Exactly how I feel. America is like a guy who's waking up every morning with horrible pain in his chest, but the only thing he's wondering is if he should take more or less pain pills. There's nothing wrong with treating the pain that's bothering you today, but for God's sake, invest some time into figuring out what's wrong with your chest. It's disturbing how many people are driven to the point where they believe shooting somebody is their best course of action. That's a society problem. I think America (and Canada, and the West) is far too individual-focused, so we tend to think "oh it's just the criminals - those bad people who decide to do bad things." I think we're all a bunch of glorified lab rats, and when a disturbing pattern of behaviour shows itself over, and over, and over again, it means there's something up with the environment. You can point at each rat that does it and say "Bad rat! You shouldn't do that, idiot!" or you can accept that this is much bigger than a bunch of bad apples independently coming up with the same messed up idea. Of course, I'm much better at complaining about the problem than I am at offering any solutions. But, my rambling "probably watched Fight Club too many times" ideas of things we could at least look at: We evolved socially in communities, where we knew our neighbours and were connected to the people around us. Now we watch sociopaths in suits on TV tell us what we should think about the "strangers" around us. We're raised to believe we're unique snowflakes, with unlimited potential to do anything we put our mind to, and Hollywood shows us that success is being the toughest, smartest, most hot-chick-fuckingest, one who always wins in the end. That's what everyone wants to be, so that's the image everyone projects of themselves on this new social media thing, which further perpetuates the feeling of "fuck, I'm not even close to good enough" that a lot of these young men have. They get angry, and resort to the one thing that they know will get the sociopaths in suits on TV talking about them. (Note: I'm not trying to defend the people who commit these shootings, I just think we're doing ourselves a disservice by dismissing them as simply being pieces of shit. Not because that isn't what they are, but because it implies there isn't a reason, or root cause - they're each just pieces of shit, case closed. I think they're broken human beings who deserve a swift, unceremonious execution, but it's absolutely worth trying to understand what's driving them to do what they do.)
This is the rabbit hole moment. Couple the social structure issues you are talking about with how isolated we as a society have become via social media and the manner in which we form communities (far-flung suburbs, no reliable mass transportation in most areas) and throw in the issue of structural unemployment that will not improve due to off-shoring of labor and technology making vast swaths of the work force redundant and you have some serious issues that extend beyond gun control that won't be solved by gun control. You are talking about a growing population that doesn't interact with each, has no connection with each other and increasingly has less to lose. This marginalization and spread between the haves and the have nots is going to continue to widen absent an actual reformation, gun control won't fix this.
Wow, don't look now, but someone is actually sounding smart in regards to the gun issue during this whole debate: Bernie Sanders going straight to the heart of it and calling out the state of mental healthcare in this country, as well as the difference in attitudes toward guns in rural vs. urban areas. I still have no clue where I'm voting (I've gone on both sides, identify mainly as a libertarian or log cabin republican though). Sanders is really making this interesting.
Sanders is a purebred retard, his view of economics should be laughed at and we should pity him. The rest of them are essentially a bunch of retards running around trying to hit each other with fungo bats. Except for Queen Hillary of course. But it's a good thing Anderson Cooper is a member of the Clinton Foundation, otherwise he might do his job.
Not sure how you can identify as a libertarian and be interested with an outright socialist like Sanders. He doesn't talk like some of the more traditional politicians which makes some of his social stances seem bright and refreshing, but as Juice said, everything from a financial aspect is a mess.
I'm not sure how he can claim to be married with a kid and be a Log Cabin Republican. Let's all remember that there's a huge difference between banning guns and eliminating guns from society, at least in the U.S.
Wouldn't this be a factor now though? All those ingredients are available now aren't they? Why aren't they being utilized in mass killings already? Surely making a bomb/multiple bombs and detonating them in highly public areas is considerably more violent and aggressive than grabbing a rifle and going on a shooting spree... not to mention you have a good chance of causing waaaay more damage, injury and panic with this route... But making a bomb/s requires planning, time, attention to detail etc and that could be the difference between some angry hothead/crazy person actually going through with the act, whereas grabbing a rifle and going on a shooting spree can be much more spur of the moment (not saying some of these killings with guns aren't meticulously planned out but one method definitely lends itself more to the spur of the moment killing spree than the other) I hesitate to make the comparison to Australia, as I know we have very different cultures (not to mention very different public policies that might feed into this), but im going to anyway. We did remove guns and we didnt see a rise in nutters and discontents blowing shit up.... and we do have our fair share of both groups in this country. Not trying to stir shit up here either, i genuinely don't understand the leap you've made from disarmament to mass bombings. Also to note i am a firearms enthusiast and i HATE the gun laws in my country, but i also don't want to go to far the other way and have any idiot able to get a hold of a gun without the relevant training and awareness that you're dealing with a fucking lethal tool. Surely there's some kind of middle ground?
It seems to me that banning the sale and mass-production of new guns in society would be a start. Set up a perpetual buyback program where the money you get for a firearm is tax free. This way, hobbyists get to continue to make their own guns, people who don't want to give up their guns can keep them, and those that want guns can buy them from private sellers. Shit, you don't even need to track private sales because if the gun is used in a crime, it'll be seized. You better believe that if the market dictates your 12 gauge is worth thousands instead of the hundreds it was before, you'd secure it. The sale or gifting of handmade (or 3d printed) weapons, would be capped at a low number per year. These sales would require a license and some kind of identifying mark to trace back to the manufacturer, along with a heavy sales tax. I think that with the gun spigot being turned down to drops, making weapons harder to purchase might incentivize those from not dropping them from a bridge after they've been used in commission of a crime. Which would hopefully mean more arrests of violent criminals. Or if they do toss their weapon, that's one less gun on the street. Yes, there's now a black market, but I would contend that it would be easier to find hidden guns than drugs. If the penalty for gun running is high enough, I would imagine that would act as some sort of deterrent.
Wow, this is just crazy talk. Consider all of the other things our government has tried to control - alcohol, drugs, immigration, etc. Whenever we reduce the supply of something, the price goes up, and the crime surrounding it goes up even more. Has the penalty for running drugs has any effect on the drug trade? The buyback won't work at all. Why would I sell my gun to the gov't for a fractional value of its purchase price, even tax-free, when I could get ten times that amount on the street after your laws are in place? People, seriously. If we're going to talk about gun control laws, let's at least be intellectually honest with the effects of what you propose. Start with the reality that there are at least 300 million privately owned weapons in the U.S., that we know of. Then add in the existence of the 2nd Amendment, which the Supreme Court has already ruled to guarantee an individual right. Finally, and most importantly, add in human nature, and the reactions it drives to any new law proposed. People on here keep saying "Well, let's reduce the number of guns. That'll help," but nobody has put forth a reasonable method for actually doing that.The only way to reduce the number of guns in the U.S. is to ban them outright and make the penalty for possessing them so great that no reasonable person would own one. That's never going to happen in our lifetime.
How about folks just say what gender they actually are instead of what gender they wish they were and everyone avoids all this fucking hassle? Common sense is dead. Fuck. TSA Will No Longer Call Trans Travelers' Body Parts 'Anomalies http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...body-parts-anomalies_561faf1be4b0c5a1ce6229d3
Drug addicts require drugs. Fiends have gone to prison because they would do anything to feed their habit. I'm fairly certain nobody has gone to jail because they pawned their mom's TV to buy a gun. And why wouldn't a buyback work? Just because YOU wouldn't do it doesn't mean nobody else would. I thought I was. By banning the sale of mass-produced firearms, you immediately begin reducing the number of guns into the marketplace. A buyback program reduces that number even further. How does banning the sale of mass produced firearms violate the 2nd Amendment? All I see there is having a regulated militia, keeping guns, and bearing guns. There isn't a thing about the sale of guns. I can't speak to a person's nature. There's responsible gun ownership, and then there's crazies that shoot little kids. Maybe it's because I don't own a gun myself, but I thought I put forth a reasonable method. Was it perfect? No, but at least discussing the merits instead of calling it crazy talk might actually be productive. I'm not a fan of guns, and I doubt I ever will be. I have no problem with law-abiding gun owners who are responsible with them. What I have a problem with is legally purchased guns being used to massacre students and children. You say it's unreasonable for the government to take your guns away, but is it reasonable that I have to worry about me or my family being shot? The more barrels you have, the more places bullets can come out of. By reducing the number of barrels, you reduce the chance of being shot. It's a mathematical fact. Yes, it's drop in the ocean, but anything has to be better than the nothing we have going on right now.
Being concerned about being shot, shot at or having a gun pulled on you (and the ensuing coercion) is not unreasonable in the US. I still think this starts with addressing the violence in our culture. I am reminded of "atheists/gays/niggers/illegal immigrants/Mexicans/etc. all need to be shot" sentiments. That it's somehow ok to murder someone to prove a point is a bigger problem than the easily acquired tools with which to do it. I'm going to venture out here: better mental health would not necessarily prevent mass shootings. These all have been planned, plotted and executed, to some extent or another, by functioning individuals that for whatever reason felt excluded and victimized. I don't think you can add more guidance counselors and therapists and get rid of mass shootings. Better mental health care would make our society a more livable place, but it's a tall order to ask therapists to prevent mass shootings.
If you live in Oklahoma and a tornado touches down, even though it's statistically unlikely your house gets leveled, is it unreasonable to worry about it?
Anything is a dangerous weapon if you try hard enough: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/de...band+office+near+lillooet/11438005/story.html Yep, 11 people injured, one dead, by a dude going on a rampage with a hammer. Happened not too far from where I live. Better lock up the hammers! It's not about guns, it's about mindsets. Not just stereotypical "I hear voices" crazy, but "I've had enough and reached my tipping point" strain and "fuck you I'm a broken, narcicistic human being with an over-developed sense of self-entitlement and I will make you regret ignoring what I said" idiots. It's a societal issue, and I think it's really beginning to show in a number of different ways; the tidal wave of SJW's being insanely offended by anything and everything, the anti-vaxors, etc. Too many people are buying into the concept that their opinion matters, and that everyone must abide by and agree with it, or they will be offended and outraged. But what's the goal here? If you're out to save lives, invest in better driver training, as you'll save way, way more lives with that than you will locking up guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year But of course that's boring, and doesn't make good news and sell advertising. I think people are viewing the "gun problem" as being much bigger than it really is due to the over-sensational way in which it's reported, and because people have a very hard view on that kind of think... much like everything else political in the US right now.
So what happens if you live in a bad part of town? Also, if you're going to take analogies based in reality and take them to their ridiculous conclusion, why haven't we had more heroic gun owners stopping these shootings from happening? Dude, comparing a hammer attack to a shooting is disingenuous and you know it. The only useful purpose a gun has is killing as many things as possible as quickly as possible. Home defense? Hunting? Both of those things have a high probability of ending a life, human or otherwise. If you see some guy wave a hammer around in a mall, security will call the cops and detain him while you tell a snarky story about some dipshit on Facebook. If you wave a gun around a mall? It's the goddamn Running of the Bulls. That is why people have issues with guns. It isn't the gun itself. It's the overwhelming fear that someone can take your life away or the lives of those you love with relative ease and safety. There is literally nothing you can do when a user of a gun has it pointed at your head, except hope they miss. At least with a hammer, you can go down swinging. As to the second part of your post, why do all gun advocates try to point out how X activity is more dangerous than guns and why hasn't that activity been banned or heavily regulated? You know what? You're right. More lives would be saved if people were better trained drivers. But the automatic dismissal of gun control because it wouldn't save enough lives is absurd. Explain to me how saving one life is somehow worse than saving zero. It's as if gun advocates are okay with people being shot until they are given a solution on a silver platter. Speaking of solutions, I can't help but notice nobody is even giving my idea the time of day and just trying to make ridiculous comparisons. Any takers?
Isn't the entire point of concealed carry and self-defence gun ownership that people are afraid of being shot? Isn't that old trope "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" the exact personification of making people paranoid about being shot? Clutch, didn't you say exactly this: and then say that mass shootings are statistical anomalies and so rare no one should worry about them? Presumably, your argument follows that since mass shootings are so rare, someone is more likely to have a negligent discharge on campus with a gun than they are to use it in self-defence during a mass shooting. There's a slight disconnect going on in this thread. Either mass shootings are statistical anomalies and rare and unlikely and unpredictable, or they are not. But it seems that some members here think they are predictable enough to make grand proclamations about the state of mental health care, the problems with this generation's entitlement, culture, what have you, when at the same time think they are far too rare and unpredictable to even consider making a single law based on one. It needs to be one way or the other. If they're rare and unpredictable, then let them be that. But don't let them be too rare and unpredictable for some of your pet causes, but common and predictable enough for your other pet causes.
The issue with your idea is that the "hobbyists" will want (and have always wanted) the same weaponry they see the military and police use. And no one will stand for the mass production of something exclusively for police use without a civilian counterpart. I like the idea from one standpoint, but the lobbyists would kibosh it before it ever made traction and the pro-gun crowds will simply demand what they have always had: the same toys the police/military have. And with our military and police forces the size they are, mass production is simply the only way to equip them. Part of the problem is this mistaken (or frequently misleading) idea that having a gun prevents you from being a victim.
A-fucking-men, When I was growing up I was taught very early that if a number of people have a problem with my actions, I was the fucking problem. Not the rest of the world. My job was to get along with the rest of the world, not them get along with me. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be lost on a lot of people any more. JJ, as far as your proposal of no new guns being manufactured, in a perfect law abiding world, it would work. But where there is money to be made, folks don't care about what is legal. The manufacture of heroin and cocaine is banned, but that doesn't stop it from being made, distributed, and tens of thousands of people dying each year because of it. Look what happened with the Volstead act...the manufacture and sale of alcohol were banned. Criminals got phenomenally rich, crime went through the roof, and God only knows how many more people died then if they'd never outlawed alcohol.
Well would you look at that! Someone actually made an intelligent point. And here I was losing faith in y'all. I've got a suggestion to fix the "gun problem," and I know there's going to be a lot of people who disagree with me, especially if they have never owned a gun themselves, because this is quite a drastic measure: Fix the media instead. Think the whole "black lives matter" thing is a recent problem? That cops, for years, haven't made some poor choices in the line of duty? Nah, it's just every time one fucks up it's getting blasted in your face everywhere you go. Imagine if the media gave the same treatment to drunk drivers that they did to cops? Hell, imagine if they took all that coverage on some rogue country clerk who refused to do her job and instead focused that energy on, say, the problem of "anti vax" parents sending their children to school? Unfortunately, media controls perception for 99.9% of everyone. And perception quickly becomes reality. But media is, thanks to the current for-profit model, going to be biased because they have to please their sponsors (who you can easily argue are like lobbyists). Want to fix the gun problem? How about asking the media to focus on the actual problems instead of the problems that get them the most clicks and viewers. Except you'll have to convince the advertisers of that first.
Why isn't this story plastered all over the news? This guy is a huge hero and his story is buried. Shameful. Illinois Army vet, 75, saves 16 kids from knife-wielding teen reportedly plotting mass murder http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/1...fe-wielding-teen-plotting-mass/?intcmp=hplnws