1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
It came because it is a sane and humane response to an obvious emotion/situation. The sane part of you is what expected that response. The insane part is the willingness to put a hatred of Obama and the need for a gun above the lives of your family and friends. I would never offer to wait and see about the lives of my kids even if the odds are close to zero.
The odds may be low as you claim but are increasing with each incident. Besides there are far more shootings that are not mass murder so those odds increase greatly. But I am sure that regardless of those odds, you would be more than willing to put them at risk anyway.
Very sad to see anyone value their families to such a low level. It explains why you have no compassion for others that did not beat those odds.
"I guess we will find out."
The fact that you don't know how you would feel is horrible. The truth is that you know exactly how you would feel. You just don't want to admit it for fear of losing a round of some internet debate. Even if it is only words, it is sad to see that you value your family so low and/or you feel no shame in stating it. That should be a much greater issue for you than gun control or President hatred.
I hope that you never find out how you would feel and all stay safe. I pray for you to put a little more value on their lives.
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
It came because it is a sane and humane response to an obvious emotion/situation. The sane part of you is what expected that response. The insane part is the willingness to put a hatred of Obama and the need for a gun above the lives of your family and friends. I would never offer to wait and see about the lives of my kids even if the odds are close to zero.
The odds may be low as you claim but are increasing with each incident. Besides there are far more shootings that are not mass murder so those odds increase greatly. But I am sure that regardless of those odds, you would be more than willing to put them at risk anyway.
Very sad to see anyone value their families to such a low level. It explains why you have no compassion for others that did not beat those odds.
"I guess we will find out."
The fact that you don't know how you would feel is horrible. The truth is that you know exactly how you would feel. You just don't want to admit it for fear of losing a round of some internet debate. Even if it is only words, it is sad to see that you value your family so low and/or you feel no shame in stating it. That should be a much greater issue for you than gun control or President hatred.
I hope that you never find out how you would feel and all stay safe. I pray for you to put a little more value on their lives.
Very good post, CM.
The reality is that he stated exactly what one would expect of him. As sad as his response was, we're all familiar enough of leanings, and this was quite predictable. It's good that there are others with empathy.
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
It came because it is a sane and humane response to an obvious emotion/situation. The sane part of you is what expected that response. The insane part is the willingness to put a hatred of Obama and the need for a gun above the lives of your family and friends. I would never offer to wait and see about the lives of my kids even if the odds are close to zero.
The odds may be low as you claim but are increasing with each incident. Besides there are far more shootings that are not mass murder so those odds increase greatly. But I am sure that regardless of those odds, you would be more than willing to put them at risk anyway.
Very sad to see anyone value their families to such a low level. It explains why you have no compassion for others that did not beat those odds.
"I guess we will find out."
The fact that you don't know how you would feel is horrible. The truth is that you know exactly how you would feel. You just don't want to admit it for fear of losing a round of some internet debate. Even if it is only words, it is sad to see that you value your family so low and/or you feel no shame in stating it. That should be a much greater issue for you than gun control or President hatred.
I hope that you never find out how you would feel and all stay safe. I pray for you to put a little more value on their lives.
Sad as it is CM....We as a nation place a higher value on weapons than we do on our children. Not just the ones who got murdered or continue to get murdered in our schools and movie theaters....but every child that gets caught up both as part of the urban culture or as a innocent bystander shot while sleeping....
Yet we do nothing as a nation....but what is it we really can do at this point....there simply too many guns out there to think we could actually round them up and change a whole culture where everything is resolved through violence.....Our whole culture places thrugdom on a pedestal....we praise rudeness....we have no thoughts for others....no thank yous....no pleases.....yet everyone thinks they need to be respected when they simply show none themselves
The US paints a nice picture but we slither along not truly worried about anything but who gets paid....and children losing their lives is low on the to do list
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Not perfect life but maybe less f_cking gun death in a so called civilized society. We spend a ton of money in our fear about Islamic terrorist attacks here but as Americans we are hundreds of times more likely to die at the hands of a sick mentally or evil twisted American citizen. Maybe it is time to get priorities in order. If we are gonna be so concerned about Islamic terrorism and well deserved then maybe it's time to start showing the same kind of concern for Americans being blown away by good ol American gun violence. Far more Americans die from that then from Islamic terrorism.
[Edited on 10/2/2015 by alloak41]
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
Much higher chance that you or a loved one will die from American gun violence than from Islamic terrorism. The odds are smaller of you being murdered by an Islamic terrorist. Should we stop concerning ourselves with Islamic terrorism?
13 kids are dead, and you care most about tearing down the President. You offer nothing except vitriole. Quite sad to see.
13 kids are dead and the president can't wait 24 hours to attack his opponents and promote his political agenda. Quite sad to see,
C'mon Doug!!! That is complete bulls_it and you know it and it isn't fair!!!! What the hell is a President supposed to say when he is up there once again for the 20th friggin time for these mass shootings in our so called civilized society????? I know you hate Obama but criticizing him for his feelings about this horrible issue is completely unfair and over the top. Should he have just said , "oh well, just another day in America, lets do nothing and continue to have one of these once a month"???
Those who elect to do nothing in the name of preservation of the 2nd amendment, are a major part of the problem.
I don't get it. What do you mean do nothing? Oregon has extremely strict gun control laws. The school was a gun free zone. What exactly should be done? Do you want all guns confiscated and destroyed? What do you want done? Do you want the police to go onto the streets and confiscate illegal guns? New York was doing that very effectively and gun crime dropped exponentially. But the DiBalsio and his radical allies demanded it stop. Now gun crime is rising.
Yes guns should be confiscated whenever possible and the vetting of people or the process and procedures to attain a gun legally should be made much tougher. Screening should be much more stringent before anyone gets a gun. Nobody should be able to just walk into a store or go to a gun show and buy a gun and walk right out the door with it. They should be heavily screened and tested and questioned and have checkable references. Owning a gun should be a right but only for those who can prove beyond a doubt that they are mentally stabile and don't have any evil beliefs or tendencies. The process to legally obtain firearms should be much more strict and difficult than it currently is. Just far, far too easy for anyone who wants a gun to get one.
Sad as it is CM....We as a nation place a higher value on weapons than we do on our children. Not just the ones who got murdered or continue to get murdered in our schools and movie theaters....but every child that gets caught up both as part of the urban culture or as a innocent bystander shot while sleeping....
Yet we do nothing as a nation....but what is it we really can do at this point....there simply too many guns out there to think we could actually round them up and change a whole culture where everything is resolved through violence.....Our whole culture places thrugdom on a pedestal....we praise rudeness....we have no thoughts for others....no thank yous....no pleases.....yet everyone thinks they need to be respected when they simply show none themselves
The US paints a nice picture but we slither along not truly worried about anything but who gets paid....and children losing their lives is low on the to do list
Could not have even said it better, Ron. Thank You. Sad, but true.
Sad as it is CM....We as a nation place a higher value on weapons than we do on our children. Not just the ones who got murdered or continue to get murdered in our schools and movie theaters....but every child that gets caught up both as part of the urban culture or as a innocent bystander shot while sleeping....
Yet we do nothing as a nation....but what is it we really can do at this point....there simply too many guns out there to think we could actually round them up and change a whole culture where everything is resolved through violence.....Our whole culture places thrugdom on a pedestal....we praise rudeness....we have no thoughts for others....no thank yous....no pleases.....yet everyone thinks they need to be respected when they simply show none themselves
The US paints a nice picture but we slither along not truly worried about anything but who gets paid....and children losing their lives is low on the to do list
Could not have even said it better, Ron. Thank You. Sad, but true.
I can easily see how it can feel that way. But then I stop and consider all the amazing people that I have met in my life and all the ones I have met in Canada also. Some of the kindest, generous and friendly people that I have ever come across. None of them has walked around with a gun nor shot anybody.
The truth is that a majority of your population is trapped in a political lobby game. And if both sides keep the same debate going on endlessly then they all have jobs forever. Both sides go to the extreme and gets media attention and then a few debate on those extremes and pretend that they are representative of the average Americans which is media bullshit. Just a spin game.
Meanwhile no common sense solutions are realized and yield no change. The average American does not want everyone walking around armed. They don't want anyone taking their guns either. The vast majority see common sense on things such as assault rifles. They agree on tighter controls to get a weapon. But the majority of you are never represented in any logical way. Only the people on the far ends screaming are heard.
But I love your Country and it's people. Well most anyway. 😉
Eventually common sense will prevail and some ideas such as limiting ammo access to certain guns for a start. I have faith.
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
It came because it is a sane and humane response to an obvious emotion/situation. The sane part of you is what expected that response. The insane part is the willingness to put a hatred of Obama and the need for a gun above the lives of your family and friends. I would never offer to wait and see about the lives of my kids even if the odds are close to zero.
The odds may be low as you claim but are increasing with each incident. Besides there are far more shootings that are not mass murder so those odds increase greatly. But I am sure that regardless of those odds, you would be more than willing to put them at risk anyway.
Very sad to see anyone value their families to such a low level. It explains why you have no compassion for others that did not beat those odds.
"I guess we will find out."
The fact that you don't know how you would feel is horrible. The truth is that you know exactly how you would feel. You just don't want to admit it for fear of losing a round of some internet debate. Even if it is only words, it is sad to see that you value your family so low and/or you feel no shame in stating it. That should be a much greater issue for you than gun control or President hatred.
I hope that you never find out how you would feel and all stay safe. I pray for you to put a little more value on their lives.
Very good post, CM.
The reality is that he stated exactly what one would expect of him. As sad as his response was, we're all familiar enough of leanings, and this was quite predictable. It's good that there are others with empathy.
Spare me the guilt trip. Is that what we are here debating? Who cares about people
more, empathy levels, and what not? You would have to know someone personally
to start gauging those attributes.
My point of contention on this thread is that passing more guns laws would be a futile
gesture. If pointing that out, along with secondary points like there being a certain
amount of risk in life, or that the chance of dying by gunfire is statistically next to nothing,
or that bad sh*t happens --- If that makes me cold or callous in your mind, you're certainly
welcome to your opinion.
Shooter's mother - a nurse - bragged about her arsenal in a facebook debate about open carry laws:
“You can’t be that naive, can you? It’s ridiculously easy to understand the apprehension associated with open carry. I moved from So. Calif. to Oregon, from Southern Crime-a-mania to open carry. An open carry law won’t work everywhere,” Harper wrote. But, she continued, “And when the mood strikes, and as long as we’re tossing around brand names, I sling an AR, Tek-9 or AK over my shoulder, or holster a Glock 21 (not 22), or one of my other handguns, like the Sig Sauer P226, and walk out the door. I find the shotguns are a little too cumbersome to open carry. ”
So, she loves guns and readily admits her son had mental health issues and doesn't foresee this? or the possibility of it? I think she should be held accountable in some way.
http://www.vocativ.com/news/236762/oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-guns/
How They Got Their Guns
By LARRY BUCHANAN, JOSH KELLER, RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and DANIEL VICTOR OCT. 3, 2015
Criminal histories and documented mental health problems did not prevent at least eight of the gunmen in 14 recent mass shootings from obtaining their weapons, after federal background checks led to approval of the purchases of the guns used.
Weapons were obtained with federal background checks for shooters w/stints in a psychiatric hospital, protective orders not input into the system, criminal charges that were not put in the system, ongoing psychiatric treatment for serious mental health conditions that were not required to be in the system, and expulsion from school for violence.
Existing laws don't work if people aren't doing their job by updating databases and no one questions the type and number of weapons sold.
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
It came because it is a sane and humane response to an obvious emotion/situation. The sane part of you is what expected that response. The insane part is the willingness to put a hatred of Obama and the need for a gun above the lives of your family and friends. I would never offer to wait and see about the lives of my kids even if the odds are close to zero.
The odds may be low as you claim but are increasing with each incident. Besides there are far more shootings that are not mass murder so those odds increase greatly. But I am sure that regardless of those odds, you would be more than willing to put them at risk anyway.
Very sad to see anyone value their families to such a low level. It explains why you have no compassion for others that did not beat those odds.
"I guess we will find out."
The fact that you don't know how you would feel is horrible. The truth is that you know exactly how you would feel. You just don't want to admit it for fear of losing a round of some internet debate. Even if it is only words, it is sad to see that you value your family so low and/or you feel no shame in stating it. That should be a much greater issue for you than gun control or President hatred.
I hope that you never find out how you would feel and all stay safe. I pray for you to put a little more value on their lives.
Very good post, CM.
The reality is that he stated exactly what one would expect of him. As sad as his response was, we're all familiar enough of leanings, and this was quite predictable. It's good that there are others with empathy.
Spare me the guilt trip. Is that what we are here debating? Who cares about people
more, empathy levels, and what not? You would have to know someone personally
to start gauging those attributes.
My point of contention on this thread is that passing more guns laws would be a futile
gesture. If pointing that out, along with secondary points like there being a certain
amount of risk in life, or that the chance of dying by gunfire is statistically next to nothing,
or that bad sh*t happens --- If that makes me cold or callous in your mind, you're certainly
welcome to your opinion.
Nobody is trying to guilt you. That would have to be self inflicted.
I totally disagree with your belief of having to know someone personally to gauge attributes. What one posts gives a pretty good idea of what one's beliefs, attitudes, political slant, attitude, and attributes are. We all get a reasonable picture of who posts here. Our words are a reflection of who we are - each & everyone of us. It doesn't take rocket science to figure this out.
Sad as it is CM....We as a nation place a higher value on weapons than we do on our children. Not just the ones who got murdered or continue to get murdered in our schools and movie theaters....but every child that gets caught up both as part of the urban culture or as a innocent bystander shot while sleeping....
Yet we do nothing as a nation....but what is it we really can do at this point....there simply too many guns out there to think we could actually round them up and change a whole culture where everything is resolved through violence.....Our whole culture places thrugdom on a pedestal....we praise rudeness....we have no thoughts for others....no thank yous....no pleases.....yet everyone thinks they need to be respected when they simply show none themselves
The US paints a nice picture but we slither along not truly worried about anything but who gets paid....and children losing their lives is low on the to do list
Could not have even said it better, Ron. Thank You. Sad, but true.
I can easily see how it can feel that way. But then I stop and consider all the amazing people that I have met in my life and all the ones I have met in Canada also. Some of the kindest, generous and friendly people that I have ever come across. None of them has walked around with a gun nor shot anybody.
The truth is that a majority of your population is trapped in a political lobby game. And if both sides keep the same debate going on endlessly then they all have jobs forever. Both sides go to the extreme and gets media attention and then a few debate on those extremes and pretend that they are representative of the average Americans which is media bullshit. Just a spin game.
Meanwhile no common sense solutions are realized and yield no change. The average American does not want everyone walking around armed. They don't want anyone taking their guns either. The vast majority see common sense on things such as assault rifles. They agree on tighter controls to get a weapon. But the majority of you are never represented in any logical way. Only the people on the far ends screaming are heard.
But I love your Country and it's people. Well most anyway. 😉
Eventually common sense will prevail and some ideas such as limiting ammo access to certain guns for a start. I have faith.
The general population are kind people who want the same things to feel safe to live our lives but the general population is really not making decisions....we vote in people to make decisions and they do nothing but banter about then the storm passes and we all go back to status quo
If a whole school yard of children being gunned down doesn't change enough of the decision making public what will???
Some posted earlier how many mass shooting we've had here in the US....I live in the SF Bay Area....everyday on the News someone or many in the 3 Major cities gets shot to death....there have been many innocent kids who are gunned down around here in the last several years....what's been done....nothing
This is just in the SF Bay Area....take that nations wide and see how many people on a daily basis lose their lives to gun violence....what's being done.....Nothing
The proof is in the pudding....Our children are less important than taking control of gun violence....if our children were more important something would have been done long ago and Sandy hook wouldn't have happened or the other 200 plus since
We keep talking about the mentally ill....every country has mentally ill people....how many last year or this year in Canada have been gunned down by the mentally ill....how many in England????...
Why here....whats the difference....possibly a lack of gun control...people in Canada and England hunt so they can posses weapons....why no mass shootings????
Ever contemplate the real
This marks the 45th mass shooting in America in 2015. Also the 19th school shooting. But let's do nothing.
The VIOLENCE is the issue ANGER caused an act of homicidal violence. The TOOL used was a gun. Someone needs to find out WHY the shooter was ANGRY and decided VIOLENCE was a good way to express himself. This has little to do with guns. It is about ANGER and acting out with VIOLENCE.
Why are there so many angry people? That is what needs to be looked at. If there were no guns, he could have driven a car laden with explosives thru a classroom wall and killed people that way. Getting rid of guns only removes ONE TOOL. It doesn't solve the problem of ANGER.
IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE GUNS, YOU ARE STILL LEFT WITH ANGRY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. TAKING THE GUNS AWAY DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE ANGRY PEOPLE YOU STILL HAVE IN THE WORLD. That's the point.
[Edited on 10/3/2015 by gina]
Oh Yeah.....we american have stranglehold on angry....no one else in the world is angry....Every person in Canada or England or the Netherlands is skipping around singing......... they don't have any angry people
Bad excuse...as all of them are....It seems our angry people have too easy access to guns....
The VIOLENCE is the issue ANGER caused an act of homicidal violence. The TOOL used was a gun. Someone needs to find out WHY the shooter was ANGRY and decided VIOLENCE was a good way to express himself. This has little to do with guns. It is about ANGER and acting out with VIOLENCE.
Why are there so many angry people? That is what needs to be looked at. If there were no guns, he could have driven a car laden with explosives thru a classroom wall and killed people that way. Getting rid of guns only removes ONE TOOL. It doesn't solve the problem of ANGER.
IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE GUNS, YOU ARE STILL LEFT WITH ANGRY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. TAKING THE GUNS AWAY DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE ANGRY PEOPLE YOU STILL HAVE IN THE WORLD. That's the point.
BUT THE ANGRY PEOPLE DON'T HAVE GUNS!!!
Where has logic gone? I cannot believe how &%^king stupidity of the blood thirsty pro gun advocates. Most of the same people who are anti-abortion are screaming proponents of the ability to more easily murder.
Perhaps if Doctors started performing abortions with guns you right wing "Christians" would become pro choice.
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
It came because it is a sane and humane response to an obvious emotion/situation. The sane part of you is what expected that response. The insane part is the willingness to put a hatred of Obama and the need for a gun above the lives of your family and friends. I would never offer to wait and see about the lives of my kids even if the odds are close to zero.
The odds may be low as you claim but are increasing with each incident. Besides there are far more shootings that are not mass murder so those odds increase greatly. But I am sure that regardless of those odds, you would be more than willing to put them at risk anyway.
Very sad to see anyone value their families to such a low level. It explains why you have no compassion for others that did not beat those odds.
"I guess we will find out."
The fact that you don't know how you would feel is horrible. The truth is that you know exactly how you would feel. You just don't want to admit it for fear of losing a round of some internet debate. Even if it is only words, it is sad to see that you value your family so low and/or you feel no shame in stating it. That should be a much greater issue for you than gun control or President hatred.
I hope that you never find out how you would feel and all stay safe. I pray for you to put a little more value on their lives.
Very good post, CM.
The reality is that he stated exactly what one would expect of him. As sad as his response was, we're all familiar enough of leanings, and this was quite predictable. It's good that there are others with empathy.
Spare me the guilt trip. Is that what we are here debating? Who cares about people
more, empathy levels, and what not? You would have to know someone personally
to start gauging those attributes.
My point of contention on this thread is that passing more guns laws would be a futile
gesture. If pointing that out, along with secondary points like there being a certain
amount of risk in life, or that the chance of dying by gunfire is statistically next to nothing,
or that bad sh*t happens --- If that makes me cold or callous in your mind, you're certainly
welcome to your opinion.
No guilt trip intended as you clearly would deny it anyway. Your post is pure bravado bullsh*t. Plan and simple, you would be devastated like anyone else.
The fact that you would even in jest claim that you would have to wait and see is sad. Stupid comment as the reaction would be obvious and no amount of macho gun love would heal your wounds.
Instead of trying SOMETHING to at least solve or improve the state of affairs, you would bury your head in the sand and refuse to even consider a safer and sane world. Hell no! Let's just keep selling these automatic weapons and assault rifles. After all the people are hunting with them. And who doesn't need to walk down the street with an assault rifle for concealed protection?
The notion that no change in the laws can be done is absurd.
But to make claims of caring little for family or friends, just to try and prove something on an internet forum is sad. You haven't come close to winning a round so your insult to them is meaningless.
You wanted to just spew Obama hatred as if it was the important part of the tragedy. The fact that you can't see how improper and cold that is displays many of your character traits. It is also a clear indicator of your empathy level. You think these things are hard to gauge? Any man displaying indifference to kids lives and even his own is pretty easy to gauge for me.
These kids lives were not a political ploy so put your Obama love back in your pants and perhaps show a level of respect. If not possible then again that is something to gauge you by.
1. Should we keep passing more and more laws until nothing bad ever happens and life is perfect?
2. Should we realize that life will always carry some risk, bad things are going to happen, and life will never be perfect?
Keeping the necessary trade-offs in mind, I'll gladly opt for #2.
Wonder if you will feel that way if one of your loved is gunned down senselessly in a trade off for gun rights.
I figured that response was coming. As soon as a loved one is gunned down, I guess we'll find out. Though the odds of that happening in my lifetime is close to zero.
It came because it is a sane and humane response to an obvious emotion/situation. The sane part of you is what expected that response. The insane part is the willingness to put a hatred of Obama and the need for a gun above the lives of your family and friends. I would never offer to wait and see about the lives of my kids even if the odds are close to zero.
The odds may be low as you claim but are increasing with each incident. Besides there are far more shootings that are not mass murder so those odds increase greatly. But I am sure that regardless of those odds, you would be more than willing to put them at risk anyway.
Very sad to see anyone value their families to such a low level. It explains why you have no compassion for others that did not beat those odds.
"I guess we will find out."
The fact that you don't know how you would feel is horrible. The truth is that you know exactly how you would feel. You just don't want to admit it for fear of losing a round of some internet debate. Even if it is only words, it is sad to see that you value your family so low and/or you feel no shame in stating it. That should be a much greater issue for you than gun control or President hatred.
I hope that you never find out how you would feel and all stay safe. I pray for you to put a little more value on their lives.
Very good post, CM.
The reality is that he stated exactly what one would expect of him. As sad as his response was, we're all familiar enough of leanings, and this was quite predictable. It's good that there are others with empathy.
Spare me the guilt trip. Is that what we are here debating? Who cares about people
more, empathy levels, and what not? You would have to know someone personally
to start gauging those attributes.
My point of contention on this thread is that passing more guns laws would be a futile
gesture. If pointing that out, along with secondary points like there being a certain
amount of risk in life, or that the chance of dying by gunfire is statistically next to nothing,
or that bad sh*t happens --- If that makes me cold or callous in your mind, you're certainly
welcome to your opinion.
No guilt trip intended as you clearly would deny it anyway. Your post is pure bravado bullsh*t. Plan and simple, you would be devastated like anyone else.
The fact that you would even in jest claim that you would have to wait and see is sad. Stupid comment as the reaction would be obvious and no amount of macho gun love would heal your wounds.
Instead of trying SOMETHING to at least solve or improve the state of affairs, you would bury your head in the sand and refuse to even consider a safer and sane world. Hell no! Let's just keep selling these automatic weapons and assault rifles. After all the people are hunting with them. And who doesn't need to walk down the street with an assault rifle for concealed protection?
The notion that no change in the laws can be done is absurd.
But to make claims of caring little for family or friends, just to try and prove something on an internet forum is sad. You haven't come close to winning a round so your insult to them is meaningless.
You wanted to just spew Obama hatred as if it was the important part of the tragedy. The fact that you can't see how improper and cold that is displays many of your character traits. It is also a clear indicator of your empathy level. You think these things are hard to gauge? Any man displaying indifference to kids lives and even his own is pretty easy to gauge for me.
These kids lives were not a political ploy so put your Obama love back in your pants and perhaps show a level of respect. If not possible then again that is something to gauge you by.
1. Those goalposts have wheels? Nowhere have I said I wouldn't be devastated. The debate point dealt with my attitude toward piling on additional gun laws and whether I would favor that approach if I lost a loved one to a shooting incident.
2. If honesty is stupid I plead guilty. If my daughter was shot to death I might do a total turnaround and favor an outright ban and seizure of all firearms. I doubt it, but I guess anything is possible.
3. We already have a stack of laws pertaining to that type of weapon. Where do you get the idea that NOTHING hasn't already been done?
4. Nowhere have I claimed that a "change in laws" is not possible.
5. Where have I made that claim? You have quite a vivid imagination. Others have made that assumption about me and they are welcome that that viewpoint.
6. I didn't think that Obama should immediately call for more gun control before anyone even knew how the weapon was obtained. He has a pattern of getting out ahead of himself without facts at his disposal. That's a fair criticism, particularly with regard to someone with a legal background such as Mr. Obama.
7. I agree. These kids lives were not a political ploy.
For those who say changes in gun laws can't help stop gun deaths in the United States - why has it worked in Australia?
Take That NRA: Australia Shows That Smart Gun Policies Can Make a Big Difference
By Sophia Tesfaye [1] / Salon [2]
October 2, 2015While conservatives are busying trying to shutdown any debate on gun control following the 45th school shooting this year by yelling about Chicago’s murder rates [3]— apparently unaware that Chicago is the third largest city in the country but not even in the top five cities with the highest murder rate per capita [4] — and reflexively decrying any mention of gun control as a “gun grab,” what if we just entertained their wildest conspiracy theories for just a bit?
A 2015 study [5] found that when guns are used to kill people in the United States, they are overwhelmingly used for murder rather than self-defense. That study found that in 2012, there were only 259 justifiable homicides, or what is commonly referred to as self-defense, compared to 8,342 criminal firearm homicides. In 2008-2012, the report says, guns were used in 42,419 criminal homicides and only 1,108 justifiable homicides.
So if Americans aren’t using their guns for self-defense, does it make sense to do away with the charade of “sensible gun restrictions” talk and just get real about banning at least some guns outright?
Of course, America is awash in guns with approximately one gun for every U.S. citizen, but would examining Australia’s model on guns, as President Obama has suggested, be instructive for our gun violence crisis?
“When Australia had a mass killing … it was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did. And it hasn’t happened since,” the president recently told comedian Marc Maron [6].
So let’s put obvious cultural differences aside and examine the claim.
On April 29, 1996, a a 28-year-old man went on a murderous rampage with a rifle in the former Australian colonial town of Port Arthur, Tasmania, killing 35 people and injuring 23 more before eventually being apprehended.
Shocked by the horrific magnitude of the massacre, Australian lawmakers passed sweeping new gun laws in a matter of days — 12 to be exact.
The National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program, as the package of legislation was called, prohibited the sale of shotguns as well as semiautomatic and self-loading rifles. Waiting periods and safety courses became mandatory for new gun owners and limits on the sale of ammunition were imposed.
Most importantly, perhaps, the legislation allocated $250 million for a gun buyback program, allowing for newly outlawed rifles and shotgun to be destroyed by the Australian government. Ultimately more than 640,000 firearms were either purchased by the Australian government or voluntarily handed in.
So did the confiscation work?
A 2012 study estimated [7] 260,000 illegal guns were still in circulation Down Under, and a more recent report from Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp [8] (I can sense the eye rolls) found that 37,000 new gun licenses were issued in the last five years, reportedly resulting in no increased gun related crimes.
Of course, under Australia’s reformed gun regulatory scheme, a licensed firearm owner is required to be reevaluated every five years and if authorities discovery any “reliable evidence” of a mental or physical barrier to responsible gun ownership, the license is revoked.
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, gun-related homicides decreased 7.5 percent per year while suicide by gun dropped by a whopping 80 percent [9] until the the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50 percent in the decade following the attacks.
Pretty remarkable statistics.Of course, mass shootings haven’t been eliminated in Australia. In 2011 [10] three people were killed and three were wounded in the Hectorville siege and last year [11] three people (including the gunman) were killed during the Sydney hostage crisis. But compare those numbers to the 112 people killed during the 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to the passage of Australia’s National Firearms Agreement and Buyback Program.
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/culture/take-nra-australia-shows-smart-gun-policies-can-make-big-difference
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sophia-tesfaye
[2] http://www.salon.com
[3] http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/chicago_uber_alles_fox_news_directive_from_on_high_if_obama_discusses_mass_shooting_you_mention_the_second_city/
[4] http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2015/10/01/st-louis-has-the-highest-murder-rate-in-the-nation
[5] http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/
[6] http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_613_-_president_barack_obama
[7] http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/14/illicit-guns-firearms-australia-datablog
[8] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023260/Australians-guns-37-000-licenses-issued-five-years-NSW-American-pop-culture-blame.html
[9] http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis
[12] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on Take That NRA: Australia Shows That Smart Gun Policies Can Make a Big Difference
[13] http://www.alternet.org/
[14] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Thanks for offering up something germane to the topic and deals directly with the subject at hand, rather than some armchair character appraisal of another poster. Good work.
The VIOLENCE is the issue ANGER caused an act of homicidal violence. The TOOL used was a gun. Someone needs to find out WHY the shooter was ANGRY and decided VIOLENCE was a good way to express himself. This has little to do with guns. It is about ANGER and acting out with VIOLENCE.
Why are there so many angry people? That is what needs to be looked at. If there were no guns, he could have driven a car laden with explosives thru a classroom wall and killed people that way. Getting rid of guns only removes ONE TOOL. It doesn't solve the problem of ANGER.
IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE GUNS, YOU ARE STILL LEFT WITH ANGRY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE. TAKING THE GUNS AWAY DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE ANGRY PEOPLE YOU STILL HAVE IN THE WORLD. That's the point.
BUT THE ANGRY PEOPLE DON'T HAVE GUNS!!!
Where has logic gone? I cannot believe how &%^king stupidity of the blood thirsty pro gun advocates. Most of the same people who are anti-abortion are screaming proponents of the ability to more easily murder.
Perhaps if Doctors started performing abortions with guns you right wing "Christians" would become pro choice.
Billy, people who lash out with violent behavior do so because they do not have conflict resolution skills. They just act on their feelings without thinking about the consequences in many cases. Others plan an act of revenge/retaliation violence in response to a wrong or hurt they feel they have experienced. Human behavior is driven by people's feelings, how they perceive themselves in the world, how they perceive others. People decide what is acceptable to them. Angry people do not have good coping skills, going into a college and shooting people is a choice that the shooter made. If there were no guns, he would have used another method to lash out.
Our forefathers fought against tyranny and oppression, they realized that when a population is disarmed they cannot fight back against oppressive rulers, or even adequately protect themselves and their families (life and property). That is why they put the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in the Constitution. So that we would never go thru that again.
Do you know what the Afghan Taliban did when they took power in Afghanistan in 1996? One of the first things was to disarm the population. They took care of any problems so the people did not need guns, but IF the people did not like them or their rule, they COULD NOT wage an effective revolt. The only ones who challenged them were warlords and their groups who were armed from the previous war. [Democracy will not work in that country but that is a whole 'nother discussion].
There are countries where the people are not armed, like Norway, but their culture is different. There is much less crime than here.
Disarming Americans will only take us back to dictatorial rule, tyranny and oppression. We cannot have that in this country. People fought and offered up their lives so that no one would go thru that again. Their sacrifices must be honored, respected. My Grandma told me what it was like for the people who escaped the Nazi rise in Europe, that type of thing could happen here IF THE POPULATION IS DISARMED. We cannot risk that.
Sure Hitler is gone. the Islamic State would like to come over thru the Mexican border and tell you how to live, if they have guns (and they DO) and you don't have any guns, what do you think the outcome will be? What would you do? Call 911 and wait to be rescued?
Do people still want to disarm the population? Do you think the criminals will stop getting illegal guns if the rest of the population is Disarmed?
[Edited on 10/4/2015 by gina]
He planned the event to end with his own suicide. His Mother is a nurse, his Father a former military man. He had Asperger's syndrome. The parents divorced in 2006, and the shooter enrolled in the army two years later and flunked out.
An autopsy determined gunman Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer killed himself Thursday morning after his shooting spree on the campus of Umpqua Community College, said Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin. He apparently shot himself as cops closed in after responding to a 911 call.
Harper-Mercer was armed with handguns and a rifle, some of which were military grade. The weapons had been purchased legally over the past three years, some by him, others by relatives, said Celinez Nunez, assistant field agent for the Seattle division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The ATF says Chris Harper-Mercer had 13 guns. They found six guns with him at the school and seven guns at home. He had a flack jacket with him at the school that had steel inserts.
An official said Harper-Mercer left a "manifesto" that was a couple pages long. The contents of the document were not revealed, but described as an effort to leave a message for law enforcement.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-mom-ore-shooter-stockpiled-guns-article-1.2384460
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Family-of-Oregon-gunman-deeply-saddened-330528171.html?tab=video&c=y
http://koin.com/ap/survivor-gunman-spared-student-to-take-package-to-police/
Coverage from Roseburg papers:
THE FACTORS OF WHY HE DID IT:
http://www.ktvl.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/ktvl_vid_17881.shtml
ROSEBURG, Ore. (AP) — The 26-year-old gunman who opened fire in a community college English class, killing nine, was an Army boot camp dropout who studied mass shooters before becoming one himself. The Army said Harper-Mercer flunked out of basic training in 2008. Army spokesman Lt. Col. Ben Garrett said Harper-Mercer was in the military for a little over a month at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina, but was discharged for failing to meet the minimum standards.
Harper-Mercer's social media profiles suggested he was fascinated by the Irish Republican Army, frustrated by traditional organized religion and that he tracked other mass shootings. In one post, he appeared to urge readers to watch the online footage of Vester Flanagan shooting two former colleagues live on TV in August in Virginia, noting "the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight."
He may have even posted a warning. A message on 4chan — a forum where racist and misogynistic comments are frequent — warned of an impending attack, but it's unclear if it came from Harper-Mercer.
THE WARNING:
"Some of you guys are alright. Don't go to school tomorrow if you are in the northwest," an anonymous poster wrote a day before the shootings."
Comments: So, his Dad was a military man, (might be worth looking into exactly what capacity/position the Dad was in. Was he a marksman? Military intelligence? He came from the UK. The son had problems, he went for Army training, dropped out, but that was in 2008. Something else triggered him to do this event NOW, seven years later. Whatever that initiating event was he decided that suicide was his best option. He left a written "manifesto" for police and even spared the life of one of the students to make sure his message would be delivered. Yet the official news people all refuse to DEMAND the info. in that manifesto be released.
I think the families of the slain people have a right to know what is in that manifesto. And Shame on people exploiting this incident to demand stricter gun laws. The blame in this case lies with the Mother, the nurse for taking him to the range, he had tantrums and should not have been allowed to have free access to them. Since they were divorced, how is it that the kid had access to military grade weapons, were they stolen from the army?
[Edited on 10/4/2015 by gina]
Keep on keepin' it fair, old buddy.
But, if you think I'm being unfair to you, please point out where he attacked his opponents...
Does blaming Congress count?
If it's so plainly obvious what needs to be done, why didn't Obama do those things in his first two years?
Probably because even Obama knows the shootings would continue same as before. Then what?
[Edited on 10/5/2015 by alloak41]
The Legislative branch makes our laws Alloak.
Not the Executive branch.
We've been over all the stats, all the different ways other countries do things, all kinds of different methods and procedures for obtaining guns, yada, yada, yada. The only way to change these things is to drastically reduce the number and types of guns available to the public and do away with the rest. That ain't gonna happen. We have decided, as a society, that having all these guns in worth the "trade off" of people who die from gun violence. End of story.
The Legislative branch makes our laws Alloak.
Not the Executive branch.
If you insist, however the question remains the same. The year 2009 would have been a perfect time for the Legislative branch and Mr. Obama to put even more "common sense" gun control laws into place.
In the future, I propose any strict gun control laws be road tested in Chicago first.....Oh wait, haven't they already tried that? How has it worked out?
Keep on keepin' it fair, old buddy.
But, if you think I'm being unfair to you, please point out where he attacked his opponents...
Does blaming Congress count?
If it's so plainly obvious what needs to be done, why didn't Obama do those things in his first two years?
Probably because even Obama knows the shootings would continue same as before. Then what?
So, what you got out of this:
And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic. I would ask news organizations -- because I won't put these facts forward -- have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on your news reports. This won't be information coming from me; it will be coming from you. We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?
This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn’t make sense.
So, tonight, as those of us who are lucky enough to hug our kids a little closer are thinking about the families who aren't so fortunate, I’d ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws, and to save lives, and to let young people grow up. And that will require a change of politics on this issue. And it will require that the American people, individually, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an independent, when you decide to vote for somebody, are making a determination as to whether this cause of continuing death for innocent people should be a relevant factor in your decision. If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views.
And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners -- who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families -- to think about whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it's speaking for you.
And each time this happens I'm going to bring this up. Each time this happens I am going to say that we can actually do something about it, but we're going to have to change our laws. And this is not something I can do by myself. I've got to have a Congress and I've got to have state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this.
Is "Obama blames Congress?"
Not hardly the words of a leftist dictator.
All the whining and complaining and pontificating and arrogance...Obama doing what he wants and shoving things down people's throats and not serving the will of the people...then he very plainly says "I can't do this alone and it's ultimately up to the American People." That's not good enough either?
Of course it isn't.
I remember a phrase that you and so many others used to great glee and smugness, "Bush Derangement Syndrome." It described thoughts and actions of people who blamed Bush for everything under the sun and in their eyes, he could do nothing right, no matter how big or small.
Sure is funny in politics, innit? Sooner or later, you always become what you hate.
We've been over all the stats, all the different ways other countries do things, all kinds of different methods and procedures for obtaining guns, yada, yada, yada. The only way to change these things is to drastically reduce the number and types of guns available to the public and do away with the rest. That ain't gonna happen. We have decided, as a society, that having all these guns in worth the "trade off" of people who die from gun violence. End of story.
We once decided, as a society, that slavery was a necessary evil. Good people stepped up and changed the culture. Should we just decide that everything that is wrong with America is OK? Why? Because we are too lazy, reprehensible, and amoral to right the wrong? Or are you saying that the people killed in US gun deaths have no value?
What's next? Bombing civilian hospitals is just the cost of war in Afghanistan? Lets just keep bombing Doctors without Borders?
If you insist, however the question remains the same. The year 2009 would have been a perfect time for the Legislative branch and Mr. Obama to put even more "common sense" gun control laws into place.
In the future, I propose any strict gun control laws be road tested in Chicago first.....Oh wait, haven't they already tried that? How has it worked out?
I have a friend who has a teenage daughter. My friend was worried she had become sexually active so he strictly enforced a 10pm curfew and forbid her from having her boyfriend over to the house without adult supervision. He was shocked when his daughter ended up pregnant.
You think the guns in Chicago come from Chicago? You don't think there are people who buy guns in places with less lax gun laws and then bring them into Chicago?
You really think that? That's the furthest your thinking extends?
"Hmm. They have strict gun laws in Chicago. People die in Chicago from guns. Gee whiz. Strict gun laws don't work. Wowee! Shazam! I sure am smart. I figured out the answer. End of story. I should be President. I'm the brightest bulb in the box."
If there were no guns, he would have used another method to lash out.
You think? And what would be the results Gina? Without the guns they would not be able to act as quickly or catastrophically. Maybe those angry people would calm down a bit before they have the ability to kill a school yard of children.
Or maybe, since so many people are deranged, we should just give everyone a nuclear bomb. That way those "angry people who can't resolve conflict" could just destroy the human race. If we as humans can't rise above our thirst for murder should we exist at all?
