Never let a tragedy go to waste.

[Jimbo]

Woman buys guns for self-protection because she lives in a big house after her divorce.

Son uses her guns to kill 20 1st graders.

Something needs to be done. If the guy didn't have access to guns none of this would have happened.

The thing is Ravi....if men didn't have access to their dicks then there wouldn't be any rapes...

I'm extremely pro 2nd amendment but a lot of the psychosis and paranoia from ardent gun owners was bizarre to me until I read this sentence. No wonder why you people are so paranoid they're going to take your guns, you're using them as a male substitute. I'd be worried too if I thought the government was coming to take my penis.

Good job I don't live in the US then I suppose....I'm not paranoid about guns etc..but obviously some on here are...I'm sure if your government OR ours could come and take our dicks from us then they would. Especially if they could get something out of it....
Take my guns etc. from me and I'll just use whatever i can get my hands on to protect myself, a piece of wood, bricks, lumps of concrete...Ah, the list is endless...
Let's ban building sites, tree planting, fencing contractors etc. etc......
You see, it becomes stupid...where do you stop?
Criminalizing guns will stop NOTHING because killers DON'T obey the law...That's why they're called "criminals"...Get it?

 

[bobcollum]

That shit head kid wasn't a criminal until he became one, get it?

 

[Jimbo]

That shit head kid wasn't a criminal until he became one, get it?

Keep your hair on sugar....Wouldn't want you to blow a gasket or something
If you could read a post properly instead of letting your anti everything side rule your brain cell then you would understand what I am trying to say..He might not have been a criminal, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.....GET IT? Try to look further than the nose on your face....

 

[Katzndogz]

The guns are not at fault. Accepting and excusing away insanity is what's at fault.

 

[bobcollum]

That shit head kid wasn't a criminal until he became one, get it?

Keep your hair on sugar....Wouldn't want you to blow a gasket or something
If you could read a post properly instead of letting your anti everything side rule your brain cell then you would understand what I am trying to say..He might not have been a criminal, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.....GET IT? Try to look further than the nose on your face....

Why so many 's?

I don't think this situation is very funny.

I understand what you're trying to say, it's just that it's moronic. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows when to say when.

You probably thought allowing gays to marry would lead to us marrying cows and pigs, eh?

 

[tjvh]

Sensible oversight of who purchases weapons needs to be discussed. Pros and cons weighed and then a decision can be made.

On a side note I've noticed that many of these mass shooting are done by VERY young adult males with possible mental issues. That should also be a part of the discussion.

Ok Gramps, if someone feels gun control does need to be discussed... Perhaps we can have the discussion when people aren't emotional, when there isn't a tragedy fueling the discussion... When emotions are not running high and fueling the discussion is the only time things like gun control should be discussed, if some feel the need to discuss it in the first place... Because that is the only time it can be discussed rationally.

 

[Jimbo]

Sensible oversight of who purchases weapons needs to be discussed. Pros and cons weighed and then a decision can be made.

On a side note I've noticed that many of these mass shooting are done by VERY young adult males with possible mental issues. That should also be a part of the discussion.

Ok Gramps, if someone feels gun control does need to be discussed... Perhaps we can have the discussion when people aren't emotional, when there isn't a tragedy fueling the discussion... When emotions are not running high and fueling the discussion is the only time things like gun control should be discussed, if some feel the need to discuss it in the first place... Because that is the only time it can be discussed rationally.

Ah, a bit of common sense and clarity Well said
Oh, Bob....Nobody here is thinking this is funny so please stop trying to twist things around mate...it does you little or no credit

 

[Jimbo]

That shit head kid wasn't a criminal until he became one, get it?

Keep your hair on sugar....Wouldn't want you to blow a gasket or something
If you could read a post properly instead of letting your anti everything side rule your brain cell then you would understand what I am trying to say..He might not have been a criminal, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.....GET IT? Try to look further than the nose on your face....

Why so many 's?

I don't think this situation is very funny.

I understand what you're trying to say, it's just that it's moronic. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows when to say when.

You probably thought allowing gays to marry would lead to us marrying cows and pigs, eh?

Well, if you're a Liberal Progressive then I've no doubt that sooner or later you will legalize bestiality so that it doesn't discriminate

 

[bobcollum]

Keep your hair on sugar....Wouldn't want you to blow a gasket or something
If you could read a post properly instead of letting your anti everything side rule your brain cell then you would understand what I am trying to say..He might not have been a criminal, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.....GET IT? Try to look further than the nose on your face....

Why so many 's?

I don't think this situation is very funny.

I understand what you're trying to say, it's just that it's moronic. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows when to say when.

You probably thought allowing gays to marry would lead to us marrying cows and pigs, eh?

Well, if you're a Liberal Progressive then I've no doubt that sooner or later you will legalize bestiality so that it doesn't discriminate

Again, you're laughing. It's beginning to look creepy.

You keep taking the low road, and continue to use baseless strawmen as your talking points. It really makes you look intelligent.

 

[Jimbo]

Why so many 's?

I don't think this situation is very funny.

I understand what you're trying to say, it's just that it's moronic. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows when to say when.

You probably thought allowing gays to marry would lead to us marrying cows and pigs, eh?

Well, if you're a Liberal Progressive then I've no doubt that sooner or later you will legalize bestiality so that it doesn't discriminate

Again, you're laughing. It's beginning to look creepy.

You keep taking the low road, and continue to use baseless strawmen as your talking points. It really makes you look intelligent.

So you make make assumptions about what I would think about "gay marriage" for no reason whatsoever...Yet I'm the one taking the low road?....Now that's typical Left Liberal logic...You make the assumption and throw the blame at someone else... Thought I'd add some laughter just to creep you out

 

[bobcollum]

Well, if you're a Liberal Progressive then I've no doubt that sooner or later you will legalize bestiality so that it doesn't discriminate

Again, you're laughing. It's beginning to look creepy.

You keep taking the low road, and continue to use baseless strawmen as your talking points. It really makes you look intelligent.

So you make make assumptions about what I would think about "gay marriage" for no reason whatsoever...Yet I'm the one taking the low road?....Now that's typical Left Liberal logic...You make the assumption and throw the blame at someone else... Thought I'd add some laughter just to creep you out

It was an analogy, based on your sliding scale of probabilities of all the things that would get banned after guns. It's actually quite comparable in the realm of ridiculousness.

 

[Pogo]

Woman buys guns for self-protection because she lives in a big house after her divorce.

Son uses her guns to kill 20 1st graders.

Something needs to be done. If the guy didn't have access to guns none of this would have happened.

What some of you keep missing in this short succinct sum-up is that the point where things initially went awry is not the second line above, but in the first. It's not the criminal mind and it's not the fact that guns exist that open Pandora's Box; it's the flawed thinking that "guns are for protection" and that "the answer to the threat of gun violence is more threat of gun violence until (s)he who can wield the greatest threat of violence wins".

The thing is Ravi....if men didn't have access to their dicks then there wouldn't be any rapes...Sorry, but that's the sort of logic that comes across here..
You have to realize that when a person is intent on killing then "nothing" short of getting them first will stop it...Over here in the UK all guns have to be securely locked in a steel cabinet when not in use...Each cabinet has 2 different keys and they have to be kept in a safe place...Nothing is 100% secure though and as has been stated here, you don't need a gun to kill people AND you most certainly won't stop criminals from obtaining them no matter WHAT laws you enact...

The error here is the assumption that crimes like this follow a logical progression, i.e. the perp first decided to kill people and second chose guns to do it. That's trying to ascribe a rational thought process to an irrational act. In reality, just as we took pains to explain in the Jovan Belcher incident (which you'll remember from two shootings ago this month), irrational emotional meltdowns don't work that way. Rage does not follow a logic -- it follows rage.

The goal here (and in Portland, and Minneapolis and Oak Creek and Aurora and Virginia Tech and Lancaster County and Columbine, etc etc ad nauseum) was not murder per se, it was carnage. It was the drama of literal blood and guts and horror; exactly the stuff you don't get from slipping a poison or wielding a knife or running somebody down with a car. Those don't give the payoff of a room full of bloodletting victims running for cover in terror. At base this is not about murder; it's about power --just as rape is not about sex. Murder can be done with any number of instruments. But for carnage, you use guns. The perp is not going after people's lives; he's going after their fear. He feeds not so much on death as on the helplessness in their eyes when faced with a barrage of bullets.

Sure, any of us could choose to kill random people with, say, a car. It would be easy: a tilt of the steering wheel and a pump on the accelerator -- done. And cars are more plentiful and accessible than guns, and given a group of assembled multitudes you could do plenty of damage in one fell swoop. So why don't we hear of people running down crowds of people all the time?

Because it doesn't pay off with the carnage. And more to the root it doesn't satiate the warlike bloodthirst that's been ingrained in us through the movies, any evening's TV cop shows, video games, all the way back to the water pistols we got for Christmas when we were five. Only a gun will give you the overwhelming power to inflict systematic terror complete with horrific splashes of red, from a safe perch. We know that because the movies, and the news, and the video games, and the television, and the Dirty Harry icons and the Star Trek phasers and the GI Joe toy companies make sure we know that. We are told from birth that might makes right, that all things are solved with a gun, that the answer to a gun is two other guns, and that those with the most guns win. That is what we mean by the term "gun culture".

Events like Newtown and its self-feeding precedents demonstrate the fatal fallacy of that thinking and what it inevitably leads to. And as long as we keep fetishizing guns, the carnage will continue.