limit them.

10/5/2015 12:28:13 AM