Another mass shooting

Something is seriously screwed up in this country that *one* guy can kill 58 people and wound more than 500 in just a few minutes of shooting. Actually, there are a lot of things screwed up in this country, but our anything goes attitude about guns is one of the worst.


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • Do, I thought I had been trying to have a discussion with you. I don't think there are any easy answers or magic bullets to the problem of gun violence/deaths in this country. But I do know this: If we don't do *anything*, nothing is going to get better. The results of the past 25 years or so prove that approach is dramatically failing. And that's the approach that the GOP continues with, come hell or high water. Until or unless that changes, the problems of gun violence and gun deaths are only going to get worse and worse.
    BearinFW 11/13/2017 04:39 AM
  • I'm not pitching anything to you bear I'm trying to discuss the issue with you. But i guess i just can't. Your mind was made up long ago that if we don't agree with you we must be the enemy. It's extremely sad that politics have gotten to the point that someone can't state their own opinions without being shouted down or ridiculed. The worse this rift becomes the further we will get to any real solutions. You want bipartisanship well it starts with someone admitting that their side doesn't have all the answers. Won't argue anymore about it.
    doankyl 11/12/2017 02:44 PM
  • Doankyl, surely you are not going to try to pitch the gun lover's fantasy that if everyone were armed the world would be a safer place. OK, name me one other mass shooting where a private citizen with a gun (not a cop, security guard or MP) made a difference. If you can, you've got a much better memory than me, and I probably follow this stuff much closer than you do.

    Let's be honest: Gun "nuts" live under sort of a siege mentality, a kind of paranoia about the world and the U.S. government being out to get them.

    I think we as a nation need to ask ourselves a serious question. Is this the way we want to live and the future we see for this country? Do we really want to become an armed camp where we have to teach our children both gun safety and marksmanship from the time they can walk? I don't think most Americans do, but the country has let extremists on the issue take charge of the debate. Decisions from the past 25 years or so have brought us to where we are today, and it's past time for us to change the direction of the genocide that is ongoing in this country. But I'm also a realist. Nothing is going to change until the American people demand that it does. And also until the GOP, which is co-dependent with the gun lobby, is out of power.
    BearinFW 11/11/2017 04:34 AM
  • Dont get me wrong. The guy who went after him is a hero in every sense of the word. Without regard for his personal safety he went after the guy to stop the shooting then hailed a car to chase him down as he fled. Butif he hadnt? It undoubtedly would have been somewhat worse but police were on the way. He maybe sped things up by 2-3 minutes.
    BearinFW 11/11/2017 03:57 AM
  • To answer your question i have to ask my own. If the neighbor hadn't used his semi automatic rifle to stop the shooter what do you think would have happened?
    doankyl 11/10/2017 07:54 PM
  • Yes Do this is a rare case where someone having a gun actually helped but how much? Shooter had time to fire some 400 shots and kill 26 people and wound 20. Its not that people dont care. Sure they feel for those involved and may feel sad for a couple of days. Its that they dont care *enough* to demand change and to vote and act accordingly. And in the case of GOP lawmakers. ... They really dont give a damn. All they care about is that pissing off the gun folks might hurt their reelection chances. Want to know how many GOP sponsors there are for theso-called bipartisan effort to ban bump stocks? ZERO. And im not even surprised. Once the Vegas shooting was out of the headlines its back to nothing as usual.
    BearinFW 11/08/2017 10:09 PM
  • @ Bearinfw if you know about the Texas shooting then you should also know that thanks to the neighbor having his own rifle the attack was stopped. Also the shooter should have never been allowed access to a gun in the first place. But he still fell through the cracks. Broke the law. And attacked a church congregation with a gun. So if we take away guns from people who will end up with them?how would you be able to protect yourself from an attack like this?

    This goes back to my point that this issue isn't as simple as right or wrong. Yes we should come up with solutions to the problems that's what discussion is for in the first place. But degrading Everyone who disagrees is just intellectually ignorant
    doankyl 11/07/2017 07:54 AM
  • Furball you fall into the same trap. We all see the same thing mass shootings caused by villainous people. The problem is we see a different way of solving the same issues. One group wants to take the road to the left the others want to take the road on the right. The idea that people don't care because they don't agree with your solution is just plain ignorant.
    doankyl 11/07/2017 07:45 AM
  • It seems like the blood barely dries from the last massacre and it's on to the next. We've now settled into an all-too-familiar pattern:

    Republicans say pray for the victims and their families.

    Democrats say something needs to be done.

    Republicans say talking about gun laws is politicizing the tragedy.

    After a few days, the news moves elsewhere and it's back to business as usual.

    And NOTHING ever gets done.

    On to the next mass shooting, and repeat.
    BearinFW 11/06/2017 02:22 PM
  • "...gun violence statistical analysis is also a red herring since it inflates the numbers but is a separate issue". It's not a separate issue. Like Bear points out, you can't look at automobile safety and remove DWI deaths, or look at heart disease and remove smokers from the the analysis; people blowing their own heads off with guns are part of gun violence.

    "...the right or the left everyone mourns and everyone tries to figure out how this happened. " That's such bullshit. EVERYONE knows how this is happening and what is happening. There's a shitload of guns out there, and couple that with ineffective and weak gun laws, a gun lobby running roughshod over legislators, and it's a blood bath. And the worst part is there are many people who are fine with that. Gun manufacturers, legislators, and all the peripheral leaches are making a ton of money; faceless lemmings, being cowed into submission over some unseen threat, are mindlessly buying these arms often to their own detriment.

    I initially posted 10/11 on this thread, and if three children a day are killed in the US through gun violence/accidents that is 78 children have needlessly been killed since my post, which is 300% more deaths than the 26 (to date) killed in the Texas massacre yesterday. It's not rocket science to solve this problem, just will and a spine.
    furball 11/06/2017 02:17 PM
  • I don't think it's that no one cares. We just have such drastically different ideas on what should be done. If you pay attention to what happens after a shooting you'll see how people feel about it. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the right or the left everyone mourns and everyone tries to figure out how this happened. Then how to prevent it from happening again.
    doankyl 11/06/2017 12:25 PM
  • I suppose we should differentiate between gun violence and gun deaths. There are well over 30,000 gun deaths per year in this country, yet the gun lobby wants us to just look the other way. We didn't look the other way on smoking, on automobile safety, on DWI deaths, etc. And although none of those problems have been *solved*, there has been significant progress made. On gun deaths, we're going the other way. The statistics just keep getting worse and worse and worse. And nobody seems to care.
    BearinFW 11/05/2017 03:53 AM
  • They are good to the conversation but adding them to the gun violence statistical analysis is also a red herring since it inflates the numbers but is a separate issue
    doankyl 11/04/2017 10:28 AM
  • Doankyl, it's a bit of a red herring to say that just because gun control laws won't *solve* the problem, they are pointless. There are a lot of things that can be done to nibble at and gradually make inroads on the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

    And yes, suicide by gun and accidental gun deaths are *very* relevant additions to the conversation. Guns are a more lethal, quicker and more efficient way to commit suicide than most other methods. A gunshot does not give the person shooting themselves the opportunity to reconsider. Many other methods (pills, slashed wrists, etc.) do afford that opportunity. I feel that if guns were not so readily available, the number of successful suicides would be significantly lower. And then there are accidents .... kids finding Dad's gun and shooting themselves or another child. Those deaths are 100 percent preventable. If you want to make an impact, start by charging parents EVERY time there's such an incident. If that doesn't make an impression on careless parents who own guns, nothing will.
    BearinFW 11/04/2017 04:29 AM
  • Sorry for being away for so long life was keeping me busy.

    Pavement you operate in a fantasy world of absolutes. Here in the real world there is several layers of grey area in between black and white. Truth is that gun laws aren't a magic bullet that's going to solve these problems. In fact the Vegas shooter broke many different laws when he attacked. None of those laws seemed to prevent this. So new laws won't prevent future attacks. Unless the u.s. bans all guns. Then follows up by raiding every single American home in the U.S. and forcibly taking them from the citizens, this still will not solve the problem.

    Every time the liberals began talking about gun control what happened. More people went out and bought guns. Now ban them...millions already have guns what do you do? See the problem?

    Murder is also illegal, more so than owning an automatic rifle. But it doesn't stop people from killing others does it?

    Spend millions of dollars on a new law fine. Now spend billions more on trying to enforce it despite the impossibility of it, and what are you left with? The same problem.

    @bearinfw suicide numbers actually shouldn't be apart of the total if we are talking about gun violence. It really falls into a completely different issue. That really really needs to be addressed. But as long as it's lumped together with others it cannot be fixed
    doankyl 11/02/2017 05:03 PM
  • Hey Pavement, I sort of suspect that bump stocks ultimately won't be banned. I'm just very skeptical that the GOP will do *anything* on the issue, even something as simple and obvious as this should be. I won't believe it until it is actually passed and signed into law.
    BearinFW 11/01/2017 04:53 AM
  • I never knew what a bumpstock was. There is no reason to have such a thing
    COCKpittop 10/30/2017 02:39 AM
  • ...
    Pavement 10/27/2017 12:37 AM
  • Boy youre right about Obama and gun sales, Rocky. GOP presidents are bad for gun sales. They have plunged dramatically since Trump got elected!
    BearinFW 10/20/2017 03:46 AM
  • Hey, Fur. Even though banning bump stocks doesn't hurt gun manufacturers and is *easy*, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done anyway. It seems like a no-brainer, and it's appalling that they aren't already illegal. Considering that it has been impossible to get *any* gun control legislation through Congress for the past 35 years or so, even something small and obvious like this is still an improvement.

    @bear, you’re right the NRA and DC shits are keen on prohibiting bump stocks. It does not cut from the gun manufactures’ bottom lines, does absolutely nothing to contain the explosion of firearms, and only provides the sense that something is being done. It’s pathetic
    BearinFW 10/14/2017 05:07 AM
  • @doankyl
    Just for completeness and to answer your other question:
    Since 1996 there have been 2 bombings in UK and 2 vehicle/knife attacks.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_i … at_Britain
    There was nothing between 1996 and 2005.
    All of these 4 attacks are terrorist attacks according to current information. Hence, gun restrictions don't cause non-political deranged nuts to find another way to massacre innocent people.
    Well, that's the evidence from UK, anyway.
    But I'm sure you'll find a way to twist it in your own head.
    Pavement 10/12/2017 10:37 AM
  • @doankyl
    Your answer is No (even though you say it is yes and no). You think people should be allowed to possess semi-automatic and automatic firearms.
    Your idea in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting is to DO NOTHING.
    It is a complete waste of time to communicate any further with you.
    It certainly has been eye-opening for me to hear your arguments and get some insight into how people like you think.
    Pavement 10/12/2017 10:24 AM
  • Hey Fur, the article you referenced is interesting. But comparing U.S. murders to countries like Brazil and Mexico, which have enormous organized drug crime problems, or Nigeria or Congo, which are basically in a state of anarchy, or India, which has triple our population as well as pockets of instability, is really apples to oranges. The U.S. homicide and gun death rates are FAR higher than any stable First World/Western democracy, which is really a more relevant comparison. If we're actually wanting to compare ourselves to the countries on the top 10 in homicides, it really makes us look worse instead of better.

    And BTW, homicides are not the top source of gun deaths, though they get the most publicity. There are far more suicides by gun than homicides, and also an alarmingly high number of accidental shooting deaths. Those take the total to well over 30,000 gun deaths per year in the U.S., a number that had actually been higher than auto fatalities until a recent increase in traffic deaths. And suicides *are* affected by the easy availability of guns. Guns are a much more final solution that other suicide methods, which are more likely to give a person the opportunity to change their mind. If one shoots accurately, there is no going back from a gunshot.
    BearinFW 10/12/2017 04:55 AM
  • Doankyl, if you're looking at biased research, work that is funded by private industry or special-interest groups is far more tainted by bias than something funded by federal grant money. I don't know that there's any way to avoid the hint of bias completely. Maybe if you had a university fund it or something? But anyway, statistics are clear. There IS a link between rates of gun ownership and rates of gun deaths. And it's also very clear that, politically at least, this country is willing to accept the trade-off. I personally am not, but that's a minority opinion. Gun deaths *are* preventable. This country just chooses not to prevent them.
    BearinFW 10/12/2017 04:44 AM
  • The meme in this thread states that the US is 3rd in murders throughout the world, and if four cites were to be removed, the placement of the US would drop in terms of murders worldwide. The meme is bullshit and sows disinformation. The meme uses the word murders—are all murders the result of gun violence? What do tight gun control laws have to do with murders? These four cites might have multiple murders from people sticking forks into their neighbors’ heads, but a lower gun murder rate. No? I use to live in a dry county, but I could drive 12 miles to the next county for booze. My dry county had a higher rate of alcohol abuse compared to the state. The abuse of alcohol had no correlation to the law. Before I go too far off, if it's not defined what you’re specifically talking about then one’s likely to misconstrue the other's position. Are you talking about murder, or are you talking about murders from guns? Gun control laws might mean background checks in Chicago, but a limit on hand guns in DC, and/or a limit on how much ammunition is allowed in a gun clip in NO. The article that Bear posted shows it’s hard to tell how effective these laws are if you’re unable to aggregate gun violence data. Consequently, a meme might sound reasonable but on inspection, dumb. Snopes breaks the meme down: http://www.snopes.com/united-states-third-murders/; Being Factual: http://www.beingfactual.com/us-3rd-in-murders/.

    If the meme was true, so what? I posted six days ago, since the initial post there’s been 138 child deaths from guns. Since gun control laws do not supposedly work we should give up and let children be murdered? It’s too much to take action and the alternative is placidly watching Bewitched? Talk about selflessness, what a privileged position to be in.

    “I do happen to have faith in the current President”. If this comment were an inkblot from a Rorschach test, then first thought that came to mind is Mr. Garrison addressing his South Park pupils saying, “remember there are no stupid questions, just stupid people”. It’s a combative thought and not constructive, and after reading the faith remark, I read an article by Jon Anderson and came across this written about Trump, “Somos mexicanos y tu madre te mentamos”! Brilliant. Again, not constructive, but it’s how I feel. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/mex … e-of-trump

    I’d forgo the maudlin that my better days are behind me and let someone else handle it. This president is solidly 100% behind his self and will fuck anyone who stands in his way. At the NRA convention in April this year Trump stated, “Only one candidate in the general election came to speak to you, and that candidate is now the president of the US...You came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.” This is the same guy who said he would not take outside money, and took $30 million from the NRA; Trump said he would not be beholden to special interests. Now he has his nose firmly us the asses of gun manufactures. $30 million buys loyalty. He offers prayers and thoughts to victims of gun violence, but won’t take action to propose legislation to stem gun violence. “…but he has children and a family name to carry on. I don’t.” Holy shit, by that logic my centenarian aunt should be calling shots for the world. Apathetic is not the word I’d use to describe this thinking. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/us/politics/do … p-nra.html

    @doankyl, you’re right, there are going to be biasses in any type of research covering gun control. Nothing is biased free. You wrote: “Statistically most Americans DON'T want stricter gun laws just better enforcement of laws...”. Surveys too show that a majority Americans—across party lines—support background checks for purchasing firearms. The context and phrasing that the question is asked, and the phrasing of preceding questions will affect how people will respond. In response to Bear’s post about data collecting you state the government should not because it will be biased. An independent organization will not be biased? You have to start somewhere, and the government might be biased, but it has tremendous resources, and the data is there to access. ANY group can cherry pick the data to its own use, but it least it’s there and it’s not absolute—a biased data collection position can be corrected. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-america … nd-checks/

    @bear, you’re right the NRA and DC shits are keen on prohibiting bump stocks. It does not cut from the gun manufactures’ bottom lines, does absolutely nothing to contain the explosion of firearms, and only provides the sense that something is being done. It’s pathetic

    @MachineToole, Amor Vincit Omnia

    @TopDad8LA, “...even though it is a very appealing one…” I’m told spectacular, but I’m biased.
    furball 10/12/2017 01:35 AM
  • @pavement the simplist answer is yes and no. This is an extremely complex issue that goes back to the very founding of our country. Originally when it was put into the Constitution by our founding fathers it was so that the people could protect themselves from the overreach of government and from invading military forces. Including our own troops if necessary. You can't do that with a shotgun or a pistol. If in worse case scenario we have a red dawn and some military manages to invade us (which hasn't happened yet) what could you possibly do to fight against them if you do not have access to semi or fully automatic weapons?

    I don't think this will be an issue for years to come so right now, currently, I do not believe anyone really needs access to these kinds of weapons. But if it does happen it will be to late to give out weapons again. So do you really think it's just a simple yes or no?

    So two mass shootings since 1996........now how many bombings? Mass stabbings? Mass violence in general? I garuntee you will find a correlation between the two. Ban guns and gun violence may decrease then you see drastic spikes in other crimes.
    doankyl 10/11/2017 09:51 AM
  • Bearinfw.......I read the article definitely believe it should be studied but completely against government funding for the study. For only one reason and that is bias. If I want to I can make any statistical information read the way I want to by making tiny adjustments to the gathered information to push my politics. And if it's government funded then you can garuntee there will be bias. But it would be great to see true non biased studies on this
    doankyl 10/11/2017 09:37 AM
  • Here's a link to what I'm talking about. Though the law passed by Congress didn't technically forbid research, it eliminated CDC funding for it, effectively doing the same thing.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hil … story.html
    BearinFW 10/11/2017 04:40 AM
  • @doankyl
    Do you think it should be illegal to possess a semi-automatic or automatic firearm?
    Simple question.

    There have been 2 mass shootings in the UK since 1996.
    Yes, you read that correctly, 2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_i … at_Britain
    The UK has never had a mass shooting with a semi-automatic weapon.
    So don't try to say the UK still has mass shootings that are in any way comparable to USA.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive … ol/541710/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_i … _Australia

    And you still don't say that semi-automatic weapons should be banned. You just want to enforce existing laws.
    Do you think it should be illegal to possess a semi-automatic or automatic firearm?
    Simple question.
    Pavement 10/11/2017 12:39 AM
  • @ pavement. You completely missed the point of Everything I said so I'll break it down and maybe you can understand what I've said.

    We should do more to enforce what we have already. Background checks, bans etc. Making new laws in my opinion is a waste of time because it doesn't address the problem. What you read as "don't do anything" I wrote as "let's do better"

    People have stated a lot of opinions on what they believe is good ideas. I presented evidence that would disprove that. That's how a debate usually works. U put two opposing ideas beside each other to determine which is the best or if there is an even better path to take.

    I haven't criticized anyone or their ideas. But I have pointed out the problems with their ideas. Banning bump stocks won't work if it's easy to make on your own. In this case his mental health wasn't a factor. He was by all accounts mentally healthy.

    Now you say my opinion is ridiculous because I don't agree that taking guns will help. The UK made gun ownership illegal. Yet they still have mass shootings. It's the same with making drugs illegal, people still get their hands on them and use them. So much that it is now an epidemic in our country. We also made alcohol illegal in our country. This was known as the prohibition, people began making their own to profit despite the laws that told them not to. Evidence shows that taking something away doesn't fix the problem. It makes it worse.

    You go on to say I'm stupid for suggesting that there are other simple ways of killing people en masse. A bomb is easy to make. In fact you can go to a local library and find out how to use common household chemicals to make them in an afternoon. The same goes with any form of electronic switch or remote to detonate. U can do that easily with a D battery and some wire. Drones also can lift 50+ pounds depending on the quality u get. And are easy to learn to control. Nothing is as simple as squeezing a finger. But most shooters show not only a willingness but the capability to do far worse. It's not easy to get a gun. It hasn't been for a very long time and I never said we should make it easy.

    Last the reason I brought up my close friend is because he along with thousands of other Americans if not millions have the skills and knowledge to make guns which would be impossible for the government to do anything about. Out of that group there would be plenty that would use this to their advantage and capitalize on the situation. The exact same way they do drugs now and the exact way they did during prohibition. One man made a working rail gun with a 3D printer. If you don't know what a rail gun is then I'll say it takes far more to make that than it does an automatic rifle.
    People are naturally innovative and adaptable. Believing that someone can't do something so simple is woefully ignorant
    doankyl 10/10/2017 01:36 PM
  • @doankyl
    You have no suggestions for how to reduce shootings. - "The real problem isn't needing new laws in my opinion but better fixes. What those fixes would be I don't know."

    You keep saying that the ideas of other people won't work.
    If it was left up to you, you'd do nothing and think it is better than at least trying some simple things.

    Hence, your idea at the moment is to do nothing. Well, that's just wonderful, isn't it?

    Most other people have plenty of suggestions, eg. Ban semi-automatic weapons, ban bump stocks and have stronger restrictions for those who have a history of mental illness.
    If you have no ideas, then please stop criticizing the ideas of others until you can come up with better ideas.

    And your attitude of "I personally do not believe taking guns away would do anything" is beyond ridiculous.

    The following paragraph is disgustingly stupid:
    "... gun laws won't prevent mass murders. If a man wanted to he could have easily rigged a car bomb and left it near the crowd. Or fly a drone in from the same hotel room strapped with a bomb or two. If a person wants to kill he will."
    You are suggesting it is very easy for the average person to rig a car bomb?
    You are suggesting that is as easy as to shoot a gun?
    You are suggesting that it as easy to make a bomb and get a drone to carry it as it is to shoot a gun?

    Yes, if a person wants to kill he will but we shouldn't make it very simple for him to acquire a very easy-to-operate ready-made killing machine.

    Also, just because your wonderful best friend "just finished making his third rifle by hand in his garage" doesn't mean even a tiny percentage of people are able to do that.
    And just because "a bump stock can be made with a spring and a bit of wood" doesn't mean they should be for sale in stores - putting ideas in people's heads. Also, most people aren't very good at making little gadgets for themselves.
    Pavement 10/10/2017 12:30 AM
  • Also my questions were directed at bearinfw I don't think less of him for disagreeing with my opinion. I ask because I want his opinion.

    I don't understand how you can believe me immoral for my posted opinion either. That's a political tactic that does nothing but demean an otherwise useful debate. There is no morally Superior person in this debate because we all I imagine want the same thing and that is to stop the death of Innocents. We just have a different view on the best solution.
    doankyl 10/09/2017 06:27 PM
  • To machinetoole I think it would be hard to use statistical data to prove how many lives are saved by guns. How many mass shootings have been prevented because of gun friendly zones? That's a what if question with to many possibilities.

    Also if you look at the actual numbers as you suggested you will find that the laws are broken in multiple ways. I'm only pointing out that I personally do not believe taking guns away would do anything. I don't even own a gun so I could care less about ownership rights. What I do care about is actual solutions. Forgive me for debating the issue

    I also don't understand how I'm being emotional? The logical response would be to review all of the evidence and make a decision. The emotional response would be to jump to a conclusion and make your decision based off of that compulsion.
    I don't believe gun laws will have the desired effect. That's my only problem with further regulations. Take drugs for instance. We declared them evil and illegal which then caused them to become a far uglier problem.

    Your last comment was rather rude and unnecessary.
    doankyl 10/09/2017 05:08 PM
  • This is MachineTool, not Bearinfw. (He is by far more knowledgable and aware than I.) The relationship between guns and public health is one of moral value, respect for others, and finding one duty to service it’s citizenry... the touted “American Values.” It is not too dissimilar than to serve in the military, volunteer in an AIDS ward, or even naturally to give up your seat on the subway to someone elderly or impaired. I am not religious, but I am my brother’s keeper and I do attempt to do good first and perhaps allow myself some kindness in return. I can see that your trend of reasoning stems from ‘do unto others before they do unto you’ and I’m sure you will find all sorts of justifications for that.

    One of my homes is in New Mexico. It has the highest DWI and car fatalities ‘in the world.’ Should we ban cars… or just drivers… or get rid of roads completely? Not too many people are killed by ox carts, though I have no proof of this. It is a fair assumption based upon logic.

    Chicago, Detroit, or Washington, DC are hotbeds of weapon based murder for sure. Other than DC which is not a part of any state all three mentioned have low death rates in their states and surrounding states. The problem lies in the the city where there is a long history of violence that has yet to be addressed properly. New York City was such a place where the problem is still being addressed because it feels that it is the city’s responsibility to do so. And, no, they did not just lock people up, though there is far too much of that still. It is not at all perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but the statistics show a substantial positive trend as they do in California, Massachusetts, and other highly populated states. If you get caught with an unregistered gun in NYC you can explain the reason for it to the judge after you serve two years in jail. So the real question is just how many people are saved by the possession of guns? Statistically there has to be some, but how many in relation to those killed wrongly?

    Yes, there are shootings in other countries even in those with very strict gun laws. However, if you remove from the statistic of the guns or bombs attained illegally and usually by a terrorist- the rate becomes almost non existent or at least pretty darn low. No one there is deluded enough to think that having a gun will help anyone. In such cases having a gun to protect yourself is just about useless and will probably kill more innocent people who just happen to be in your indiscriminate range of fire.

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree our points of view. I will stay with the humane and logical trying to find true reasons and real solutions and you can stand on your emotional platform that make you feel good and right... very right. Just please, announce where you are going to be once in a while. I’m sure there are plenty who will try to find themselves elsewhere.
    MachineToole 10/09/2017 03:57 PM
  • Bearinfw I'm sorry but I couldn't find any law making it illegal to study the relationship between guns and public health. Can you provide any proof of that? If not I have to call bull shit.

    Also please do some research u'll find there are still very big mass shootings in countries that make gun ownership illegal. But not only that they have higher crime rates than we do.

    Also what is your excuse for Chicago, Detroit, or Washington DC?? They have the absolute strictest gun laws in America but the highest crime rates and worst gun violence.
    doankyl 10/09/2017 05:48 AM
  • I’m not sure whether Americans are incapable of analyzing basic matters or whether it is a general human condition. The answer we find to many things are not related to the question or are simply redirected by unrelated questions. Why do humans congregate in the smallest spaces especially when it blocks the movement of others. Find a doorway, a constricted section of sidewalk, a narrow hallway, a passage in a kitchen where there is a size easement needed to be incorporated and there you will find a hoarding space. If we find that we are more comfortable there then perhaps it is a good illustration of Dr. Temple Grandin theory of autism and humane butchering practices where we are finding a "hug box" substitute.

    Then there is the plastic bag filling up the land fill issue. If we choose to switch from thin disposable plastic to heavier “recyclable” plastic is not the endpoint the same? Does the greater substance in the recyclable when it wears out not equal to the sum of the lesser material flying in the wind? The fact is that the stronger dense woven plastic used in recycled bags breaks down even slower than the tissue thin carriers do. If it is the plastic itself that is the problem then it is the material that should be changed either by using naturally degradable materials like canvas or corn-based manufactured wrapping products.

    Now we have a mass shooting in Las Vegas which follows too many other mass shootings. We look at the difficulty as a human condition where people are the problem. Really? Bad drivers who kill are a human problem because the killer and their wheeled projectile are overwhelming used for positive reasons and if ‘an accident’ occurs then it is… an accident, overwhelmingly. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Yes, it could be used for sport in it’s most basic form like an arrow. It is used only for death when anything is added to automate it’s efficiency otherwise. So, we allow automatic firearms to exist under the law of the land and we are the only major nation to allow this and as a legal right.

    Healthcare is not a right so far in the US but it is in most of the developed world because it is ‘best for the many.’ The excuse used is that it would destroy our superior medical system. This is definitely not at all a reason. We are 38th in the world benefiting from public health and health research. Other countries outlaw guns and have more accessible healthcare because it is for the common good. We have become a country of killing. No wonder that the religious right follows rules where ‘I am god’ is first and ‘don’t kill’ falls to the seventh position out of ten. Even corporations of which health and education are entwine don’t want to make a profit… They want ‘a killing’ even killing each other if need be to attain way more than just their equitable financial security.

    So, we block the natural ebb and flow of others attempts at being mobile by limiting their freedoms and declaring that it is our ‘god given’ right to do so. We choke the planet with our waist in the name of recycling and nature. We possess guns to protect what is ours from others with guns. We want more by preventing others from ‘having’ when there is plenty to share and there’s excess as well which can be humanly gained by helping- not hurting. And we find we are simply cattle in our constrained "hug boxes" by “Well, they are doing it so why shouldn’t I.” That is a rather autistic response characterized by impaired social interaction, impaired verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior. We act like cattle and we treat others like cattle. Our wealthy and spiritually superior country drags it feet when it has to help our suffering citizens in Puerto Rico because they are interpreted as a different race and ‘not of our kind.’

    I accept the fact that individually all humans are born selfish. But we as an adult society should be better. We need to think out the problems at hand and seek solutions that are permanent. Instead we choose ‘the fix’ for now and let it be someone else’s problem later when the problem is more demanding. Does all this describe the government and citizenry of US alone? I don’t think so. But it appears that most of the world is at least recognizing that there is a problem and they have begun to take steps to do something positive about it. As for us… We seem to just clog our paths and get in our own way.
    MachineToole 10/08/2017 02:37 PM
  • Doankyl, study after study has found a direct link between a nation's rate of gun ownership and gun deaths. The US has more than 30,000 gun deaths per year, far more than any other First World nation. If anything else were killing this many people it would be considered a public health crisis. Oh yeah, the NRA got Congress to pass a law making it illegal to even *study* the relationship between guns and public health. Pathetic.
    BearinFW 10/08/2017 05:37 AM
  • I was shocked when the NRA actually urged Congress to look at bump stocks. My guess is the GOP went to them and said give us SOMETHING. If these are banned, and considering that automatic weapons are illegal there is no reason they shouldnt be, it would be the first action on guns at the federal level in about 35 years. BTW i dont buy the argument that if he wanted to kill he could do the same thing by another method. He shot more than 500 people in about 10 minutes. The only other thing that would accomplish that would be a large bomb and that would be much harder to pull off and wouldnt be legal. Paddock's 42 !!!! Guns were.
    BearinFW 10/08/2017 05:05 AM
  • Also the reason why the no fly list ban was overturned was due to the list being to broad and having nothing to do with violence or crime. Just food for thought
    doankyl 10/07/2017 11:17 AM
  • Statistically most Americans DON'T want stricter gun laws just better enforcement of what is already on the books. The NRA doesn't actually spend all that much money on lobbying especially when compared to most other business interests. If you just listen to the avg news source they tell you that the NRA controls America but if you take just a few minutes to do some research you'll find that to be very false.

    As far as more bans and laws you have to realize that it is extremely naive to believe it will stop or even reduce gun violence. My best friend just finished making his third rifle by hand in his garage. A bump stock can be made with a spring and a bit of wood so it would be absolutely impossible to regulate. Also look at some of the cities just in America that have the strictest gun laws and regulations, they also have the worst gun violence to date. Australia and Canada and Europe also has plenty of gun violence despite their gun laws and far more knife crimes vehicle bombings and so on.

    The real problem isn't needing new laws in my opinion but better fixes. What those fixes would be I don't know. But gun laws won't prevent mass murders. If a man wanted to he could have easily rigged a car bomb and left it near the crowd. Or fly a drone in from the same hotel room strapped with a bomb or two. If a person wants to kill he will.
    doankyl 10/07/2017 11:12 AM
  • Neal Brennan on The Daily Show showing how to quickly bring about gun control legislation.


    https://youtu.be/2WGMssQZl1c

    @TopGuy....and? "23 American children are shot every day — 1,458 fatally every year [in the US]" and the larger percentage of these deaths are resulting from legal guns. 58 people killed and over 500 injured with "lawfully owned ... machine guns, or submachine guns"and 23 children killed everyday with legal weapons is still insanely perverse, legal or not.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/guns-stag … 529f1173e7

    http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
    furball 10/06/2017 04:09 PM
  • there has been talk in Congress about banning the devices that convert semi-automatic to virtually full automatic. That seems like an easy and obvious thing to do. But i wouldnt hold my breath. The hard core gun folks dont trust the govt at all and think they have the right to be armed as well as the military. Once they tear into any legislation its death in a GOP controlled govt is pretty much a sure thing.
    BearinFW 10/04/2017 04:26 AM
  • The brother of the murderer was completely dumbfounded when approached by the media and said he had just sent his mother cookies. His neighbors said he was a perfectly normal guy and pleasant. I've always known that one can seem perfectly normal in appearance and can do such a heinous crime. In the days and weeks to come he will be taken apart and hopefully they will find out how this person ticked. I'm curious to see the video from the hotel and see his movements in the days before the shooting. How he manages to get that kind of ammo into his room and not be seen by anyone. The sites he visited and the people he was involved with. How long has he been planning this? It could be as simple as when he saw the 49 killed in Florida at the Pulse nightclub, his sick brain said "I can do better". They always say if you see something strange to report it. So far there was nothing strange about this guy and nothing to report.
    fenwaydav 10/03/2017 10:41 AM
  • Yes, it is sad that half of the country supports a party that supports the gun lobby but then who elected all of these Republicans. It wasn't lobbyists or donors? The same people that elected them are going to continue to elect them year after year because they all drink the GOP koolaid. The koolaid that promises them jobs, god, guns and lower taxes. Watch how much support for this outrageous tax cut comes from those that are going to get little or nothing? Until rural Americans wake up and stop drinking the koolaid this will continue.
    barney290 10/03/2017 09:40 AM
  • Sadly the NRA and the Republican Party are basically one and the same. Some NRA board members are also members of the Republican National Committee. Which is why even reforms that most Republicans agree with (such as no gun sales to people on the no fly list) cannot be enacted. It has become an incestuous relationship.

    Its also why even pro-gun Democrats have given up on courting the NRA. Regardless of the Democrat's record and positions the NRA will endorse the Gop candidate every time in any sort of national race.
    BearinFW 10/03/2017 03:55 AM
  • What is screwed up is that politicians can be bribed by business lobbyists.
    That is the only reason that automatic weapons are available for sale to the public.
    Over 90% of Americans want stricter gun laws but our elected politicians don't govern for the people, they govern for their donors.
    Get money out of politics - wolf-pac.com
    Pavement 10/02/2017 11:05 PM