This why when people blame the NRA, I kind of just gloss over it, as it is pure deflection. The NRA can advocate, like any other group, for whatever it wants.
If people are upset, they are truly upset that they are ineffectual in voting in congressman who listen to them. But, people rather not face the fact that they are ignored or are seen as extreme, so they blame the boogeyman. All three branches were ruled by one party for two years, and even then, nothing but crickets on gun control.
What does that tell us? Not that the NRA is powerful, but that the congressman do not take the gun control advocates as seriously as they would like.
Oh… have we heard the “guns don’t kill, people do” meme like a million times before. People WITH GUNS kill.
Thats backwards. People with mental health issues should not have guns. And pilots on ADHD meds dont fly either. Why they allow them to fly without their meds beats me.
Well, um, if the 11-year-old’s dad had locked up the gun, the 11-year-old couldn’t have used it to shoot the 8-year-old? The value of locking someone up for decades for being careless with their deadly weapons (I would think this is obvious) is that at least some “responsible gun owners” would begin locking up their own deadly weapons. And the benefit to society (I’d also think this is obvious) is that there would be fewer cases of children shooting people, not to mention fewer cases of stolen guns.
Anyway, here’s today’s example of why we all need MOAHR GUNZ!
Could you please provide some statistics about the number of toddler deaths per year due to pitbulls and parents running over, versus number of toddler gun deaths per year?
And it’s not "according to @jazzymom ". It’s the fact. No credible politician or other authority is advocating a gun ban. But I know that’s a straw man that gun nuts love to toss out there, as if it’s a real thing. It’s not.
I am a flaming liberal, and I am not for banning guns complete. And I think that assault weapons should be allowed in restricted circumstances.
What I don’t get is how we go from:
protecting yourself from a government tyranny, so you have a weapon available at your home and ammunition as well, and
hunting animals for food and/or sport
to:
no limitations on any weapon that can be considered a gun, and
the right to own a gun = the right to have a loaded gun anywhere, any time
Doesn’t anyone actually care what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was? And doesn’t anyone actually care that amendments have been repealed in the past, with new amendments de facto cancelling old amendments in some cases?
The gun debate is similar to the abortion debate. There is no way to change anyone’s starting point for the conversation, and there is no middle ground. Even for those who are moderate on guns and abortion, they will never be considered anything but liberal by those who are conservative.
Eleven year old blows away 8-year-old neighbor because she said “no” to him.
I guess depending on where you live, the right of one child to life, liberty, etc is legally trumped by the right to give your child access to a loaded gun unsupervised.
If you live in one of those states that doesn’t restrict children’s access to loaded weapons worth squat, better know what your neighbors are capable of…or send your kids out to play in flak jackets.
Romani mentioned that she thought the parents of the 11 year old ought to be charged with murder (or at least manslaughter.) Nope. No charges whatsoever. To be charged with anything, it would have to be proved that they knew their son might kill someone. Pretty high bar.
Where did you get the idea that there are no limitations on any weapon that can be considered a gun, and that gun owners can carry a loaded gun anywhere, anytime? Take a look at this overview of CA’s laws regarding guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California It will take a little while to read it all, as CA’s laws are some of the most comprehensive and restrictive in the country.
Why do you say “sheer coincidence?” If the restrictions weren’t working to reduce gun deaths, what would be the point of having them? Your chart shows CA as the #1 strictest laws with the #9 lowest gun death rate.
As an aside, the same incident (11 year old shooting 8 year old) has been posted four times on this thread by four different people who think they are posting something new. Do people not read the thread before posting?
Some do. Some don’t. I don’t care how often that story is posted. Maybe someone just coming onto the thread missed other postings and it is very relevant to a gun control discussion.
Come on, Bay. You know exactly what i meant. You seem to be arguing against more stringent gun control. And now you acknowledge it makes sense that more stringent gun control tends to mean fewer gun deaths. I can only conclude that fewer gun deaths are less important to you than unfettered gun rights.
It does show quite a few of the points that have been made, might be why people are bringing it up. I am sure both sets of parents belatedly wish that the 11 year old’s parents never owned a gun. But human beings, particularly young males, aren’t so great at seeing how someone else’s situation could apply to them.
And in other news, former brain surgeon Ben Carson criticized the victims in the Oregon incident for not ganging up and disarming the shooter. Carson also complained about gun control proponents (“the Left”) and said there was no way he “would have just stood there and let him shoot me.” Well bravo Dr. Carson, you get the Nebula Award for best fantasy and science fiction writing. Too bad you weren’t in Umpqua so you could disarm the madman with a scalpel.
No LasMas, I have not argued against gun control, only arguments that I see as infeasible. I said I favored harsher penalties, and I don’t oppose mental illness restrictions, but haven’t seen any good arguments convincing me they will fly, and I like the idea of smart guns if they are optional or affordable.
I’m confused about where we are in this topic. But I’m still wondering what gun control measures people would implement that would have stopped this shooting. The only thing I’ve seen is intparent’s idea of banning all handguns, and what would have to be a nearly trillion dollar buyback program. It seems like the effect would be disarmament of the law abiding population in the immediate term, disarmament of criminals a few decades down the line, a lot of money spent, a lot of jobs outlawed, a lot of people sent to prison, but Gen A or whatever they’ll be called will have a lot fewer of these mass shootings. I don’t like it but I guess it’s a start. Any other ideas?
The goal is not 20-20 hindsight to think of how to prevent one incident, but to look forward to ways of significantly decreasing gun deaths and gun violence.
Well, the smart guns sound like a good idea for one. That can help with these incidents with children.
Illegal industries that breed violent crime (namely drugs) could be legalized.
If we’re just concerned with reducing gun deaths maybe we could come up with something like suicide booths. Since someone upthread said 60% of gun deaths were suicide, if people had a better option (perhaps more certain of death and more acceptable) of suicide they’d probably use that.
Though I’m mainly inclined to believe that criminals commit crime.