So tired of gun violence...

[ZacharyObama]

It's time for some real gun control in this country.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Wow. That's crazy. I wasn't watching the news today but I turned it on as soon as I saw this thread. I know it's not as serious as this event, but my university had 2 gun lockdowns in the past 2 weeks alone. One was the first day of Finals when a student had a gun put to his head and was robbed on campus. Students had to lock themselves in their classrooms for over 3 hours. But this story today is unbelievable. A 24 year old son of a kindergarten teacher. Wow.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

One of the reports says Ryan Lanza, older brother of the shooter, said his brother Adam, the shooter, has autism. It still hasn't been verified. It will be interesting to see how the media handles this--if they will villianize an autistic.

[ZacharyObama]

Why would the media "villianize an autistic" ? I think autism has very little to do with the fact that this individual was able to obtain lethal fucking weapons and then carry out a massacre. I find it sad that you think this is the pertinent issue.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I didn't say it was pertinent. I just said it'll be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out. It's still probably the most disgusting tragedy of my lifetime. I also think this is only one element of gun rights. You could still argue that criminals will get guns regardless and people in crime-ridden cities still deserve the right to be able to protect themselves. School shootings happen. It sucks. But I wouldn't say it's 100% reason for banning access to guns. But that's a whole other issue in itself.

[ZacharyObama]

No one is talking about "banning access to guns." They are talking about common sense gun control measures like those in Western Europe where gun violence is a fraction of what it is the US.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

No one is talking about "banning access to guns." They are talking about common sense gun control measures like those in Western Europe where gun violence is a fraction of what it is the US.

I don't know too much about the common sense gun laws. I've read some things saying it entails banning access to guns like AK47s, having a limit to the number of guns you can own, limit to amount of ammunition. I agree with that. I just don't see how today's tragedy could have been avoided if these laws were in place. The shooter only used 2 handguns that were registered to his mother, an apparently perfectly sane law biding citizen. I'm sure the Aurora movie theater massacre could have been prevented or limited, but I don't know about today's massacre. I haven't read too much about common sense gun laws though so I may be wrong. I have heard people argue that no one should be allowed to own a weapon (besides military and law enforcement), and that I definitely do not agree with.

[ZacharyObama]

We don't know enough details for me to be specific...you should review what other Westernized countries do - use the wikipedia for a start.

[Mandalpaca]

I have to agree -there's something wrong when there's more laws to get a license to drive than to buy a firearm. There's been several videos posted that show people being able to walk into a gun store and walk right out with a gun. How is this ok?

[ANDS!]

It's time for some real gun control in this country.

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.

No one is talking about "banning access to guns."

Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.

I have to agree -there's something wrong when there's more laws to get a license to drive than to buy a firearm.

What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

[comp12]

I appreciate the value of having opposing views for balance, but I feel that you might be simply attempting to play devil's advocate here, instead of engaging in productive conversation. The fact that it happened in such a safe, affluent town is exactly part of why this has generated so much coverage (along with thr fact the victims were small children) . That only makes action more sensible, that this could happen anywhere and we need to prevent future ones. And I don't know why you are implying that gun-control supporters DO want to ban access. All of the intelligent gun-control supporters recognize that simple solution would not be perfect, but rather a series of steps such us more rigid regulation, tighter enforcement of sells, disarmment through incentivized buy back of weapons, better mental health care and awareness, all compounding to hopefully one day lead to a perfect world where we then can have the ability to ban guns altogether if we democratically wish.

Never mind that this happened in a state with one of the lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. But yes let's jump right to the "Oh it's TOO easy to buy a gun!" Completely ignoring the fact that some of the guns obtained belonged to his mother.

Just like efforts in the South to limit abortions or requiring women to view photos of the fetus are in NO WAY meant to "ban access to abortions." Oh of course not.

What are you going on about? It takes what, a driving test and an eye exam to get a license?

Edited December 16, 2012 by comp12

[Mandalpaca]

Beautifully said comp12.

[Allouette]

Relatedly, this is a beautiful, powerful piece addressing the (arguably more pressing) issue of mental health care and awareness: http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Relatedly, this is a beautiful, powerful piece addressing the (arguably more pressing) issue of mental health care and awareness: http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

Wow. What a powerful story. It's true. Even if these mothers came out months or years before these incidents saying they were afraid their child was a monster, I doubt the system would really do anything about it. Especially the line where she said, "No mother wants to send a 13 year old boy genius who loves Harry Potter to jail." The instant jump to "we need better gun control" after incidents like this does annoy me. It's usually not so simple. It's funny how the media is talking about all the guns Adam Lanza's mother owned when it isn't even relevant--he only used two handguns to kill everyone. Gun control couldn't have prevented that. Anyway, everyone should read this article. It's very powerful. Also, it points to bigger issues than simple common sense gun control laws.

Anyway, after events like this, people always want to say, "The parents must have known something was wrong. Why didn't the parents do anything?" Well, usually the parents did know, and you'll see they spent years trying to get their kid on medicine and into therapy. There's only so much that can be done. There are probably thousands of parents out there today fearing that their kid could be the next one to commit an act like this. It will happen again. It's bigger than gun control.

Edited December 16, 2012 by JoeyBoy718

[comp12]

It is bigger than gun control, but gun control IS a big part of it. Other countries struggle with mental health issues too. But when they take away guns, their murder sprees decreased light and day.

[comp12]

The instant jump to "we need better gun control" after incidents like this does annoy me.

The instant jump does not annoy me. That's because serious action is ALREADY long overdue. Even if such reactions are so "instant," it is still too late. It's not about This or that specific case, it's about the big epidemic, and preventing it from happening in the future, which might just happen to you or someone you love.

[1Q84]

The instant jump does not annoy me. That's because serious action is ALREADY long overdue. Even if such reactions are so "instant," it is still too late. It's not about This or that specific case, it's about the big epidemic, and preventing it from happening in the future, which might just happen to you or someone you love.

Seriously. I mean is it about time that pro-gun control people can speak freely and not be labelled whiny, bleeding-heart liberals? Because I think it would take a real unfeeling or unhinged American now to deny that weapons ownership needs to be fiercely restricted if not outright banned (but yeah I know... baby steps). Shame that 20 children had to die for that that to occur; I think maybe that should have happened after Columbine, in which case maybe Virginia Tech and onwards could have been prevented or diminished in severity.

[ANDS!]

but I feel that you might be simply attempting to play devil's advocate here, instead of engaging in productive conversation.

Oh bollocks. There is no "productive conversation" going on here. You just have whinging about "gun control. . ." which a first year Poli Sci undergrad can do. "Gun control" is a buzz-word with no real substance behind . No one actually equivocates what they mean by "gun control" (other than to repeat policies that ALREADY EXIST) and just assumes everyone will nod their heads and say "Yup yup I agree".

As I already mentioned (and had been previously mentioned and brushed over) the guns involved were not bought spur of the moment, nor did this happen in a hotbed of gun ownership or even at a period of heavy gun ownership (which - oh my stars and garters - is going DOWN). Your thesis does nothing to address these seemingly contradictory narratives, and you've simply fallen back on "Oh my god lets talk about guns!"

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Seriously. I mean is it about time that pro-gun control people can speak freely and not be labelled whiny, bleeding-heart liberals? Because I think it would take a real unfeeling or unhinged American now to deny that weapons ownership needs to be fiercely restricted if not outright banned (but yeah I know... baby steps). Shame that 20 children had to die for that that to occur; I think maybe that should have happened after Columbine, in which case maybe Virginia Tech and onwards could have been prevented or diminished in severity.

So you don't want to be labeled as a "whiny, bleeding-heart liberal" for being in favor of stricter gun control, but it's okay to label people not in favor of "fiercely restricted if not outright banned" gun control as "a real unfeeling or unhinged American?" So basically, if someone doesn't advocate full banning of guns, they have no feeling. Okay.

[rising_star]

I'm just going to share two op-eds I read today that I think provide some perspective:

The first is by Gail Collins: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/collins-looking-for-america.html

Towards the end, she writes: "We will undoubtedly have arguments about whether tougher regulation on gun sales or extra bullet capacity would have made a difference in Connecticut. In a way it doesn’t matter. America needs to tackle gun violence because we need to redefine who we are. We have come to regard ourselves — and the world has come to regard us — as a country that’s so gun happy that the right to traffic freely in the most obscene quantities of weapons is regarded as far more precious than an American’s right to health care or a good education.

We have to make ourselves better. Otherwise, the story from Connecticut is too unspeakable to bear."

The second by Nicholas D. Kristof:

He opens with this question: "IN the harrowing aftermath of the school shooting in Connecticut, one thought wells in my mind: Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?"

Towards the end, he writes, "For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s."

Just some food for thought.

[1Q84]

So you don't want to be labeled as a "whiny, bleeding-heart liberal" for being in favor of stricter gun control, but it's okay to label people not in favor of "fiercely restricted if not outright banned" gun control as "a real unfeeling or unhinged American?" So basically, if someone doesn't advocate full banning of guns, they have no feeling. Okay.

Well, you quoted my words but then asked a question about a conclusion that I didn't state in the end so... I'm not sure which question I'm supposed to answer.

But the second op-ed that rising_star posted pretty much hits the nail on the head. Regulate guns like you regulate anything else in this world. It's anachronistic and bizarrely out of step to defend the 2nd Amendment so ardently in the 21st century.

We had a horrendous school shooting incident in Canada in the 80s and the immediate fallout was Bill-C68, which heavily restricted buying and owning guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

It's really not that difficult if people are willing to be rational about the constitution.

Anyway, I know the whole issue doesn't revolve around gun control itself and it's more of a societal issue but the point is that restricting gun ownership and ease of purchase is a piece of the puzzle and it is (as it should have been many years ago) impossible to argue against.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Well, you quoted my words but then asked a question about a conclusion that I didn't state in the end so... I'm not sure which question I'm supposed to answer.

But the second op-ed that rising_star posted pretty much hits the nail on the head. Regulate guns like you regulate anything else in this world. It's anachronistic and bizarrely out of step to defend the 2nd Amendment so ardently in the 21st century.

We had a horrendous school shooting incident in Canada in the 80s and the immediate fallout was Bill-C68, which heavily restricted buying and owning guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

It's really not that difficult if people are willing to be rational about the constitution.

Anyway, I know the whole issue doesn't revolve around gun control itself and it's more of a societal issue but the point is that restricting gun ownership and ease of purchase is a piece of the puzzle and it is (as it should have been many years ago) impossible to argue against.

My question was simple. You don't want to be labeled as X for being in favor of something, but it's okay to label people as Y for being against it? And I don't think guns should be outright banned, but I don't think that makes me an American with no feeling. It's also not impossible to argue against if people argue against it. You don't have to unlike my post and comment on it saying you don't like it--one or the other will do.

Edited December 17, 2012 by JoeyBoy718

[comp12]

I think what's gotten lost in between all this back-and-force dueling between Internet machos, is that I've still yet to read any single rational or intelligent argument in support of upholding this country's currently lax gun laws.

Edited December 17, 2012 by comp12

[Two Espressos]

Mass shootings will continue to happen unabated in the United States until we're willing to seriously evaluate our gun culture. Why is it that so many people fight more for their right to own ridiculous and unnecessary weapons, like assault rifles, than for the right to health care or education? There are people in this country who seem to be more concerned about restricting speech they dislike than restricting the harrowing gun violence in the U.S.

[iowaguy]

We had a horrendous school shooting incident in Canada in the 80s and the immediate fallout was Bill-C68, which heavily restricted buying and owning guns. http://en.wikipedia....hnique_massacre

Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine"?

I'm glad you brought up Canadian gun ownership. If access to guns is the "cause" of these sorts of crimes, why is the per-capita murder rate with firearms (United Nations data, have to divide by population to get per-capita) in the U.S. 7 times higher than in Canada, when the per-capita gun ownership (2007 Small Arms Survey) is only 3 times higher?

IMHO restricting gun ownership (who can own guns and what types of guns they can own) is certainly a piece of the puzzle. But the problem is much larger than simply taking away guns. For example, when I lived in Mexico and Venezuela, gun ownership by the "average Joe" was prohibited. Therefore, in those countries only the criminals and law enforcement have guns... Have you ever taken a stroll through Caracas or Mexico City? And, as the United Kingdom has proven, if you take away guns people will start killing each other with knives instead...