As long as the 800lb gorilla

[Tejas]

known as socio-economic/mental health problems is ignored in this country, then men/women with baseball bats will keep robbing people and men/women will keep stabbing people.

Go ahead...ban baseball bats, ban guns, ban poison, ban knives, ban it all, ban every fucking thing you can think of in the name of your foolish emotions, and then ban some more. In the meantime, you have not done jack shit about socio-economic/mental health problems because that would require actual thought and labor on your part.

Oh look, Simon is about to ban somebody on Idol...

[Motown_Johnny]

1. When was the last time someone killed 12 and injured 58 in 2 minutes with a knife?

[Tejas]

5. Sooooooo, 2 dead due to stabbing is okay?

What the fuck is your point?

[Motown_Johnny]

13. There is no perfect solution. Limiting the casualties is the best we can hope for.

I bet every parent who had a child in that theater who survived is happy there were not 13 dead instead of just 12.


Is that a point you can "fucking" understand?


P.S. If you don't use that language with me then I won't use it with you. I consider it disrespectful.

[Tejas]

17. "I bet every parent" - yes, and water is wet.

I'll just have to accept that you are more concerned with numbers than helping figure out the societal conditions that drive people to commit such crimes as this.

[Motown_Johnny]

72. I am interested in saving lives. You seem to think you can change all of society

simply by wishing it.

As you sit on your high horse and wish for perfection lives are being lost. A six year old girl was one of the twelve who died in Aurora.


Some people are just plain freaking insane. You will never figure out any societal conditions behind their motivations.

[Tejas]

85. "You will never figure out" - okay, thanks for your input.

"You seem to think you can change all of society simply by wishing it."

Before I accuse you of making shit up, I'll ask you to help me here by pointing out where I "wished" for anything.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

6. You can't argue with gun owners. They're irrational people...

Which is another reason they don't need dangerous toys.

[Edweird]

26. Yeah, gun owners use facts and don't respond to histrionics. Arguing with them must be hell for you.

[Motown_Johnny]

73. Facts!!!! Oh .. Bull.... _____!

[Edweird]

75. Yep. Facts. Real facty type facts,even. Not the fake Brady or VPC 'facts' that aren't true.

I like the real 'sciency' kind that come from reputable sources like the DOJ or FBI.

[Motown_Johnny]

82. How about equating a baseball bat with an AR-15, is that a "fact".

Besides all your FBI and DOJ "facts" are cherry picked. If you compare gun violence between nations with stricter laws to gun violence here it is clear. Stricter laws save lives.


Trying to pick out statistical variations between Houston and Chicago aren't facts, they are statistical variations.

[Edweird]

86. Yeah, um, you're gonna have to show me where I equated a bat with an AR15.

And my facts are 'cherry picked'? Please provide an example.
In fact, WTF are you talking about?
Substantiate your accusations.

[Edweird]

23. What kind of gun did Timothy McVeigh use? He killed 168 and injured over 800 in seconds.

[Tejas]

35. Trolls here would ban on trucks.

[boppers]

61. He used a Ryder truck gun.

If he could have used a thermonuclear gun, he probably would have.

Thankfully, thermonuclear guns are regulated, and since McVeigh, ANFO is more tightly watched.

[Motown_Johnny]

71. How often does that happen compared to deaths from guns?

That was one event that happened in 1995. There were no incidents of ammonium nitrate truck bombs killing people before or since. So in all of eternity there have been 168 deaths caused using this weapon (in this country).

See where that puts it on this chart...









Gosh, it didn't make the chart. So I guess your point is completely invalid.

[booley]

81. and afterwards..

.. didn't they make it harder to get the fertilizer McVeigh used to make his bomb?

How many fertilizer bombs like McVeighs have we had since?

Even if someone tries to make another bomb like that, the police have at least a chance to see the warnign signs and stop it.

So I 'm hoping you aren't using this as a reason to not ban guns.

[The Straight Story]

78. 9/11 - they used box cutters to take over the planes (nt)

[Motown_Johnny]

83. and look at all the laws that were created because of it

~3000 dead ~12 years ago

we lose more like 10,000 a year from guns


Why can nothing be done to reduce the body count?

[villager]

80. Exactly. But expect nothing but misdirection and straw men in response to the salient question.

n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

2. when somebody can walk into a movie theater and cause 71 casualties in minutes with a baseball

bat, you will have a point.

I understand why you would make such a ridiculous argument though, all of you gun culture types have blood on your hands and you know it.

[malaise]

7. Ditto n/t

[Tejas]

8. So, you are more concerned with # of casualties than causality.

Okay.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. yes that is exactly what I said.

your arguments are worn out. You all have blood on your hands and you know it.

[Tejas]

12. That you don't care what caused it, just what tool was used?

[treestar]

11. Makes a major difference to the extra number of people who are dead

[Tejas]

15. So, # of casualties is more important than the cause?

[treestar]

16. Of course. If you kill 2 people with a knife but could have killed 12 people with a gun

doesn't it make a major different to people 3-12? They are dead.

[Tejas]

18. But *why* were they killed? Does that matter?

It matters to me, that's why I started this thread.

[treestar]

84. It matters to them

and their loved ones. Are we assuming we or ours are never going to be person 3-12? Someone with a knife can be run away from. The knife has to be right next to the person, the attacker right there. Someone with a gun can kill people from some number of feet away. A person with a gun can kill more people before they are stopped. That number of people "more" are going to have a big difference: alive vs. dead. Can't have a bigger effect than that.

[handmade34]

29. strawman...

I would bet my life that everyone here talking gun controls, more than knows and cares about causality and your willful unacceptance of that is disgraceful...

[Tejas]

32. If they do care, then where is the discussion?

I would bet my life that everyone here talking gun controls, more than knows and cares about causality and your willful unacceptance of that is disgraceful...


Did you have any theories or ideas or are you just snarking because...speaking of discraceful, that's all you have?

[handmade34]

36. the discussions go on daily here

...along with ideas and stories of what people here are doing to try and help... just because the discussion is focused on the 'guns' today because of yesterday's events, does not mean that is all people believe

[Tejas]

39. Great, then let's see some of these so-called discussions.

Links?

[Edweird]

20. McVeigh killed 168 and injured over 800 in about 2 seconds without a gun.

[left is right]

59. Yes and in the wake of his murderous spree

we as a nation limited the amount of fertilizer one could buy without some sort of followup inquiry. We also made sure that the fertilizer had tags in it so it could be traced back to the seller and eventually to the buyer. Maybe instead of gun control, we should be talking about ammo control

[lunatica]

3. Well I see you just ran full tilt off the cliff

whatever

[Tejas]

10. Stick around, instead of a snark you might actually

find yourself giving a shit about the cause of these horrible crimes.

[mysuzuki2]

4. you are right. Banning guns will not stop violence.

but it would certainly make violence a lot less efficient.

[Edweird]

21. Nope. Highly efficient killers use bombs.

[Tejas]

25. Agreed.

I would still hope the root cause could be worked on.

[Mojorabbit]

28. Just like making drugs illegal has curbed drug use.nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. The USA has a rate of gun-related deaths 8x higher than other developed democracies.

The existence of a gun culture in the US and the relatively lax firearms laws are the biggest single factor. You can't look at the statistics of the US compared to Canada or Australia or the UK or Germany or Japan or France or any other advanced industrial democracy re gun crimes and deaths and not conclude that maybe there is in fact a problem. Are there other problems that also contribute to violence? Sure, and no-one is denying that; the USA is deeply broken and seriously fucked-up in many respects, but the ease of legal access to firearms is a big part of the problem nonetheless.

[Tejas]

30. Quoting numbers concerning the tool over and over is not facing the root problem.

The existence of a gun culture in the US and the relatively lax firearms laws are the biggest single factor. You can't look at the statistics of the US compared to Canada or Australia or the UK or Germany or Japan or France or any other advanced industrial democracy re gun crimes and deaths and not conclude that maybe there is in fact a problem. Are there other problems that also contribute to violence? Sure, and no-one is denying that; the USA is deeply broken and seriously fucked-up in many respects, but the ease of legal access to firearms is a big part of the problem nonetheless.





This is what I would like to see addressed but everyone seems consumed with gunsgunsguns and can't (or do not want to) look past that at the underlying problems. Maybe after a week or two of complaining about guns some will want to move forward with discussion on fixing what is broken.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. There are 90 guns for every 100 people in the USA

20 mass shootings a year, almost ten thousand murders a year committed with guns; you know, I don't really think this guy in Colorado would have been able to kill 14 people and injure 36 with a machete, or a bow and arrow. Would there be so many incidents of mass murder if guns were more regulated? No, probably not. You're talking as though the other factors are solely responsible; the fact is that a majority of murders aren't committed by mentally ill people, and other countries have probably worse socioeconomic problems while still having lower rates of violence (Greece and Italy come to mind for instance).

[Edweird]

37. He could damn sure kill as many (more actually) with just some gas alone or easy to make explosives.

So, no, he couldn't kill with a nerf gun or a sock filled with quarters - but he doesn't need a gun to do what he wants.

I figure he was too much of a chicken-shit to go that route so he went with shooting so he wouldn't get hurt.

[Tejas]

38. "20 mass shootings a year" - cite?

20 mass shootings a year, almost ten thousand murders a year committed with guns; you know, I don't really think this guy in Colorado would have been able to kill 14 people and injure 36 with a machete, or a bow and arrow. Would there be so many incidents of mass murder if guns were more regulated? No, probably not. You're talking as though the other factors are solely responsible; the fact is that a majority of murders aren't committed by mentally ill people, and other countries have probably worse socioeconomic problems while still having lower rates of violence (Greece and Italy come to mind for instance).



A gun being accessible somehow makes them go into Loughner mode? They see a gun and automatically want to murder people? The gun causes these events? Not trying to be difficult with you, I genuinely appreciate the cordial manner, but calling the gun the cause of an act is putting the cart before the horse.

Take drunk driving. It's not caused by the vehicle, it's caused by a very bad decision. Maybe my point in creating this thread is that we need to address the cause of these decisions(?)

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. Way to miss the point

A gun is the most efficent method of killing one or several people; it requires neither physical strength nor special proficiency and skill to use, unlike pretty much any other weapon.

Also:

the number of mass shootings in the United States — averaging 20 per year — has remained relatively stable over decades.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-01-11-fox11_st_N.htm

http://rt.com/usa/news/mass-year-people-massacre-710/

And here, mass shooting incidents since 2005, sixty-two pages' worth: http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

[Edweird]

43. No, it's not. A bomb is. Using a gun on a lot of people is actually labor intensive.

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. Sure, you have to pull the trigger, that's a tremendous amount of work.

And given sourcing explosive components and actually constructing a bomb vs simply loading a weapon, the gun is the less labour-intensive method (you can't just walk into your local hardware store and say "hi I'd like 50 pounds of ANFO and some blasting caps, please" after all).

[Edweird]

47. That's like saying "all you have to do to use a jackhammer is pull the trigger".

And, no building a bomb isn't more labor intensive. Explosives can be made - easily - with commonly available ingredients.

All of that notwithstanding, your claim that guns are the most efficient way to kill is false. Bombs are. Of course, the fact that you are using the Brady Campaign as a source explains the numerous falsehoods. Gun grabber groups lie. They have to. The facts are not on their side.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. So are you denying the simple facts of the number of mass shooting incidents?

Those are all readily verifiable.

And guns are the most efficient, readily available method requiring the least effort. Also we're talking in this instance about a .223 AR-15, not a .30-06 '03 Springfield. The recoil is negligible compared to a heavier calibre weapon, the actual physical effort of firing the weapon is mostly in control and aim. Explosives can't be made as easily as a gun can be loaded.

[Edweird]

52. 20 a year? Substantiate that. I believe that is a lie.

Setting off a bomb is much easier than shooting - but that is not my point. The statement is that it is more *efficient*. That's why there's bombs on drones and not tiny machine guns.

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. Sources are provided for the stories.

either the AP or newspapers. Depending on your definition of "mass shooting" some of it may be stretching a bit (the operating definition they're using seems to be "more than one dead and/or wounded&quot ; even eliminating the incidents of double homicide there are still over a dozen incidents a year in the US where multiple people are killed or wounded in a single incident.

[Edweird]

55. Substantiate the '20 mass shootings a year'. I saw 6 for this year. Where are the rest?

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. It's July?

Year's not over. And taking the claimed mass shooting incidents and subtracting those in which only two people were killed or wounded still leaves a dozen a year (which with seven counting this most recent, the US is on track for).

[Edweird]

57. I don't know about your calender, but mine has 12 months.

It looks like your statistic is a perfect example of gun grabber lies. It is the end of the 7th month. With 6 'mass shootings'. That's less than 1 a month - if those counted are even really 'mass shootings'. 20 a year? Blatant LIE. You are repeating it like it's gospel without even bothering to fact check.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Buy a dictionary and look up "average" and get back to me

see also clarification; they classify double wounding or murder as "mass shooting"; discounting those incidents it's still a dozen a year.

[Edweird]

60. So... substantiate. You've shown 6. Ok, so show the OTHER years with the more than 20

so you get your average. Maybe this is just a slow year and we had 30 or so the past few years and it will even out to 20. Or maybe the 20 is just made up bullshit. My money is on bullshit. I've been googling the shit out of this and the only corroboration I can find are opinion pieces and known liar sites. (Godlikeproductions - LOL) But, you made the claim and you're sticking with it so lets see some proof. Show me 20 a year average from previous years.

[Spider Jerusalem]

63. You can't read, can you?

Try rereading the last thing I said. Slowly this time. Say the words aloud to yourself if it helps. "discounting double shooting or wounding incidents there are still a dozen a year". What part of that is not processing?

[Edweird]

67. The FBI defines mass murder as 4 or more with no cooling off period.

20 a year is a blatant fucking fear mongering "take my rights away" gun grabber LIE. THAT is why sources are relevant. This is also why I despise lying scumbags like Brady and VPC. They not only want to take my rights away, but they LIE LIE LIE to accomplish it. Don't buy their lies. Think for yourself. Fact check.

[Spider Jerusalem]

68. Except we're talking about shootings including wounding, not just murder.

[Edweird]

70. That move of the goal post didn't change anything. My previous post still applies. 'Mass' = >4

[Fumesucker]

50. Amateur bomb making is neither a simple nor a risk free task..

Whereas all a potential shooter has to do is have enough left on his credit card for the weapon, ammo and any ancillary equipment he might find necessary..

[Edweird]

62. ANFO is about as simple and risk free as you can get.

Yes, you can still buy ammonium nitrate. You may have to deal with some diatomaceous earth, but it's still simple and risk free.

[Tejas]

45. How about FBI or DOJ instead of a group of Republicans wanting to ban guns?

Brady? Seriously?

[Spider Jerusalem]

46. The data are valid, the source is irrelevant

attacking the messenger isn't really a response...and "Republicans wanting to ban guns", does your head hurt from the cognitive dissonance yet? The NRA is up the GOP's arse up to the second knuckle. Or perhaps it's the other way round; anyway, gun control isn't an argument with any traction with the Republican Party.

[Edweird]

48. Like your '20 mass shootings a year'. The source is relevant if it is lie. Gun grabbers lie.

The facts are not on their side.

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. On average one a month so far this year:

http://leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12857341-colorado-marks-yet-another-random-mass-shooting-in-2012?lite

[Edweird]

53. You're not very good at math are you?

Substantiate your '20 mass shootings a year'. I believe that is yet another gun grabber lie, and the more I interact with you the more clear it becomes that I am right.

[Tejas]

87. The fact that extremely biased Republicans are your source is relevant.

It's not only relevant that they're biased, but it ludicrous that you defend their so-called "facts" to the bitter end. Good luck with that.

[spanone]

22. nobody wants your guuuunnnnnnnns....

[wandy]

24. You can ban guns if you want to, it will help some......

You can ban knives if you want to, it will help some. Make eating stake a bit harder though.
You can even ban baseball bats, it will help some. The Yanks may not be happy about it.\

James Holmes apartment proves one thing.

You can't ban crazy!

If someone for what ever reason intends on doing some harm they will find a way to do so.

[upaloopa]

27. There are more things that we can do than your one dimensional solution to these problems.

The is a complicated problem and it will take a complicated solution and even then it will not be 100% solved.

[Tejas]

40. I offered a solution? Really?

I did not realize that, cite/quote/link?

[hlthe2b]

31. As soon as they invent a 100 round baseball bat or knife that can kill scores within a few moments

from long distances.... We can talk..


This has become so ridiculous.

[Edweird]

42. A 5 gallon jug of gasoline at each exit and the death toll would have been much higher.

No gun needed. Get real. McVeigh killed 168 and wounded over 800 in about 2 seconds without firing a single shot.

[boppers]

64. A 5 gallon jug of gasoline does nothing.

It sits there. Maybe has some annoying fumes.

Hint: fuel needs an ignition source.

McVeigh used detonators.

[Edweird]

69. Clue: detonators are nothing but glorified fireworks.

I didn't think I needed to spell out the 'igniting' part of it since we are all adults here. Yes, he would need to ignite it. No, it doesn't take some super unobtainable Special Forces only materials to do that. A trip to the hobby store will suffice. If he were to have set the theater on fire, the death toll would have been much higher and he wouldn't have needed a gun to do so.

[boppers]

74. Yeah, but gun nuts aren't about logic.

That's part of what makes the gun nuts.

[murielm99]

33. Richard Speck used a knife.

He killed eight student nurses. Gee, only eight.

Let's look at the mental health issues here rather than the weapon.

[left is right]

65. As it stands now, we can’t force people into treatment until it is proven that they are a threat to

It is pretty obvious that those with mental health issues, bad enough to go on killing spree, do not seek professional care pn their own. And, besides who would pay for it? We don’t have universal healthcare especially care that includes mental health.
So the best that we can do is limit the number of people that are killed each year by limiting access to high capacity weapons of death

[boppers]

66. Should we not look at mental health and access to weapons?

There's a reason we take away sharp objects from mentally messed up people in crisis.

They can, of course, go buy a gun, a knife, propane, etc.

[Tsiyu]

76. This OP is pure, unadulterated bullshit

And I notice none of the gun fetishers - NOT ONE I'VE READ - has expressed even one word of sympathy for the victims. They save all their empathy for 100 round mags and the NRA, I suppose.

The reason this post is bullshit is because we discuss socio-economic/education/health care/mental health issues frequently on this site. It's what we're about. That gorilla is acknowledged here.

When we discuss health care, education, rebuilding infrastructure, a living wage, etc, we ARE dicussing the issues that lead to mental breakdown AND that impede getting help for those breaking.
When we bash the TSA and the FBI and the CIA and Homeland security, we bash them because they use all theri technology to fondle babies and find pot seeds rather than finding freaks who go on killing sprees.

Today, we're discussing the other part of the equation: Easy access to ammunition and guns by wacked out, violent lunatics.

Tough shit if you don't like it.

Poor attempt on your part to distract from the argument as well

[quaker bill]

77. As much as you may like guns

We would clearly be better off if Mr. Holmes did not have any. I agree that there is a great deal of poorly treated to untreated mental illness out there and would also love to see something done about that.

Mr. Holmes is not the only untreated mental patient with a stash of firearms.

I do not see how letting them buy more is a good thing, even with the most generous cost / benefit analysis I can imagine.

Again, you are correct, they are undiagnosed and untreated, so they will pass background checks.

[SILVER__FOX52]

79. We never address ..................

the real issues in this Country. The Media and the Politicians put on some bull shit show for awhile and the real debate and discussion gets buried or never happens. We need a new Government. Most of these Jack Ass, Senators and Reps are paid for, Whores. The bulk of the Media are Corporate lap dogs.

[sabrina 1]

88. You forgot something:

As long as the 800lb gorilla

known as socio-economic/mental health problems is ignored in this country, then men/women with baseball bats will keep robbing people and men/women will keep stabbing people.

And will keep 'shooting' people! You forgot to mention those other weapons they so often use, GUNS.

[Tejas]

89. I didn't mention poison or hands/feet or drunk driving or strangulation either.

FBI says 60% of homicides are by firearm, do the other 30% matter to you?

[sabrina 1]

90. Yes they matter a lot.

And I am not for taking away people's guns. I AM for regulations that prevent lunatics from owning firearms because I also care about the other 60% who we could probably save if we could just disarm the lunatics. Why would anyone object to that?

If it were possible to prevent them from owning knives, bats, buying poison etc. I would be for that too. But since the easiest way to reduce the number of victims is to keep firearms out of the hands of psychopaths, is to keep them from getting their hands on guns, then that seems like a good place to start.

Saving 60% out of 100% seems better than not saving anyone at all.

[Tejas]

91. Correct, they account for 30% of FBI homicide figures.