Sandy Hook, One Year Later: No Gun Control in Sight

[jeninflorida]

Nobody gives a fuck how many people are killed by guns. All that matters is we have the unimpaired ability to return fire.

If one schoolchild can be saved because a teacher or a janitor had a pistol within reach when a spree shooter came on campus, it doesn't matter if 21 or 210 schoolchildren die because anyone in this country who really wants a gun can get one.

There is no gun control unless a person has to ask permission to own a gun and we aren't going to allow that.

Only criminal like obama and holder want to take guns away from lawful citizens. Its part of the obama socialist 1984party plan

 

[koalabear]

Nobody gives a fuck how many people are killed by guns. All that matters is we have the unimpaired ability to return fire.

If one schoolchild can be saved because a teacher or a janitor had a pistol within reach when a spree shooter came on campus, it doesn't matter if 21 or 210 schoolchildren die because anyone in this country who really wants a gun can get one.

There is no gun control unless a person has to ask permission to own a gun and we aren't going to allow that.

*points and laughs*

 

[bronzeage]

*points and laughs*

Do you disagree with any of that?

 

[koalabear]

Do you disagree with any of that?

All of it. Have you flunked out of Salvation Army rehab again?

 

[bronzeage]

All of it. Have you flunked out of Salvation Army rehab again?

Do you care if schoolchildren are killed by a legally obtained firearm?

 

[koalabear]

Do you care if schoolchildren are killed by a legally obtained firearm?

Shit happens, gun or what ever weapon of choice. I don't dance on kids graves like some do either.

 

[bronzeage]

Shit happens, gun or what ever weapon of choice. I don't dance on kids graves like some do either.

That's exactly what I mean. Shit happens and when it happens to schoolchildren, we don't care. Remember, taking the high ground is pointless if you don't have a gun when you get there.

Avoiding the graves of schoolchildren killed by guns does not make them less dead.

 

[koalabear]

That's exactly what I mean. Shit happens and when it happens to schoolchildren, we don't care. Remember, taking the high ground is pointless if you don't have a gun when you get there.

Avoiding the graves of schoolchildren killed by guns does not make them less dead.

You are stupid, there is no gun control remember. It happens much more to kids in the inner city, I don't see you crying about that.

 

[bronzeage]

You are stupid, there is no gun control remember. It happens much more to kids in the inner city, I don't see you crying about that.

Who cares about inner city kids?

I don't cry about any of them. Any effective measure to save lives would take guns from the hands of Americans. Who wants that?

It's not going to happen. Anyone who can't stomach the number of gun deaths should just keep it to themselves. There is no argument which will change anyone's mind.

 

[koalabear]

Who cares about inner city kids?

I don't cry about any of them. Any effective measure to save lives would take guns from the hands of Americans. Who wants that?

It's not going to happen. Anyone who can't stomach the number of gun deaths should just keep it to themselves. There is no argument which will change anyone's mind.

Then stop whining.

 

[StrangeLife]

Stats have NOT shown that those people with guns would have managed to kill themselves with another weapon. You want to believe that because a large part of your argument hinges on it but it doesn't hodl true. Guns are more fatal than most of the methods (as someone pointed out people who REALLY want dead don't shoot themselves, they step in front of trains.) nearly every other method takes longer and produce more survivors. Now personally I pro-euthanasia. If you're tired of living for whatever reason, you're over eighteen and you agree not to make a mess of things on the way out that's your business and I have no right to stop you. There is a lot of evidence that most suicide attempts are actually cries for help. I'll quote Buffy: "Crying help in a loud voice is a cry for help. That's just stupid." Doesn't change the fact that a lot of those 8k deaths would survive and end up getting help if they didn't have guns available.

A gun is a highly specialized tool for killing stuff - as opposed to pills, trains, rope, tall buildings, cops and other implements commonly used for suicide. Thus it is a very efficient way of punching out. People are generally aware of this fact, so if they intend to "cry for help" chances are that they will not use guns (or trains) but instead resort to pills or climb a tall building and wait for the news crew.

As far as my claim that gun control would do nothing to reduce the suicide rate goes, it is statistically supported. The US doesn't have an exceptionally high suicide rate compared to countries with strict gun control. Several European countries have higher suicide rates than the US - Austria for instance... or France. Since it's a pain dans le cul to get hold of a gun over there I assume they must use alternative means of initiating a dirt-nap. Like beating themselves to death with flutes, making love to cancan dancing women of dubious repute till they collapse, smoking unfiltered Gauloises or something.

 

[Liar]

Control my fucking shotgun.

It'll put a hole in you the size of a dinner plate.

Evidently you can't control your fucking shotgun.

So who's gonna?

 

[Sean Renaud]

A gun is a highly specialized tool for killing stuff - as opposed to pills, trains, rope, tall buildings, cops and other implements commonly used for suicide. Thus it is a very efficient way of punching out. People are generally aware of this fact, so if they intend to "cry for help" chances are that they will not use guns (or trains) but instead resort to pills or climb a tall building and wait for the news crew.

As far as my claim that gun control would do nothing to reduce the suicide rate goes, it is statistically supported. The US doesn't have an exceptionally high suicide rate compared to countries with strict gun control. Several European countries have higher suicide rates than the US - Austria for instance... or France. Since it's a pain dans le cul to get hold of a gun over there I assume they must use alternative means of initiating a dirt-nap. Like beating themselves to death with flutes, making love to cancan dancing women of dubious repute till they collapse, smoking unfiltered Gauloises or something.

I'll take your word for it. Last time I checked they did have lower rates now a lot of people tried to attribute it to better mental health care than they can obtain here. In the US the general attitude is "you hate life? Tough, everybody does kill yoursel fand get over it" and in much of the rest of the world it's "hey, do you need to talk about it?" Which you leads to us having other problems but hey we're rich, what's it matter right?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hey BB, those damn Republicans that run Wall Mart still sell guns while handing out food stamps to the workers who are trying to feed their families on minimum wage!

So?

Wal mart has shit guns and shitty ammo selection.

When they start selling H&K, FN, Sig and Wilson Combat.....then I might give a fuck. Actually just H&K the rest of it is just pretty/fun stuff.

Doesn't make Wal Mart and the other companies that follow their business model any less the tax payer fucking, welfare loving scum bag republicans you love and support.

Advocate starting a few wars and cutting taxes lately?

 

[Sean]

A gun is a highly specialized tool for killing stuff - as opposed to pills, trains, rope, tall buildings, cops and other implements commonly used for suicide. Thus it is a very efficient way of punching out. People are generally aware of this fact, so if they intend to "cry for help" chances are that they will not use guns (or trains) but instead resort to pills or climb a tall building and wait for the news crew.

As far as my claim that gun control would do nothing to reduce the suicide rate goes, it is statistically supported. The US doesn't have an exceptionally high suicide rate compared to countries with strict gun control. Several European countries have higher suicide rates than the US - Austria for instance... or France. Since it's a pain dans le cul to get hold of a gun over there I assume they must use alternative means of initiating a dirt-nap. Like beating themselves to death with flutes, making love to cancan dancing women of dubious repute till they collapse, smoking unfiltered Gauloises or something.

if you take away easy means of suicide, the rate goes down. Fact. I suggest you Google British coal gas suicides. And bridge suicides pre/ post railings.

 

[StrangeLife]

if you take away easy means of suicide, the rate goes down. Fact. I suggest you Google British coal gas suicides. And bridge suicides pre/ post railings.

But consider the sheer amount of guns in the US - the ATF says it's in the range of 300 millions but the true number is likely higher. In other words, guns are as integrated in the American society as tea in the UK. Even in the more restrictive states getting hold of a gun is quite easy.

Consequently if the presence of guns had an effect on the rate of suicide you would expect a massive difference in this area between Europe and the US, right?

 

[Sean Renaud]

So?

Wal mart has shit guns and shitty ammo selection.

When they start selling H&K, FN, Sig and Wilson Combat.....then I might give a fuck. Actually just H&K the rest of it is just pretty/fun stuff.

Doesn't make Wal Mart and the other companies that follow their business model any less the tax payer fucking, welfare loving scum bag republicans you love and support.

Advocate starting a few wars and cutting taxes lately?

You know I remember how fucking bizzare that felt when I went to some Wal-Mart in Arizona. Guns? In Walmart? WTF is going on here?! I came home with a machete just cus I could.

But consider the sheer amount of guns in the US - the ATF says it's in the range of 300 millions but the true number is likely higher. In other words, guns are as integrated in the American society as tea in the UK. Even in the more restrictive states getting hold of a gun is quite easy.

Consequently if the presence of guns had an effect on the rate of suicide you would expect a massive difference in this area between Europe and the US, right?

They've been becoming less and less integrated in society over the last few decades actually. Unless people are lying which is possible.

The fact is either scary or reassuring depending on how you choose to take it. Either the irresponsible gun owners are being weeded out by various laws that don't exist (as koala would point out) or the crazies are stock piling like crazy. I choose to believe the former even if mass shootings seem to hint the opposite. (I think we just have a bad batch lately that actually learned to shoot somehow)

 

[StrangeLife]

They've been becoming less and less integrated in society over the last few decades actually. Unless people are lying which is possible.

In 2012 the NICS processed almost 17 million background checks from legally purchased firearms and the number of guns destroyed by law enforcement was less than 100K. In other words, the "gun population" of the US increased with a number equal to the population of the Netherlands.

People on the East Coast might live with the illusion that gun-ownership is on the decline, but crazy stock-piling preppers can't possibly account for this kind of growth.

 

[Sean Renaud]

In 2012 the NICS processed almost 17 million background checks from legally purchased firearms and the number of guns destroyed by law enforcement was less than 100K. In other words, the "gun population" of the US increased with a number equal to the population of the Netherlands.

People on the East Coast might live with the illusion that gun-ownership is on the decline, but crazy stock-piling preppers can't possibly account for this kind of growth.

Then people are lying, which is possible. However assuming they aren't thats exactly what the numbers tell us.

Besides 17 million isn't THAT much in a population of 330 million. That could be achieved by a little over 5% of the nation each buying a gun. And you're also assuming that few of those people already had a gun or bought multiple guns. Which again is possible, it's just not supported by the stats.

 

[tactful]

A simple case of lousy parenting, maybe you should go after all the bad guys that have guns, The present administration should know a lot about that.

 

[richard_daily]

Then people are lying, which is possible. However assuming they aren't thats exactly what the numbers tell us.

Besides 17 million isn't THAT much in a population of 330 million. That could be achieved by a little over 5% of the nation each buying a gun. And you're also assuming that few of those people already had a gun or bought multiple guns. Which again is possible, it's just not supported by the stats.

That's only during the course of one year.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

True, but a maniac can do a lot less damage with knives.

BULL SHIT!!!!!

From 1976 to 2004 there were more murders committed with knives than with long guns, (rifles, assault rifles and shot guns collectively) Although there were a couple of years when the knives dipped down and yet stilled killed more people.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg


Yet the resent hysteria about "Assault Guns" rages.

Read and learn.

BTW if you do not believe Wiki do find a better source and post it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^^^ I assume you have some kind point? One that isn't retarded I hope?

That's only during the course of one year.

True, but guns also break, get lost, get stolen (which doesn't deplete the number of guns total obviously) but the point remains that 300 million guns doesn't work out in reality to 300 million armed citizens. I own two rifles, a shotgun and two pistols. (all hand me downs from my grandfather to my father and from him to me) and I intend to buy another rifle in the next year or to. You put me in a room with five Non-Gun owners and it looks like everybody has a gun when in reality one crazy guy has six and five people have none.

Five sheep ripe for the slaughter I might add.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The NRA has taken keen advantage of our political system.

BY Steven Hill

What a crock of shit. One of the most blatantly self-serving arguments against representative government I’ve ever seen.

Following the Newtown carnage, national polls showed a majority of Americans favoring stricter gun control laws, with 90 percent supporting background checks. While those numbers have dropped some over the past year, gun control still has strong support. But as with so many other issues, majority support does not necessarily lead to congressional or presidential action. How can there be such an ongoing disconnect between popular opinion and public policy, particularly at the federal level?

Winner-take-all elections make all us losers

To answer that question, it is important to have an understanding of the clunky architecture of our political system and how we elect our legislatures. Many gun control advocates blame gun control’s failure on the power wielded by the National Rifle Association and its campaign war chest. But the fact is that the NRA’s power doesn’t only lie in the deep pockets of its extremely effective Political Action Committee—it’s also a product of our antiquated winner-take-all elections that give overwhelming power to a tiny minority of people known as “swing voters.”

To begin with, support for stricter gun control laws hasn’t approached 90% of Americans since before the turn of this century. Read the polls for yourself. Hill is obviously pimping the question in the Gallup poll that asked respondents if they could vote on Election Day “on key issues as well as candidates” what laws would they vote for or against. In late January of this year, 91% said they would vote for required background checks for all gun purchases. By late April of this year, that number had fallen to 83% and, in the same poll, only 65% felt the U. S. Senate should have passed the very “background checks” bill which the Senate had just rejected. Overall support for stricter gun control laws currently hovers within a few percentage points above or below 50%.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/12/04/cnn.poll.gun.control.pdf
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/...December NBC-WSJ Final Filled-InCORRECTED.pdf (Question 27)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx#1

Let’s consider our “clunky political architecture” in combination with the next sputtering jewel of illogic.

Just like our recent presidential election was settled in a handful of battleground states, control of the U.S. House of Representatives comes down to only about 35 closely fought districts—fewer than 10 percent of the 435 seats—every two years. That gives overwhelming power to undecided voters who live in these swing districts, many of which are rural and conservative-leaning. So control of the U.S. House comes down to a handful of voters in a handful of districts.

This set-up also gives enormous power to the NRA, because a disproportionate number of NRA members live in these rural swing districts. Many NRA voters are union members and Reagan Democrats, figuring among the 5 percent of voters liable to change sides in a close election based on this single issue.

Would someone please explain to Steven Hill that undecided voters who are truly undecided are, by definition, neither conservative or liberal leaning and that the entire block of “swing voters” in a “swing state” rarely “swing together” as a monolithic block, and it is that very unknown of which side a simple MAJORITY of the swingers will swing to which makes the state as a whole a “swinger.”

While we’re at it, someone might also point out to the intellectually retarded Hill that raw political power is never possessed and wielded by the unpredictable political center in a manner and with the force approaching that within voting districts which will NEVER vote Republican no matter how cool the sun gets or within those others which will NEVER vote Democratic no matter how much the polar ice caps may melt.

So the NRA doesn't have clout because it has lots of money—the NRA has money because it has clout. And that clout comes from controlling votes in key battleground House districts, as well as battleground states voting for senators and president.

Circular arguments are poorly suited to demonstrate causation. How would clout be controlled but for the expenditure of money? Is it really that painful for Hill to acknowledge that the NRA has enormous political clout because an enormous number of people actually agree with its broad political agenda?

The task of the NRA, then—to target its resources to the battleground states and House districts like squares on a checkerboard, and try to alarm just enough swing voters there—is rendered much easier by the geographic-based political map of our winner-take-all system. The reality is that the dynamics of our winner-take-all elections allow gun control opponents to form a potent single-issue voting bloc that far outweighs their minority status. The NRA would not be nearly as effective if it weren't for our winner-take-all elections, which are fought district by district and state by state.

Yep. Apparently it's pretty painful. Meanwhile, what is this “winner take all” strawman that Hill is flailing wildly at? Is he outraged that Congressional Representatives and Senators actually serve in the offices to which they are elected by a majority of voters in a House District or, in the case of Senators, by a majority (or perhaps a plurality) of votes cast in a state election at large? What else is there to take?

The only time I am aware of a winner possibly “taking all” to the disadvantage of the majority of votes cast is in the case of Presidential elections where a majority of electors to the Electoral College, through the vagaries of mathematics and population distribution, are awarded to a candidate who actually received fewer popular votes than his opponent. Since this has happened only three times within the past 137 years, I am confident that it represents something less than an alarming trend.

American media outlets often portray multiparty democracies elected by proportional representation, such as Israel and Italy, as being beholden to tiny political parties of extremists who hold hostage their coalition governments. Yet they fail to recognize how the dynamics of our own winner-take-all elections allow well-organized political minorities and “swing voter” extremists like the NRA and Florida Cubans to push their radical agendas on the mainstream.

Speaking of front running candidates, my analysis tells me that “swing voter extremists” has a commanding lead for non-sequitur of the year. The image of these same swing voters pushing "radical agendas" on the "mainstream" runs a semi-respectable second.

It’s important to understand how our system works if we ever hope to improve it.

But apparently not so much if all you are going to do is write total crap about it.

 

[contrifan32]

So?

Wal mart has shit guns and shitty ammo selection.

When they start selling H&K, FN, Sig and Wilson Combat.....then I might give a fuck. Actually just H&K the rest of it is just pretty/fun stuff.

Doesn't make Wal Mart and the other companies that follow their business model any less the tax payer fucking, welfare loving scum bag republicans you love and support.

Advocate starting a few wars and cutting taxes lately?

So are you saying that if Wal Mart sold stuff that you were interested in at reduced prices you would patronize the store?

All these years I thought it was the Dems who introduced, support and run campaigns on the virtues of welfare. Imagine how silly I feel.