Can we ignore the partisan bickering and discuss mass murder?

[Politico]

There have always been people who kill and there always will be. That's just the way it is. And they do it for varying reasons. The only interest I have in them is elimination not understanding.

 

[Peach]

The accused had many many HOMEMADE hand grenades, perhaps he feared they would malfunction. Still, firearms were not his only weapons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There have always been people who kill and there always will be. That's just the way it is. And they do it for varying reasons. The only interest I have in them is elimination not understanding.

I want to understand them so that they can be identified BEFORE they kill people, if at all possible. And if they're salvageable at that point - ie. they have mental problems that could be treated - that would be nice, too.

 

[MuadDib]

Yeah, I know that Hollywood westerns don't portray life as it actually was. I also know that I was employing a lot of hyperbole. But I am reading post after post about how nothing will work. So, what is the solution then? Is it just tough shit for the victims? Can we not reasonably expect to be safe in public settings? We should all be packing heat? We should just accept that there are predators and murderers among us and to always be wary and paranoid?

No one said, "Nothing will work." We're saying YOUR stupid approach of blaming the tools and trying to turn the world into a Romper Room set, where all the edges are padded and there's nothing more dangerous than safety scissors, won't work. And it won't.

If you utopian fainting flowers on the left would stop screaming, "Ban all guns, and then we'll be safe!" for five minutes, we might have a chance to discover the REAL causes of the problem and look for solutions to them.

But I will tell you right now that, to a certain extent, it IS going to be "just tough shit" for some people once in a while, because you are NEVER, EVER going to remove all violence from humanity or make the world entirely safe. And trying to make laws to counteract nature is like trying to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.

I haven't called for banning guns. I do think there should be reasonable restrictions. Now you are the one employing lots of hyperbole. We aren't trying to turn the world into "Romper Room." Nobody is screaming except for you gun nutters on the right "don't take my guns!" "...cold, dead hands!" "guns don't kill people!" For all your screaming, I haven't heard any solutions, nor have I heard anybody on the right proposing any solutions. Just a lot of hunker down, buy more ammo, 2nd amendment rhetoric. So what is the right wing solution? Kill everyone and let God sort it out?

There already are reasonable restrictions. Anything else becomes unreasonable.

Unless you start grabbing guns, get a crystal ball, or make thought a crime, there's not much that can be done without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category.

 

[Borillar]

No one said, "Nothing will work." We're saying YOUR stupid approach of blaming the tools and trying to turn the world into a Romper Room set, where all the edges are padded and there's nothing more dangerous than safety scissors, won't work. And it won't.

If you utopian fainting flowers on the left would stop screaming, "Ban all guns, and then we'll be safe!" for five minutes, we might have a chance to discover the REAL causes of the problem and look for solutions to them.

But I will tell you right now that, to a certain extent, it IS going to be "just tough shit" for some people once in a while, because you are NEVER, EVER going to remove all violence from humanity or make the world entirely safe. And trying to make laws to counteract nature is like trying to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.

I haven't called for banning guns. I do think there should be reasonable restrictions. Now you are the one employing lots of hyperbole. We aren't trying to turn the world into "Romper Room." Nobody is screaming except for you gun nutters on the right "don't take my guns!" "...cold, dead hands!" "guns don't kill people!" For all your screaming, I haven't heard any solutions, nor have I heard anybody on the right proposing any solutions. Just a lot of hunker down, buy more ammo, 2nd amendment rhetoric. So what is the right wing solution? Kill everyone and let God sort it out?

There already are reasonable restrictions. Anything else becomes unreasonable.

Unless you start grabbing guns, get a crystal ball, or make thought a crime, there's not much that can be done without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category.

I think that what you may view as reasonable restrictions are very lax compared to what others have in mind. In a continuum from outright ban on firearms all the way to pretty much anything goes, the US is pretty close to the anything goes side of things. I know that banning sale of military style semiautomatic weapons is too much to ask. Would banning 100 round drum magazines be too big an imposition? Make the perp stop to reload after 10 -20 rounds? Maybe give enough time for someone to stop him or get away?

 

[MuadDib]

I haven't called for banning guns. I do think there should be reasonable restrictions. Now you are the one employing lots of hyperbole. We aren't trying to turn the world into "Romper Room." Nobody is screaming except for you gun nutters on the right "don't take my guns!" "...cold, dead hands!" "guns don't kill people!" For all your screaming, I haven't heard any solutions, nor have I heard anybody on the right proposing any solutions. Just a lot of hunker down, buy more ammo, 2nd amendment rhetoric. So what is the right wing solution? Kill everyone and let God sort it out?

There already are reasonable restrictions. Anything else becomes unreasonable.

Unless you start grabbing guns, get a crystal ball, or make thought a crime, there's not much that can be done without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category.

I think that what you may view as reasonable restrictions are very lax compared to what others have in mind. In a continuum from outright ban on firearms all the way to pretty much anything goes, the US is pretty close to the anything goes side of things. I know that banning sale of military style semiautomatic weapons is too much to ask. Would banning 100 round drum magazines be too big an imposition? Make the perp stop to reload after 10 -20 rounds? Maybe give enough time for someone to stop him or get away?

If you knew anything of what you're talking about, you'd know that his 100 round magazine probably saved some lives.

Say what, you ask?

Those high capacity mags don't work all that well. They're more proned to jam. His did. That's why he stopped firing and went outside: to clear the jam.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The gun is a tool, it is not the motive.

As long as we don't address what causes people to kill on a large scale, they will continue.

Is it culture? Is it movies and TV? Is it bad parenting? Is it a series of emotional and environmental triggers?

Discuss.

Culture?

Probably not, it happens in multiple cultures. It also happened before movies and TV, so I wouldn't bet on them either. Maybe someday some really smart guy will go into psychology and actually figure out what causes people to snap, until them we just have to deal with the mess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not like you guys can..I think.

Any mention of any restriction on access to guns is met with harsh, absolutist and ridiculous resistance.

So much so..Democrats have mainly given up on gun control.

What do you want to restrict access to? Assault weapons? What is an assault weapon? Large magazines? That 100 round magazine Holmes was using jammed. Anyone that knows anything about guns knows that extended magazines jam more often than regular magazines, which is why the military does not use them. If Holmes knew what he was doing he would have stuck with the shotgun and probably killed more people, do you want to ban pump action shotguns? Anything that is capable of firing more than one round without reloading? All guns? Will you go on to ban knives next, like they are in England? Then stones?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The social history of the US is that we are, and were, turned into a violent society and we like it.

So?

 

[Borillar]

There already are reasonable restrictions. Anything else becomes unreasonable.

Unless you start grabbing guns, get a crystal ball, or make thought a crime, there's not much that can be done without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category.

I think that what you may view as reasonable restrictions are very lax compared to what others have in mind. In a continuum from outright ban on firearms all the way to pretty much anything goes, the US is pretty close to the anything goes side of things. I know that banning sale of military style semiautomatic weapons is too much to ask. Would banning 100 round drum magazines be too big an imposition? Make the perp stop to reload after 10 -20 rounds? Maybe give enough time for someone to stop him or get away?

If you knew anything of what you're talking about, you'd know that his 100 round magazine probably saved some lives.

Say what, you ask?

Those high capacity mags don't work all that well. They're more proned to jam. His did. That's why he stopped firing and went outside: to clear the jam.

When did it jam? After he had shot 70 people?

 

[Big Black Dog]

The gun is a tool, it is not the motive.

As long as we don't address what causes people to kill on a large scale, they will continue.

Is it culture? Is it movies and TV? Is it bad parenting? Is it a series of emotional and environmental triggers?

Discuss.

Some people simply have no regard for the value of human life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I haven't called for banning guns. I do think there should be reasonable restrictions. Now you are the one employing lots of hyperbole. We aren't trying to turn the world into "Romper Room." Nobody is screaming except for you gun nutters on the right "don't take my guns!" "...cold, dead hands!" "guns don't kill people!" For all your screaming, I haven't heard any solutions, nor have I heard anybody on the right proposing any solutions. Just a lot of hunker down, buy more ammo, 2nd amendment rhetoric. So what is the right wing solution? Kill everyone and let God sort it out?

There already are reasonable restrictions. Anything else becomes unreasonable.

Unless you start grabbing guns, get a crystal ball, or make thought a crime, there's not much that can be done without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category.

I think that what you may view as reasonable restrictions are very lax compared to what others have in mind. In a continuum from outright ban on firearms all the way to pretty much anything goes, the US is pretty close to the anything goes side of things. I know that banning sale of military style semiautomatic weapons is too much to ask. Would banning 100 round drum magazines be too big an imposition? Make the perp stop to reload after 10 -20 rounds? Maybe give enough time for someone to stop him or get away?

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what your idea of "reasonable restrictions" are. Are you planning to tell us, or do I need to get out a crystal ball and read your "mind"?

I'm going to pretend you're not serious about "just kill people a little slower", and that you have a REAL suggestion to make.

 

[Borillar]

There already are reasonable restrictions. Anything else becomes unreasonable.

Unless you start grabbing guns, get a crystal ball, or make thought a crime, there's not much that can be done without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun owners fall into that category.

I think that what you may view as reasonable restrictions are very lax compared to what others have in mind. In a continuum from outright ban on firearms all the way to pretty much anything goes, the US is pretty close to the anything goes side of things. I know that banning sale of military style semiautomatic weapons is too much to ask. Would banning 100 round drum magazines be too big an imposition? Make the perp stop to reload after 10 -20 rounds? Maybe give enough time for someone to stop him or get away?

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what your idea of "reasonable restrictions" are. Are you planning to tell us, or do I need to get out a crystal ball and read your "mind"?

I'm going to pretend you're not serious about "just kill people a little slower", and that you have a REAL suggestion to make.

Well, my ideas about gun control are about as likely to come about as the Vikings ever winning the Super Bowl. They would never fly with the NRA, doomsday preppers, and aficionados of shiny instruments of death so prevalent on the right. Note that I'd have to turn in a couple of my rifles if these ideas became law.

My idea of reasonable gun control?
1) Automatic and semiautomatic rifles and pistols restricted to military, LEO, state militias (well regulated militia)
2) Bolt action, lever action, pump action repeating rifles and shotguns, revolvers allowed for personal use. Ammo capacity 10 rounds or less. Single shot weapons allowed.
3) Safety classes required.
4) Liability insurance required.
5) License required.
6) Background screening required.
7) Registration of all firearms required.
8) Ballistics "fingerprinting" of all firearms in a national database.

So there it is. My "real" suggestions. So, does anyone on the right have anything to propose?