On all of the recent mass shootings in the U.S.

[Catsratz]

Yet another one happened just today in Webster, NY, which is maybe within a hundred miles north of where I live. Details just coming in, but apparently someone set a major fire of residential homes just so the shooter could pick off and kill arriving firefighters. Four dead so far. Just over a week ago the tragic murders of 20 young grade-schoolers and others...some between then and now and serious enough to make it to the CNN page, two copycat shooters arrested in my general area after the Sandy Hook child-killings...

Don't these people know yet that their religion is not working and the answer is not MORE religion?!

It's hard to respect humanity when its overweening reason for being seems to be not to try not to make life better but instead wrap itself in a cozy cocoon of fantasy as times get worse.

Although Chikatilo was (arguably) the worst of the lot, still, the U.S. seems to have a way with this sort of thing. "Natural Born Killers" anyone?

[nkb]

And the demand from the NRA: We need armed guards at every fire, that's the only way to reduce violence.

[dogpet]

Keep hearing banning won't work, banning & regular amnesties is the only shout you've got. Don't see why individual towns can't make their own rules, like they do with cigarettes. That's the problem with living your life in accordance with out of date scribblings.

[Catsratz]

At first, they were shooting up the post offices (odd, that). Then the schools. Now, firefighters. They keep on trying to sink to a lower level all the time. What next, Kindergarten? No, wait - they just did that. Almost. Missed by a grade or two.

Edit to give update: The firefighter-killing asswipe had already been convicted of killing Grandma.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new...html?hpt=hp_t1

Although atheists are seen as "liberal" (I'd see it more as "conservative" for not believing in all that holy-moly) I feel myself as more conservative. I like what kiddie-killer Adam Lanza's barber said: Wish I'd killed him in the chair. Surprised CNN published it. Not promoting guns or violence, just true feelings and something better than "prayer" "counseling" etc.

[thesummerqueen]

I had a skype discussion with an older German friend of mine who had been through some war-torn areas of Eastern Europe in his youth. Even after discussing the Second Amendment at some length, he made a convincing argument to me that it ought to be changed so that owning a gun is a privilege, not a right, which is the way they do things in both Germany (and Canada, according to several mutual friends of ours). Basically, you go through all the checks and balances to purchase the weapon, but if you do things like get DUI's or have otherwise erratic behavior put on your record, you lose the right to a gun.

Of course, this will only help with the random, everyday sort of violence. It doesn't help with mental health issues, or criminals who obtain weapons illegally, etc.

My boyfriend thinks that working to eliminate poverty in this country would reduce the number of killings as well, but I still don't think that works for the random asshole like in the OP. I'm not sure what to suggest in those cases - hyper-vigilance?

[clambake]

thesummerqueen wrote

... he made a convincing argument to me that it ought to be changed so that owning a gun is a privilege, not a right, ...

I've come to the same conclusion, I don't see any reasonable objection to treating them similarly to automobiles and driving licences. For example high performance racing cars aren't "street legal" but you can legally go to race tracks and other venues and have at, and HP guns should be the same.

I'm not sure what to suggest in those cases - hyper-vigilance?

Don't waste time and resources on unpredictable or extremely low probabilty events, especially if they aren't easily preventable anyway. (e.g. Columbine had at least one armed guard on duty at the time).

[thesummerqueen]

Well, that's what I would say too, because I understand that tragedies happen. The problem is that the vast majority of people feel out of control - which they are - in these cases, and then want something to make that feeling go away.

[nkb]

thesummerqueen wrote

Of course, this will only help with the random, everyday sort of violence. It doesn't help with mental health issues, or criminals who obtain weapons illegally, etc.

But where do the criminals get these weapons illegally? Stolen legal guns.

[thesummerqueen]

...that was sort of my point.

Even if you made all guns illegal, the original criminals would still have them. You'd just create a new class of criminals. But having less control over them invites in all manner of irresponsibility. It's a fine line.

[nkb]

thesummerqueen wrote

Even if you made all guns illegal, the original criminals would still have them.

But you have to start somewhere, otherwise you're just emulating an ostrich.

selliedjoup wrote

You'd just create a new class of criminals. But having less control over them invites in all manner of irresponsibility. It's a fine line.

Illegal guns will gradually be taken out of circulation. If there isn't an abundance of legal guns that can be stolen, the supply for the criminals eventually dries up (at least to the point that it does in civilized countries).

Of course, the chances of actual effective gun control ever being passed, with the NRA and gun manufacturers paying off their politicians, is essentially nil (or is it 50/50?).

[thesummerqueen]

I'm not for an outright ban of guns anymore than I am for an outright ban of drugs, but there you go.

And no, weapons don't "dry up" because there isn't anything legal to steal - which is why banning drugs was so effective, hmm?

[nkb]

thesummerqueen wrote

I'm not for an outright ban of guns anymore than I am for an outright ban of drugs, but there you go.

I'm all for legalizing (and regulating) drugs. What you do to yourself is nobody else's business.

What does that have to do with guns?

thesummerqueen wrote

And no, weapons don't "dry up" because there isn't anything legal to steal - which is why banning drugs was so effective, hmm?

So, where would illegal guns come from? I'm not talking about billionaire drug lords who can buy anything they want (that's not changing until drugs get legalized). I'm talking about everyday criminals who use illegal guns to mug people or hold up convenience stores. Where do those come from?

Your analogy is not very useful.

Drugs are something you do to yourself, can be manufactured or grown by almost anyone, and generally can't be used to injure or kill people. Guns require very elaborate manufacturing, expensive machinery and raw materials, and a lot of expertise, and have the sole purpose of killing people or animals.

[nkb]

By the way, a good read on gun violence and gun control, for anyone who is interested.

[thesummerqueen]

I'm for the legal and regulated use of guns. What you do to yourself or within legal bounds with them is your business (target shooting and hunting).

Illegal guns come from anyone who manages to buy a cache of them - and it doesn't have to be a "gun lord", although there certainly could be once you make them illegal. Then you create what we call a black market. Do you think that by making them illegal, you cease people's desire to kill? Not any more than getting rid of drugs - or hooch back in the Prohibition days.

Drugs are made for the sole purpose of affecting perception - more often than not in ways that permanently affect your body. It's not a perfect analogy, but it works. Because every day drug users seem to be able to buy drugs that they can't grow or manufacture, just like every day criminals seem to find people who have illegal guns to purchase them from. Not everyone knows how to grow and extract drugs (let's leave MJ off the table - it's literally a weed) anymore than not everyone knows how to build a gun.

[nkb]

Do yourself a favor, and drop the gun/drug analogy. It's not working. They are completely different products, and whereas banning drugs has failed miserably in every instance, gun control has been shown to work again and again.

I understand what you're saying, and no industrialized country has an absolute gun ban, so that's not what I'm advocating. I'm all for a heavily regulated gun control law, with nobody needing anything along the lines of assault rifles or anything more lethal (outside of military or law enforcement).