And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[babomb]

It's just way too coincidental at this point. It just keeps happening. And it seems like it's fueling an agenda. It only like 2 weeks after it was revealed that we've all been under the watchful eye of TrapWire for some time now. Even you guys in the UK are under the eye of TrapWire, but you guys probably feel safer knowing that. "In one leaked email, Stratfor vice president Fred Burton states that TrapWire is in place at every high-value target in New York City, Washington, D.C, and Los Angeles, as well as London and Ottawa." I don't know about anyone else, but that's super fucking creepy to me!! I don't feel safe or free knowing that shit exists...

[Mike70]

And again... http://news.sky.com/story/979220/thr...arket-shooting and it will keep happening, my friend. it will happen here and in other places over and over. doesn't need to be guns either, just look the sarin gas attacks in japan. the problem is that modern society is fundamentally sick on a deep, deep level. i don't care the method a person uses, the real question is why people do these things. Huxley understood this sickness and it is the main theme of many of his major works. so many of us grow up in fucked up, neglectful, violent situations because we are prisoners of our parents and "belong" to them somehow. how much does psychiatric disease revolve directly around the things done in to you in childhood? a massive amount of it. what happens to you as a kid never leaves you, you might never get over it, and it can a fuck person's entire life up. again, machines are not the problem, it is the darkness in the human heart and what puts it there that we should be concerned about.

[Tricky]

Well Mike, the UK has just applied some common sense which has been unheard of here for a while with this story! As I've said before, I'm not anti-gun by any means and I do believe strongly in being able to defend yourself and property http://news.sky.com/story/981373/far...t-face-charges The shotgun was legally held and the owner will have had all the proper background checks and jumped through all the hoops to own that gun, luckily, and largely down to guns not being freely available to all and sundry, the thieves were not carrying them too.

[fulci fan]

Semi automatic rifles are not real "assault rifles" . The m16/Ar15's operating systems are far from "junk". Nobody will take our guns.

[Tricky]

And again... http://news.sky.com/story/1025646/sc...icut-27-killed

[Exatreides]

Already morons on my facebook are calling for teachers to be armed. Saying that it would have prevented the violence. Sigh... That's stupid for quite a few reasons. Unless you want teachers to walk around armed always(yeah just what kids need, to be more desensitized to guns and violence) when a group of kids could attack a teacher get a gun and start a spree with that. Or you have it locked in the class room where It's useless if a shooter bursts in. But let's say you have a teacher with a gun at her side, say a glock 17 with a loaded 20 round magazine. Say a shooter bursts in the room with a tech 9 with let's say 25 round magazine. Teacher is at her desk opposite the door. Gunman starts shooting towards teacher, kids get hit. Teacher pulls out her weapon, returns fire. Now unless she's an expert marksman she's going to miss and possibly hit kids. Or her rounds are going to go through walls and hit other people. You go from 25 bullets flying to 45. Say the gunman manages to kill the teacher in the first shot. Now he has another weapon to kill kids and the staff with. Simply putting more guns out there is a terrible terrible plan.

[shootemindehead]

All that's going to happen there is that the teacher will be the first to be targeted. It's a moronic idea.

[Neil]

Already morons on my facebook are calling for teachers to be armed. Saying that it would have prevented the violence. And then the day a teacher goes postal, the calls would be to arm all pupils?

[Exatreides]

Sometimes when faced with a situation like today's pathetic events in Connecticut, the only way to counter the "It's not the gun, it's the person behind it" argument is to use a Socratic technique known as reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument. In this case, ask yourself, "If Hitler had posessed a nuclear weapon in 1943, how might WWII have ended differently?" Clearly our answer to that lies in our knowledge of Hitler's psychosis and disdain for human life, true. That's the "person behind the gun" part of the NRA argument. The rest, however is that Hitler couldn't get his hands on a nuclear weapon, ergo we are still here. The reductio in absurdum here is "If there were no handguns, how many handgun deaths would there be?" - duh - none. The NRA response always revolves around the "If guns were illegal only criminals would have guns" - well, then make illegal handgun possession a 20 year prison sentence. secondarily, require legitimate accountability for ammo purchases and stop selling weapons designed almost exclusively for killing people to anyone except law enforcement. Even better, tell the gun manufacturers lobby in America (incredibly powerful, huge Republican contributors) to stop making and selling cheap handguns. If I need a license to drive and own a pet, certainly it's not too much to require the same for handgun ownership, if we are determined to allow it. Also make it a felony to fail to report the loss of a handgun within a specified amount of time. Above all, stop telling us that the Second Amendment relates to private handgun (or any gun, for that matter) ownership. It starts with these words: "A well regulated militia being....." In other words all that follows those words is predicated on the need for a well regulated militia. We have it; it's Known as "the National Guard". Give them all the weapons they need. period.

[babomb]

Yeah, let's keep trading liberty for safety and keep giving the state more and more power! Sounds like a good plan.

[Mr. Clean]

Already morons on my facebook are calling for teachers to be armed. Saying that it would have prevented the violence. Sigh... That's stupid for quite a few reasons. Unless you want teachers to walk around armed always(yeah just what kids need, to be more desensitized to guns and violence) when a group of kids could attack a teacher get a gun and start a spree with that. Or you have it locked in the class room where It's useless if a shooter bursts in. But let's say you have a teacher with a gun at her side, say a glock 17 with a loaded 20 round magazine. Say a shooter bursts in the room with a tech 9 with let's say 25 round magazine. Teacher is at her desk opposite the door. Gunman starts shooting towards teacher, kids get hit. Teacher pulls out her weapon, returns fire. Now unless she's an expert marksman she's going to miss and possibly hit kids. Or her rounds are going to go through walls and hit other people. You go from 25 bullets flying to 45. Say the gunman manages to kill the teacher in the first shot. Now he has another weapon to kill kids and the staff with. Simply putting more guns out there is a terrible terrible plan. Sometimes when faced with a situation like today's pathetic events in Connecticut, the only way to counter the "It's not the gun, it's the person behind it" argument is to use a Socratic technique known as reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument. In this case, ask yourself, "If Hitler had posessed a nuclear weapon in 1943, how might WWII have ended differently?" Clearly our answer to that lies in our knowledge of Hitler's psychosis and disdain for human life, true. That's the "person behind the gun" part of the NRA argument. The rest, however is that Hitler couldn't get his hands on a nuclear weapon, ergo we are still here. The reductio in absurdum here is "If there were no handguns, how many handgun deaths would there be?" - duh - none. The NRA response always revolves around the "If guns were illegal only criminals would have guns" - well, then make illegal handgun possession a 20 year prison sentence. secondarily, require legitimate accountability for ammo purchases and stop selling weapons designed almost exclusively for killing people to anyone except law enforcement. Even better, tell the gun manufacturers lobby in America (incredibly powerful, huge Republican contributors) to stop making and selling cheap handguns. If I need a license to drive and own a pet, certainly it's not too much to require the same for handgun ownership, if we are determined to allow it. Also make it a felony to fail to report the loss of a handgun within a specified amount of time. Above all, stop telling us that the Second Amendment relates to private handgun (or any gun, for that matter) ownership. It starts with these words: "A well regulated militia being....." In other words all that follows those words is predicated on the need for a well regulated militia. We have it; it's Known as "the National Guard". Give them all the weapons they need. period. I'm not saying I agree with the idea but it's considered an attempt at deterrence. Nut jobs with the intention of doing such a horrible thing and then commiting suicide wouldn't care if teachers were armed. They would just factor that in their plans for the assault. So yes, I do agree that armed "teacher marshals" is pretty lame but trained armed resource officers isn't a bad idea apart from stretching the limited resources of already struggling police forces. As far as eliminating gun ownership completely....That's stupid. Stuart shit his pants so now I have to wear a diaper? Give me a break. You're not going to be able to disarm Americans. It's just never going to happen. Many citizens will die before they allow ole' Uncle Sam take their guns. You wanna see an attempt at secession? As President, openly admit to the American people that your going to disarm them then watch how many states start talking about forming a Union for real. The prison system already suffers from over crowding. You talk about hammering people with strict prison sentences for gun ownership but they will just get out early on probation because of all the over crowding........along with all the other asshats behind bars for other felony offenses. Harsh punishment is a suppose to be a deterrence for comitting a crime but criminals still commit crimes don't they? Sickos still rape children or own child pornagraphy on their computers. Sex trafficking still takes place. People still sell illegal drugs. I can't really argue with the license requirement but why impose a license requirement on gun owners when you can't even require a license when it comes to voting in the booth? You forgot the rest of the amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the government ever became tyrannical.....The National Guard certainly isn't gonna be looking out for your best interests or give a yoohoo about your rights so depending on the NG to come save the day is rather sheepish. Also, We are the people. I'm not trying to attack you or your opinions....just think some of your ideas are as flawed as arming teachers. So don't blow a gasket on me.

[Staredge]

The founding fathers didn't want a standing army. They saw that as the beginning of the end for the whole idea of liberty. The militia was NOT anything approaching the national guard. The militia was any able bodied man. The second amendment exists to keep the government afraid of it's people, which is as it should be. It's insane to even have this argument, because no one is going to change their mind. If you think guns are the problem, then you want them banned. If you think society is the problem, not guns, then you probably don't. As for the licensing argument.......ok. I'll support licenses, as long as their handled just like driver's licenses and pet licenses. Issue them to anyone that wants one, upon request and with no reason needed. Make them national, so I can own and carry in every state. Want me to take a class? Fine by me. Arming teachers that want to carry? Works for me. You give us your children all day, and allow us to fill their little minds but you're afraid of us having guns??? How many teachers died trying to protect their students. I'll fight as hard to keep your kids alive as I will my own. Ain't too many police stations or military bases getting shot up, now are there? (and IIRC in the case of Ft. Hood....they weren't allowed to carry loaded weapons)

[Publius]

well, then make illegal handgun possession a 20 year prison sentence. secondarily, require legitimate accountability for ammo purchases and stop selling weapons designed almost exclusively for killing people to anyone except law enforcement. That would explain why there's practically no drug-related crime in the US: cuz banning something and imposing severe penalties for its possession makes it disappear. If I need a license to drive and own a pet, certainly it's not too much to require the same for handgun ownership, if we are determined to allow it. Gun control advocates often say how guns should be regulated like cars. Well, if that were the case: 1. You wouldn't need a license or registration for a gun used only on your own property (only if you want to use it in public areas). 2. You could carry your gun throughout the country, as your license would be recognized in every state. 3. You could buy a gun outside of your state of residence, including from a private party in another state, without the involvement of a licensed dealer in your own state. Bottom line is that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and no restriction that has a reasonable possibility of being enacted on a national level would have made a bit of difference in this incident.

[krisvds]

Meanwhile the elephant is still in the room isn't it? Why is it that we live in an age where individuals pick up arms and slaughter people they have no connection with and seem to do so with sickening regularity? I don't pretend to have an answer to that question and it sure as hell is more complicated than a couple of laws concerning the carrying of arms.

[babomb]

Meanwhile the elephant is still in the room isn't it? Why is it that we live in an age where individuals pick up arms and slaughter people they have no connection with and seem to do so with sickening regularity? I don't pretend to have an answer to that question and it sure as hell is more complicated than a couple of laws concerning the carrying of arms. It's very sickening that it happens with such regularity. There's nothing else to be said in that regard. But it's equally sickening that when it comes to real solutions to this problem, nobody has any. Everyone jumps to the quickest solution: BAN GUNS! And the reason for this is that most people want a solution that they consider to be all encompassing, just something that can be done quickly to dissolve the problem entirely. Or so they think anyway. The cause of the problem has been a long time in the making. It's so much more complex than simply banning access to objects. But that's what people are crying out for, because they think it will be a magical fix that will just make the problem go away and then we won't have to talk about it anymore. Some of the problems that I see are inadequate access to mental health resources, the tendency to just medicate those with mental health problems. The US has had a problem with these "active shooters" for quite a few years. But it's never happened with such alarming regularity as it is happening now. And it can't be coincidence that it IS happening so frequently now that the US is in real serious trouble on all fronts. These are dire and desperate times now in the US. The American way of life is changed forever, and people don't know how to cope with it. As a society, we have a real crazy fascination with violence. Our culture glamorizes it, makes heroes out of those who practice it, it's in every TV show, more so in videogames. I realize that other nations are playing the same videogames and watching the same films and TV shows. But I don't think there's another country on the planet that glamorizes violence to the same degree that the US does. I think this plays a HUGE role in these massacres. I think young people in America today are having the line between fantasy and reality blurred. Whether you want to accept it or not, this kind of violence is part of our culture now. Which is where part of the problem with correcting it comes in. People want a way to get rid of it with one long sweep, a surefire method of erasing it entirely and making it as if it never was. So people focus on GUNS, the scary looking death machines. The funny thing is that the people who see banning guns as the fix are people who never valued the 2nd ammendment to begin with. It's real easy to cast away a right when it's not one you value or exercise. So it ends up being the same as surrendering someone elses rights. Which is much easier than surrendering your own. You're not gonna find someone who owns guns, believes in the need for them, and values the 2nd amm. standing up and saying "Yes! We need to ban guns to stop these massacres"! It's just not gonna happen. Just like you're not gonna find an American who thinks the solution is to throw away the right to free speech so that violence is no longer in everyones face. And it's not because gun owners are all selfish bastards that would rather see children die than give up their weapons. It's because it's not a real solution, it doesn't really address the bigger problem, and it does away with a constitutional right that some people value. Most people who look to ban guns as the solution are not themselves gun owners, and see no real reason for people to own guns. So it's real easy to see that as the magic cure. They aren't surrendering their own rights for this so called solution, so to them it's a no-brainer and those who oppose are selfish morons and retarded rednecks that don't matter anyway. But, if these same people were expected to give up a right that they valued highly, I suspect it would be a much different situation entirely. The solution wouldn't be anywhere near as simple, and other problems and solutions would be explored much more thoroughly.