Regarding Isis use of social media…I have read that Anonymous has been hacking into their Twitter accounts. I don’t know how effective they have been
Apparently, that hasn’t slowed down ISIS’s social media postings.
Look, gun control won’t stop terrorists. But that’s no reason we have to make it so EASY for them to buy guns in America to kill Americans. Why is that so hard to understand?
We need more humor in this space, so here’s Chris Rock from some years ago, delivering a routine that’s topical to multiple facets of our discussion here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0Y4qIZ4PA
(Warning: NSFW language. I mean, it is Chris Rock.)
There are obviously ISIS supporters in areas where to shut down Internet and cell communications would bring down commerce.
But aren’t most ISIS in Syria and Iraq? Aren’t they promoting terrorism from those spots? Why can’t Internet and cell communications be taken down there? They’d be cut off from the EU and the US. Heck, land lines too.
Katliamom, it’s not hard to understand. I think it is irrelevant, but true as a very small matter. The question is And then what.
I don’t think people who plan and prepare to commit mass murder while orphaning their own infant are so easily deterred that legalities would matter.
I believe some of the vinegar directed at the NRA is political, but not all. So I want to know what else people so focused on legal guns want and how will they cope when their solution is ineffective.
You forget that the same cell communication is used to track them and monitor their communications, contacts and movements. It’s an essential part of a fight against them. As for internet pages and propaganda websites - I’ve heard that the moment you take one down, another one pops up.
Legal guns are the problem, sometimes. That nutcase who killed the little girl at the soccer game had a legal gun and a concealed carry permit. He could, potentially, have killed her with a knife or a crowbar, but he probably wouldn’t have. The distance between impulse and death is so small, with a gun. It’s so easy to kill in an instant. If we could keep guns away from crazy people, we’d save some innocent people from being mowed down.
The guy who gets drunk and beats up his wife, and then finally one day picks up his gun and shoots her-- we should have taken his guns away the first time he appeared before a judge for domestic violence. He could still beat her to death, but we shouldn’t make it easy for him to kill her in an instant. Guns are too quick. We should take his guns away.
As a mathy person, I look at averages and statistics. If we could significantly reduce the number of women shot to death by intimate partners, if we could significantly reduce the number of people shot to death by murderers who obviously, before the murder, should not have been allowed to have a gun, that would be worthwhile. We don’t have to choose between reducing firearms deaths to zero on the one hand, and doing nothing at all on the other hand. We can make incremental changes that mean fewer people are shot to death.
I wonder why internet and cell can’t be shut down so that they can’t contact their adherents in the EU and the US. If there were a blackout, there would be fewer communications to track.
I have no objections to most of the gun control efforts. But then I live in an area that is very safe, with very fast police response times. (I’d wager like most of the people who can’t understand why some want to have guns). I don’t hunt.
However, I know a family who lives on a remote ranch about 100 miles from the border. They are dozens of miles from any town and it would take a long time for any police or sheriff to respond if they were attacked by criminals. Add to that illegal aliens cross the property from time to time. I totally understand why they need to protect themselves. Most city people are not thinking of people like those ranchers.
I’d just like to say that my main objection to the NRA isn’t that it’s a pro-guns-at-all-costs group—different groups can have different positions, and can lobby vehemently for those positions, and that’s totally cool. No, my objection is that it’s become an industry lobbying group that scams everyone around it (including those who purchase individual memberships) that it’s a grassroots organization.
I loathe astroturfing, and sometimes hope that if there is no hell, that one can be set up specifically for the people who perpetrate it.
(And astroturfing exists on the left and the right and points in between, yes, I know. The NRA is most topical for the present discussion however, and they do it on a scale that only a tiny handful of other organizations do.)
Zoos, the fact is that there are people with radical beliefs in every developed country, as well as mentally ill people. Only in the US do they kill so prolifically. And that is undeniably because only in the US can they get their hands on guns so easily.
I’m with rockvillemom. If we want to fix this (and sadly, I’m not sure that everyone does), then we have to take a multi pronged approach. Reverse the shameful defunding of the mental health system. Get some sensible gun control, which large majorities of even gun owners support. And for God’s sake, overturn Citizens United.
CardinalFang, wouldn’t those examples be a different thread? Which is why I’m asking what about this type of situation. I agreed with you about some changes that would prevent some crimes, but since 90% of gun crimes happen with guns that are already illegal, I still ask, then what?
Why cant we at least take away the guns that are basically military grade? At least victims may have a chance. No one stands a chance with the assault rifles and clips that hold so many bullets. Why cant we at least limit the magazines?
Chris Rock is awesome!
“All bullets should cost $5,000” 
“Cuz if a bullet costs $5,000, there are going to be no more innocent bystanders”.
Bullets should cost more. So should guns. There is a social cost with these products that aren’t reflected in the price of these goods.
If a life is priceless, how much should bullets cost?
Dstark, also, gun owners should be required to carry insurance. If guns are as benign as we’re told, then it should be cheap.
Zoosermom, what you’re saying makes no sense at all: we shouldn’t control guns to save children from killing themselves, disgruntled employees from killing their colleagues, robbers from killing shop owners, nut jobs from mowing down school children, men from killing their girlfriends/wives, etc because it won’t stop terrorists? Really, you’re going to put the lives of the masses at risk because you can’t stop one or two determined terrorists? What kind of thinking is that? You’re really OK that we extend on a silver platter weapons for all kinds of people, including terrorists, to kill us with?
“However, I know a family who lives on a remote ranch about 100 miles from the border. They are dozens of miles from any town and it would take a long time for any police or sheriff to respond if they were attacked by criminals.”
I think most of us here desiring stricter gun control aren’t looking to take ALL guns away from ALL citizens. There’s a big difference between having a pistol or a shotgun/rifle around and having an arsenal of assault weapons and a depot of ammo. Stricter licensing, training, background checks, restrictions of caliber, etc. all come into play in tightening our gun control laws. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition, despite the propaganda and lobbying of the NRA. The NRA has the ability to step up and lead the effort towards more responsible gun control and increased safety in this country but instead they have moved in the other direction. IMO, they have lost any credibility with their scare tactics.
@LasMa, I love your insurance idea.
I don’t think that is true, and I’d like to see the statistics. Hint: suicide is illegal. I would guess that most suicides by gun are done with legally owned guns.
I’d also like to see statistics, if they are available, about shootings in specific. That is, while I’m concerned about armed robbery, and would like to get guns out of the hands of robbers and muggers, in this discussion we are talking about reducing death and injury from shooting. What percent of all shootings involve illegal guns?
No katliamom, I am saying nothing of the sort. I said yesterday that I agree with some gun control measures, I adore LasMa’s insurance idea.
But I’m not making a statement now. I am asking those who are fixated on the NRA and legal guns, what they will do and how they will cope when the next mass killing comes. Exactly that question. No statement at all. everything you posted in 735 came from your imagination and not my words. I could be the most ardent gun control supporter and I would still understand that if I then got everything I wanted in terms of legislation and mental health support, and still 90% of guns would be committed.