Gun violence close to home

[Hixter]

pro gun does not want background checks 

Every firearm sold in this nation began with a background check.

[bleedorange]

Ted Cruz is an embarrassment.

[KevinG]

Every firearm sold in this nation began with a background check.

 

Come on, you know that isn't true.  Private party gun sales in many areas do not require background checks.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/private-gun-sales-sandy-hook_n_2347420.html

 

I have said it before and I will say it again, there is more a of record of me selling and buying a car then of many gun sales.  

[Hixter]

Furthermore, I encourage you to watch this piece from Rachel Maddow.  I know what some of you think that he is a leftist communist whatever and probably won't watch just because of that, which is really unfortunate. But she makes the case for more gun control using the details of Newtown shooting (forward to 1:15 in video to get to good parts).  It is an augment driven by passion and using facts.  And by using details and facts she makes a convincing argument that it could have been prevented or at least limited the number of deaths.   

I watched it and it came away unimpressed; it was as lousy as the majority of the stuff I've seen and read in the news about the subject.

 

1) A 30-round magazine for an AR-15 is not an "extended" magazine. It's the standard magazine that the rifles ships with, not some sort of exotic accessory sought out by would-be mass murderers.

 

2) OMG -- Lanza shot his way through a door/window to gain entry! It seems to me that bullet-resistant/shatter-resistant glass should have been installed, since a small rock or a good kick would allow anyone access to the locked school.

 

3) OMG -- he fired 152 rounds in more than 5 minutes! That's less than a round every 2 seconds. Maddow goes on to say that he would have had to reload 10 more times if he'd only had 10-round magazines, neglecting to mention that it takes about 2 seconds to change mags, so if he was averaging 2 seconds in between shots he could have reloaded those 10 times without reducing his rate of fire.

 

4) OMG -- he would have had to carry 15 10-round magazines to fire 150 rounds! Have you seen how many magazine pouches tactical vest features?

 

5) OMG -- if he'd had to reload more often, perhaps he would have dropped something and given someone a chance to stop him. He was in an elementary school. He walked into a classroom of 6-year-olds and shot the the only adult in the room. Does anyone really think that a 6-year-old could/would have taken him down and ended the shooting?

 

"Reporting" like this does nothing to educate the nation when it's full of inaccuracies, half-truths and supposition. Anyone who knows anything about firearms just shakes his head when reporters display such ignorance about guns and how they work.

 

Come on, you know that isn't true.  Private party gun sales in many areas do not require background checks.  

It's absolutely true. Where did those privately sold guns originate?

[moxiebean]

Every firearm sold in this nation began with a background check.

But not every firearm sold in this nation ended with a background check.

[KevinG]

It's absolutely true. Where did those privately sold guns originate?

 

You are talking out of two sides of your mouth here.  You support (or at least acknowledge) the fact that there are background checks on all new gun sales.  That is a good thing IMHO.  However for private sales there is no background check.  (And something I believe you disagree with.)  There is nothing to keep those guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.  You can sell a gun to any damn fool you want to.  No one would know.  I would even think gun owners would want a record of a sale, just for the liability factors.  If your goal is to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (which is one of the ways you would curb gun violence) then why not have these background checks on all private party sales.  

 

So which is it and be truthful here.  Do you want to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or do you just want to be able to sell and buy guns with out restrictions?  To me people on the right are hiding behind the mentally ill thing like they are doing something.  Really they just want to keep doing what they like to do.   

[Hixter]

However for private sales there is no background check.

And they are a small fraction of gun sales. Most person-to-person transfers are between friends and family members. 

 

Every gun in America is legally acquired at the beginning of its existence -- so how do all those illegal guns on the street become illegal? Answer: they are stolen or purchased on the street in illegal transactions by criminals who will never pay attention to background check requirements. There are already laws in place to "prevent" this, so how will another law help?

 

There is nothing to keep those guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Current background checks make it unlawful for the mentally ill to purchase a firearm -- how's that working out so far? How will another law magically fix the situation?

[KevinG]

You know I told myself that I didn't want to get into this pointless gun argument again.  Cause really it is pointless.  The pro-gun group is so entrenched in its ways that any sensible or even minor sensible measures aren't even considered.  And the NRA is such a powerful lobby that no legislation will be passed, in fact they actively weaken the gun laws that are already on the books.  And then the go to argument on what people would do about gun control is mental health, which is complete bullshit.  It is, find me some real measures that have been purposed to help the mentally ill.  

 

Or the argument that Hixtler has said over and over again, to put bullet proof glass and panic rooms in schools.  Think about that for a second.  THAT IS FUCKING INSANE!  Our schools have to be safe places for our children, they should be safe, not in a place we we hide and cower.  Let alone not to mention the cost of our already cash strapped school districts.  Why don't we try to make the outside world safer first instead of barricading ourselves?    

 

Listen I am not going to change anyone's mind on this subject and nothing is going to change.  I am sure in 6 months or year we will have another dozen people shot by a madman.  And nothing will get done.  It is the world we live in.  It is a sad world, it is a depressing world.

 

Maybe more laws aren't the answer, but what we are doing currently is not working.  Something has to be done.  Our society is broken.  

 

Oh and I honestly don't care Hixtler what you have to say on the matter, as I am sure you don't care about what I have to say.  Like I said the whole thing is pointless.  I am done with this gun argument.  Hey maybe I am being a petty little nit, but fuck it, there is too many other things to do other than bang my head against the wall over this stupid argument.  

[Hixter]

The pro-gun group is so entrenched in its ways that any sensible or even minor sensible measures aren't even considered. 

Talking point of the issue: "sensible." Just keep calling the proposed measures "sensible." The anti-gun group is so entrenched in its ways that they refuse to even consider that their proposals are not at all sensible.

 

Or the argument that Hixtler has said over and over again, to put bullet proof glass and panic rooms in schools.  Think about that for a second.  THAT IS FUCKING INSANE!  Our schools have to be safe places for our children, they should be safe, not in a place we we hide and cower.  

Hiding and cowering is exactly what the students and teachers were doing that day at Sandy Hook Elementary because that's what they were trained to do in such situations. It seems reasonable to me that if there are no armed police at a school, some reinforced glass would be a cheap and easy way to slow down an attacker during the 5 or 10 minutes it takes the cops to arrive. Ms. Maddow advocated smaller magazines in order to slow the attacker down by a few seconds, so why not something more substantial than a plate glass door?

 

Why don't we try to make the outside world safer first instead of barricading ourselves?  

And your suggestion to entirely eliminate murders is what?

 

Our society is broken.

I disagree. Our society is gentler and more peaceful than ever before. There are some exceptions, there have always been some exceptions and there will always be some exceptions.

 

Oh and I honestly don't care Hixtler what you have to say on the matter, as I am sure you don't care about what I have to say.  Like I said the whole thing is pointless.

I care about what people believe and respect their beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. As far as I'm concerned, there's room for just about everybody in this world.

 

I am done with this gun argument.

In my eyes, it was never an argument.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

You know mental health is always thrown out as a solution to the gun violence problem, but I have not seen or heard of one piece of legislation or policy that truly addresses this.  However I do see that Sen Graham has proposed such a measure.  But he says this, “I believe that the best way to interrupt the shooter is to have a mental health system that actually records and enters into the database people who should not be able to buy a gun.”  But since as we have discussed pro gun does not want background checks, so any such database of the mentally ill is toothless.   A mentally ill person still could get a gun through private sales etc.  

 

As for a wholesale reexamination of the mental health care system, do you honestly believe any politician, especially those on the right would ever in a million years purpose something like that?  Seriously?  You may throw it out like it the answer but it does nothing.  And really this focus on the mentally ill is misguided.  

 

Furthermore, I encourage you to watch this piece from Rachel Maddow.  I know what some of you think that he is a leftist communist whatever and probably won't watch just because of that, which is really unfortunate. But she makes the case for more gun control using the details of Newtown shooting (forward to 1:15 in video to get to good parts).  It is an augment driven by passion and using facts.  And by using details and facts she makes a convincing argument that it could have been prevented or at least limited the number of deaths.   

 

Nah....I don't care that Rachel Maddow is a lefty...I just can't get the picture of Matthew Perry out of my mind.

 

The Newtown shooter used weapons that had been legally purchased (as far as I know) by his mother. No manner of background check would have mattered here. I may be misguided about many things, but to simply brush off the appalling lack of systematic mental health care in this country is, well, misguided. I refer to it as a larger issue. I think that preventative mental health care is probably more likely than the confiscation of handguns. And don't kid yourself. The only way to make a impact of gun violence is to remove guns from the populace. I don't think this is a viable or ratinal option.

 

I have read somewhere (and this may not be factual, but lack of facts doesn't seem to matter a whole hell of a lot on the interwebs) that the AR-15 that the Newtown shooter had taken from him mother was NOT used in the shootings and was still in the car.

[bleedorange]

I have read somewhere (and this may not be factual, but lack of facts doesn't seem to matter a whole hell of a lot on the interwebs) that the AR-15 that the Newtown shooter had taken from him mother was NOT used in the shootings and was still in the car.

 

That isn't true.  The only gun found in the trunk was a 12-gauge shotgun.  He did use the AR-15 in the shootings.  To me, the most salient point of the Maddow piece was that the AR-15 is a gun that could not have been purchased from 1994-2004 when Feinstein's law was in effect.  Does that mean he would have done this anyway with a different gun?  Would it have meant less loss of life?  A lot of questions.  And Feinstein's point about how many different types of guns do Americans need definitely resonates.

 

Also, I hope the Republican party can come up with a good candidate to run against Ted Cruz in the primary.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

That isn't true.  The only gun found in the trunk was a 12-gauge shotgun.  He did use the AR-15 in the shootings.  To me, the most salient point of the Maddow piece was that the AR-15 is a gun that could not have been purchased from 1994-2004 when Feinstein's law was in effect.  Does that mean he would have done this anyway with a different gun?  Would it have meant less loss of life?  A lot of questions.  And Feinstein's point about how many different types of guns do Americans need definitely resonates.

 

Also, I hope the Republican party can come up with a good candidate to run against Ted Cruz in the primary.

 

I wonder if the shooter's mom bought the weapon pre-1994 or post 2004? And I think an automatic pistol would have caused just as much havoc. However; if he had been treated for his obvious mental health issues....

 

I have not had a lot of first hand experience with gun violence and I have never owned a firearm of any sort. I have family members who are rabid firearms afficianados. However, I have had first hand experience with the appalling state of mental health treatment in this country. I don't think guns will ever go away, but I have hope that eventually there will be recognition that the silent storm can be addressed and sometimes needs to be addressed in an involuntary fashion.

 

Ted Cruz is making a helluva splash and playing to his base. He may be pissing off the old School Republicans, but the TeaParty folks (who are the activists) really love this guy. He seems to have made an alliance with Rand Paul. Could be an interesting pairing for the future. David Dewhurst WAS a good candidate and Cruz crushed him like a bug. I don't know if there's much of a chance of him going away anytime soon.

As strong as the Democrats are in Dallas County, it will be quite a while before a Democrat will win a statewide office.

 

I look at a lot of the political stuff with a rather dispassionate eye. I see the broader game that is being played and am no longer fooled by the expositions of seemingly heartfelt ideology.

[ih8music]

I thought he used a Bushmaster .223 rifle.

 

Regardless, why is it either/or re: improved mental health care and increased gun control? Both are necessary, IMO.

 

Of course, I thought a national (mental) healthcare program was our first step into the trap of Socialism.

 

And btw - those "private" sales include the majority of gun show transactions. It isn't just dad selling his hunting rifle to his son: it's any one person selling his weapon(s) to another person, regardless of whether they know each other. I agree that there's no reason why the transfer of automobile ownership is tracked whereas tracking gun sales is some affront to liberty.

 

If for no other reason, think of all the sales tax revenue that the states are losing out on because these gun sales are never reported. I know that's the only reason I paid sales tax on the car I purchased from a friend a few years ago -- the state sent me a bill.

[bleedorange]

I wonder if the shooter's mom bought the weapon pre-1994 or post 2004? And I think an automatic pistol would have caused just as much havoc. However; if he had been treated for his obvious mental health issues....

 

I have not had a lot of first hand experience with gun violence and I have never owned a firearm of any sort. I have family members who are rabid firearms afficianados. However, I have had first hand experience with the appalling state of mental health treatment in this country. I don't think guns will ever go away, but I have hope that eventually there will be recognition that the silent storm can be addressed and sometimes needs to be addressed in an involuntary fashion.

 

Ted Cruz is making a helluva splash and playing to his base. He may be pissing off the old School Republicans, but the TeaParty folks (who are the activists) really love this guy. He seems to have made an alliance with Rand Paul. Could be an interesting pairing for the future. David Dewhurst WAS a good candidate and Cruz crushed him like a bug. I don't know if there's much of a chance of him going away anytime soon.

As strong as the Democrats are in Dallas County, it will be quite a while before a Democrat will win a statewide office.

 

I look at a lot of the political stuff with a rather dispassionate eye. I see the broader game that is being played and am no longer fooled by the expositions of seemingly heartfelt ideology.

 

Dewhurst wasn't a great candidate and he actually beat Cruz in the primary.  But the runoff was a different story, where money and getting people to actually vote benefited the Tea Party candidate in this case.

 

I thought he used a Bushmaster .223 rifle.

 

Maybe he did.  I don't know.  I know nothing about guns.

[Hixter]

However; if he had been treated for his obvious mental health issues....

From what I've read, he was treated for his mental health issues. The kid was rich and I imagine he had access to the very best care money could buy.

 

His is a shining example of how we'll never be able to eliminate these kinds of mass murders. All reports are that he was shy, withdrawn and quiet -- not the kind of kid you think of as a murderer. If he never showed any tendencies toward violence then there was no way to stop him from going on a rampage. Mental health care isn't any more of a guaranteed cure for crazy any more than medical care is a guaranteed cure for cancer.

I thought he used a Bushmaster .223 rifle.

It was an AR-15-style weapon. Bushmaster is the manufacturer and .223 is the caliber of round it's designed to fire.

[Sir Stewart]

Hixter's grasp of this subject is in direct contrast to the attractiveness of his avatar.

[LouieB]

Hixter's grasp of this subject is in direct contrast to the attractiveness of his avatar.

I must be clueless but I have no idea what that means.

 

After following these gun threads and hearing the anti- gun control  arguments I am totally convinced that those opposing any type of control (and I am not refering to eliminating guns entirely) have the same basiic empathy gap that those who believe that gays have a right to marry; it won't effect anyone until they personally know someone who has been shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun. The fact that the argument goes that since we can't stop this completely we should do nothing about it has an unassailable logic to it. 

 

LouieB

[NoJ]

Hixter's grasp of this subject is in direct contrast to the attractiveness of his avatar.

 

Are you sweet on Hixter?

[Hixter]

Hixter's grasp of this subject is in direct contrast to the attractiveness of his avatar.

I'm not sure if that means that you're attracted to, or repulsed by, the shirtless Mr. Cline. Either way, I've been meaning to change it. Maybe I should choose that red Rothko painting that's been popping up all over Facebook???

[Hixter]

I am totally convinced that those opposing any type of control (and I am not refering to eliminating guns entirely) have the same basiic empathy gap that those who believe that gays have a right to marry; it won't effect anyone until they personally know someone who has been shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun. 

In my 50 years on this planet I've known people who have been shot in just about every possible way: wartime, suicide, accidentally, accidentally self-inflicted and robbery. It doesn't change the way I feel about gun laws: the laws currently on the books cover every possible aspect of gun crime and adding new laws that essentially criminalize what is already criminal is a waste of time.

[Sir Stewart]

To be clear - it's the worst avatar in the history of history.

Fucking new page.

[Hixter]

To be clear - it's the worst avatar in the history of history.

You made baby Nels cry.

 

Better?

[Tweedling]

To be clear - it's the worst avatar in the history of history.

Fucking new page.

Nope not true. Winston Legthigh wins. IMO