amazing. you say very simplistic things as a way to dismiss entire aspects of the discourse before I showed up. then, when I call you out for it, you immediately go on the attack against what you perceive my opinions to be. when you get called out for THAT simplistic response, you then demand i engage you in rational discourse and treat you like someone other than the self-admitted asshole you are. when I refuse to do that, you then question my own logic

it must be wonderful to live inside this reality you have created for yourself

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 12:01:42 AM

What would be wrong with doing the following:

Quote :

"To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

12/15/2012 12:05:52 AM

had you come in and said "your ideas are simplistic, but it's not that easy of a problem," that's one thing. But you didn't. You came in and said "you are a simpleton, and I'm not surprised that you are this stupid." Then you complained about a lack of civil and rational discourse. Do you often throw rocks through the windows of your house and then complain about the drafts? I'm not demanding that you engage rationally whatsoever. If you wanna be a jackass, then be one. But don't be a jackass and then complain when someone else isn't engaging in the utmost of respective discourse.

to quote you:

Quote :

"it must be wonderful to live inside this reality you have created for yourself"

^ are you ready to repeal the 2nd amendment to get that? and are you ready for nothing to really change after you do so? If doing all of that costs $500 in doctor's visits and time added to the cost of the weapon, while just buying one out of the back of a truck only costs $150 extra, then how effective would it really be? Obviously my dollar figures are made up, but the point is the same: if the cost of compliance is more than the cost of non-compliance, then how will you ensure compliance?

12/15/2012 12:06:17 AM

dude, read the decision.

12/15/2012 12:06:37 AM

Quote :

"ummm, really? you do understand that putting a massive burden on the exercise of a right is the same as restricting that right, correct? that's why things like poll taxes are illegal."

Unless you are advocating some kind of system wherein guns are given away for free, there will always be a segment of the population that can't afford them. So accepting that there will always be some kind of "burden", you then have to define what constitutes a "massive burden". With affordable healthcare ( ), I don't believe that a series of psychological tests and evaluations would fall under what I'm thinking of as a "massive burden".

Quote :

"and? is it, or is it not a basic right? are you ok with shitting on some rights, so long as it makes you feel safe and cozy inside? which rights do you think are important to protect, and which ones can we throw away? Are you arguing that we should repeal the 2nd amendment?"

For me, the beauty of the Constitution has less to do with the rights that are granted as much as it is the living nature of it that allows us to make changes as the evolution of society and technology necessitate. I don't believe that the right to bear arms is as important and necessary today as it was when the Amendment was written. So the idea of gun ownership as a "basic right" doesn't hold much meaning to me.

Having said that, no, I am not arguing that we should repeal the Second Amendment. I have no problem with guns being used in hunting, self-defense, or even just harmless fun. But I also have no problem with guns being made more difficult to obtain.

Quote :

"Just like doctors in medical marijuana states would never just write random-assed prescriptions for whatever joeblow shows up complaining of a headache."

There would absolutely be people who abuse or work around the system. But I don't think that's a valid argument against. If it were, there would be no laws whatsoever since there will always be people willing to break them.

Quote :

"ahhhh, just those looking to exercise their rights. that means there is nothing wrong with a poll tax, either. it doesn't affect every American, just those who want to vote."

I think the right to bear arms is fundamentally different enough from the right to vote that comparing them like that doesn't work. Voting doesn't cause the death toll that guns do.

12/15/2012 12:08:11 AM

Quote :

"had you come in and said "your ideas are simplistic, but it's not that easy of a problem," that's one thing"

bullshit. your immediate accusation of my unvoiced opinion on gun control shows how frothing at the mouth you are to shit on anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with you. but by all means, make this about me and the language I used in calling out your bullshit all-in on mental health post. i guess i should at least give you credit for not going the way of this gun nut

http://gawker.com/5968680/executive-director-of-gun-owners-of-america-says-armed-teachers-would-have-stopped-newtown-shooting

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 12:15 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 12:10:27 AM

Quote :

"that means there is nothing wrong with a poll tax, eithe"

no, a poll tax is arbitrary. can't have arbitrary restrictions on guns either per the supreme court.

seriously dude, read the decisions and orbiter dicta
(you're trying to frame this in an inaccurate way so your arguments are falling apart)

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 12:15 AM. Reason : dicta dictum]

12/15/2012 12:13:18 AM

Quote :

"Unless you are advocating some kind of system wherein guns are given away for free, there will always be a segment of the population that can't afford them."

Absolutely not. The 2nd amendment does not say "everyone shall be given a gun." It said that people are free to keep and bear arms without any prevention or restriction from the government. That the seller puts a "restriction" of a price is not unconstitutional, as the seller is not the government. With that, I can dismiss outright the rest of your point regarding how much of a burden is acceptable.

Quote :

"For me, the beauty of the Constitution has less to do with the rights that are granted as much as it is the living nature of it that allows us to make changes as the evolution of society and technology necessitate."

Living nature only insomuch as it can be amended. If, by "living nature" you mean "the ability to completely ignore inconvenient parts when needed," then you tread a dangerous path.

Quote :

"I don't believe that the right to bear arms is as important and necessary today as it was when the Amendment was written."

That may be so, yet it is a right that is still specifically protected. If you think that protection should be removed, then by all means, propose an amendment. You can't have it both ways, or else you open the door to ignoring other parts. Why, if we allow the government to ignore this part of the Constitution, should the gov't be obliged to respect any other part?

Quote :

"There would absolutely be people who abuse or work around the system. But I don't think that's a valid argument against."

It's a perfectly valid argument when the purpose of creating the law is to prevent some action, yet the law is easily circumvented. Laws against murder don't exist to prevent murder; they exist to punish those who commit it! That difference is crucial. You are correct that people will always break laws. In fact that only goes to prove my point! The law does not prevent the act, yet you propose using the law to prevent the act.

Quote :

"I think the right to bear arms is fundamentally different enough from the right to vote that comparing them like that doesn't work."

The Constitution, however, makes no distinction between the two. It says neither shall be infringed.

Quote :

"Voting doesn't cause the death toll that guns do."

Tell that to the people of Afghanistan or North Korea. Or, tell that to the victims of drug cartels who are put in their place of power by our voters who choose to make drugs illegal. I would argue that the right to vote is of far greater influence than simply one man with a couple guns.

Quote :

"bullshit. your immediate accusation of my unvoiced opinion on gun control shows how frothing at the mouth you are to shit on anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with you."

dude. you are looking solely at MY reaction and ignoring YOUR action which most certainly provoked the response. If YOU want civility, then it starts WITH YOU. You don't get to go out and insult people, unprovoked, and then have ANY moral standing to request civility, NO MATTER WHAT I DO AFTER THAT.

Quote :

"no, a poll tax is arbitrary. can't have arbitrary restrictions on guns either per the supreme court."

If the Supreme court says that 2+2=5, does that make it so? Whether a restriction is arbitrary or not has no bearing on the fact that it is an infringement if it is put in place by the gov't. That the Supreme Court tries to justify their unConstitutional action does not make it Constitutional. Any restriction on the exercise of a right is an infringement, and if the Constitution says no infringement is allowed, then there's not much argument: it's not allowed! I'm glad that the SC has tried to grab power; it wouldn't be the first time a body of government has tried to do so, and it won't be the last. It doesn't make their decision any less wrong, the same as it doesn't make Separate But Equal any more right.

12/15/2012 12:20:23 AM

looks like this is an aaronburro quote bomb thread now, so peace out

12/15/2012 12:25:00 AM

My letter today sent to the legislative/political arm of the NRA:

I am a long-time firearms enthusiast and relatively recent NRA member. I have had mixed feelings about the NRA for a long time. Combatting intrusive gun control efforts and attacks against our constitutional rights is vital; I view and support the NRA as a civil rights organization just like I do the ACLU. Like the ACLU, however, my mixed feelings are due to a lack of sensibility and fanatical allegiance to ideology and eschewing of pragmatism.

While I strongly agree that gun control in the sense of banning any particular types of firearms is both an intrusion and futile, it is ultimately to our detriment as firearm owners and enthusiasts to be rigidly unwilling to be part of the solution with respect to gun violence. We should be seeking a seat at the table, not just engaging in knee-jerk obstructionism across the board against everything.

For example, the gun show background check loophole should be closed, and the NRA should advance its credibility with the broader population by championing this measure, not opposing it. The same can be said with respect to legislation devoted to keeping firearms away from unstable or mentally ill people.

The NRA is conspicuously silent every time a high-profile shooting occurs. I'm not asking that we concede hard-fought ground that we should rightfully hold, but the NRA is in a unique position to further the goals of societal responsibility with firearms, and doing so would bolster the standing of gun owners, not undermine it. Laying low until the coast is clear for more unbridled obstructionism without drawing the ire and rage of the country is not productive; doing the right thing can only be beneficial and give our side credibility.

My support for the NRA--tenuous to begin with--wanes with the organization's continued refusal to speak out or attempt to help in the aftermath of things going wrong. My support and membership is very much simply opposition to the NRA's political enemies, not support for the NRA. It shouldn't be that way, and I have heard similar frustration with the NRA expressed by even the most die-hard of my firearm-enthusiast friends.



As most of you know, I am very pro-gun, and vehemently oppose attacks on guns, both on ideological and practical grounds. I don't even think that this is really a problem that can be solved (at least not without medicine that's far worse than the disease), but we have got to do something. I think the focus should be on people, not guns. There aren't many really good answers there, either, but any progress to be made will be made from that angle.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ]

12/15/2012 12:31:05 AM

you should be flattered that I used a word as innocuous as "simpleton" in response to a statement that said treating mental health would solve all of our gun problems.

12/15/2012 12:48:16 AM

Has anyone claimed that it would? I certainly haven't.

12/15/2012 1:25:37 AM

So, back to actual gun control....

This guy apparently used guns legally purchased by his mother to kill her and then go on a shooting spree.

What legal measures could have prevented this?

There are things that could probably be done to prevent this from happening at a school, like locking down every school once the day starts and effectively turn schools into prisons, but other than that I don't know how you can prevent this.

Factually speaking, guns exist, there are hundreds of millions of them in the US right now and they don't just decompose, they'll be around for a long time. Short of making it illegal to own them and rounding them up you aren't going to get them out of circulation.

Why not address the mental health issues that are clearly in play in these mass shootings? It won't prevent all of these, but it's certainly something that needs to be looked at.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM. Reason : sdfsa]

12/15/2012 1:28:06 AM

Quote :

"Short of making it illegal to own them and rounding them up you aren't going to get them out of circulation."

you aren't going to get a lot of them out of circulation that way, either.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 1:31 AM. Reason : ]

12/15/2012 1:31:04 AM

Oh, there's no doubt. It hasn't worked in any country they've tried it in. Hell, the gun murder rates are higher now in the UK than they were before they took that action.

12/15/2012 1:33:23 AM

That, and it would never even be discussed here, let alone enacted, and if it somehow was, they'd never find a lot of the guns, and if they did, the resistance against the confiscation would be violent and widespread.

12/15/2012 1:35:15 AM

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The gun death to homicide ratio for the US is insane.



[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM. Reason : T]

12/15/2012 8:15:45 AM

What's wrong with having a mental health database that only mental health professionals have access to? You've been to a doctor before, it goes in there, you try to buy a gun, need a quick check from a doctor, he sees that you have had something in the past and doesn't approve. Seems easy to me, and I don't know why that would infringe on anybody's rights. Obviously it wouldn't stop this crime if they were really the parents guns, but it could help

12/15/2012 8:18:06 AM

The problem with trying to "fix" the person, is that unless they are a danger to themselves or to others (like being explicit with threats), they can only go to a mental institute on a voluntary basis. So, unless this shooter explicitly stated they would do harm to people before this ever happened, the most that could happen is the mother/father/family try and talk to him and convince him to enter treatment.

So the entire idea of better mental health isn't feasibly without forced therapy.

12/15/2012 8:45:34 AM

Most definitely will lead to some sort of mental health check on gun buyers, now. VT compounded with killing a bunch of little children is too much for normal people to tolerate.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 9:04:06 AM

except Lanza didn't buy the guns he used

12/15/2012 9:13:01 AM

Yeah i mentioned that as a huge problem why a database is reactionary security theater

(And Christ, can you all seriously not see why having a health or mental health database is a scary thing that should never be allowed . Fuck police state, you all are willing to simply hand freedoms and privacy away!)

12/15/2012 9:46:28 AM

Doctors already have your medical records on file

12/15/2012 10:19:07 AM

We will not negotiate giving our guns up!

12/15/2012 10:26:27 AM

Also regaurding the UK and gun violence. According to wiki the USA has 2.98 gun homicides per 100,000 people and the UK has .03.

12/15/2012 10:35:14 AM

Part of that is gun laws; part is lots of other factors.

12/15/2012 10:59:52 AM

^^^^ HIPAA

12/15/2012 11:01:43 AM

Quote :

"Why not address the mental health issues that are clearly in play in these mass shootings?"

there have been some measures taken on that front. unfortunately, the NRA made sure that even those with mental health problems can have their guns

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quote :

"part is lots of other factors."

like what. please provide source material

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 11:02:53 AM

Also the overall gun deaths per 100,000 is around 10.

That's alot of people accidentally shooting each other.

12/15/2012 11:13:46 AM

Take the guns away and we're back to the home-made bombs

I'd much rather take my chances with a .223

12/15/2012 11:34:44 AM

it is already illegal in the US for the adjudicated mentally ill to buy a gun from a dealer

the mentally ill account for less than 5% of violent crimes

12/15/2012 11:45:55 AM

^^ rediculous. I could go buy a gun today and walk out with it no problem.

It is much more difficult to get your hands on a bomb that could easily kill 30-40 people in a closed area like a gun would.

12/15/2012 11:51:21 AM

anyone can buy kerosene and fertilizer

12/15/2012 11:52:42 AM

do i have to fill out a ATF form and have a NICS background check done to purchase ^those?

someone drive around a mall parking lot splattering folks or plow into a school bus stop. background checks for cars?

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM. Reason : adsf]

12/15/2012 11:56:54 AM

^^^ I'm gonna assume your kid brother wrote that post before I modify my impression of the man behind that username

12/15/2012 12:04:32 PM

it is amazing how many strawmen and canards people use in an attempt to deflect all attention away from the guns themselves

12/15/2012 12:07:59 PM

Making a bomb and developing a successful plan to kill the masses is a deliberate act. Sure it can be done, but it takes discipline, training, and time.

Gun crimes, on the other hand, are for the most part less deliberate and therefore more passionate in nature. This is why people should support a waiting period for all gun purchases.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM. Reason : j]

12/15/2012 12:09:13 PM

I don't have a problem with a waiting period, but the problem in the most recent shootings was the kids getting their hands on other people's guns. That's a tougher one to find a realistic solution to, but I'm open to a reasonable amount of accountability on the part of the gun owner

12/15/2012 12:22:38 PM

I wonder why the dude's mother thought it was a good idea to keep three guns accessible to her mentally ill son. Maybe there's a way to keep that shit from happening. Education?

12/15/2012 12:39:07 PM

^^Trigger locks? Safe storage? Gun lock in the cloud like metal gear solid 4??

^Obviously you can have laws requiring all sorts of protections, require certifications and training, and have regular licensing. Can become way more bureaucratic about it.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 12:48:28 PM

Quote :

"I wonder why the dude's mother thought it was a good idea to keep three guns accessible to her mentally ill son. Maybe there's a way to keep that shit from happening. Education?"

That is the whole point. If you can somehow limit the number of guns out there (by waiting periods, required training classes and background checks), then you would theoretically have a lower frequency of these catastrophes solely because you are limiting the access to guns, which are the main medium by which these passionate crimes occur.

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 1:01 PM. Reason : z]

12/15/2012 1:01:35 PM

Quote :

"That's a tougher one to find a realistic solution to"

only because the whole "severely limit the ridiculous amount of guns out there" has been lobbied into the realm of unrealistic by the NRA

[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2012 1:04:15 PM

I was thinking more than just legislative actions. How about like public health campaigns? Advertising, public service announcements, etc. Anti-smoking shit is everywhere. The NFL has a whole month for breast cancer. What about "keep your assault weapons locked up" month?

12/15/2012 1:06:21 PM

Every gun advocate has to share some of the blood on their hands at this point. You can't blame the shooter alone because YOU were his accomplice. Its extremely naive to keep selling ammo and letting people buy guns just because guns are on the street. We should be doing everything possible to limit the amount of guns and ammo out there but instead, are doing nothing.

If you are warned about a potential deadly problem and do nothing to prevent it, you are guilty of manslaughter in some cases and negligent in all cases.

12/15/2012 1:08:45 PM

As long as you realize that drastic measures to make people undergo mental health screenings would not have prevented this.

12/15/2012 1:21:23 PM

don't ruin the narrative, guy

12/15/2012 1:27:17 PM

Quote :

"The gun death to homicide ratio for the US is insane. "

Quote :

" Also regaurding the UK and gun violence. According to wiki the USA has 2.98 gun homicides per 100,000 people and the UK has .03."

The problem with statistics like this is that they imply that it's somehow better for people to be killed by something other than a gun. The overall homicide rate between the UK and the US is on the order of 1:5. Gun violence in the US is a symptom of a larger violence problem, not the cause.

12/15/2012 2:28:22 PM

^ Is that adjusted for population. And I hate that argument, it is inherently lazy. "yeah so, uhh, gun control alone will not fix violent crimes, so let's just not bother then."

12/15/2012 2:52:33 PM

Quote :

"But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It’s not politics. It’s logistics."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/12/connecticut_school_shooting_semi_automatic_weapons_and_other_high_speed.html

I'm not against people owning guns for self defense or for hunting, but I don't think semi-automatic weapons are needed for hunting or self defense. Can someone explain what semi-automatic weapons are needed for?

12/15/2012 4:07:51 PM

It's because since the criminals and thugs have semi automatics, then so should everybody else. At least, that is what every card carrying NRA twat will tell you.


Dude, don't you read your constitution? Didn't you catch the part where the founding fathers clearly stated that we could have militarized weapons?


[Edited on December 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM. Reason : still undecided]

12/15/2012 4:13:40 PM