There is only one way we will get massacre control in this country

[dsc]

Some brave soul in Newtown has to show us what a lack of massacre control has wrought. We need pictures of every single first grader's blown off head to be on our national news, in easels in the committee room, in ads in our congressional races. It is clear, that is the only way, the irrational gun nuts can be stopped. They have no shame, they have no heart, they don't give a damn about kids, they don't give a damn about anything but their own rights and making a fast buck. The NRA and its henchmen would have sold a nuke to Osama if it would have made them a buck. They would have sold poison gas to Saddam, if it would have made them a buck. They would sell missiles to North Korea, if it would make them a buck. And they would kill every child in CT, if it would make them a buck.

The people of this country won't do diddly if they don't have their noses rubbed in this like a puppy who shits on the floor. We must make it so that every person in this country sees a dead kid when they think of guns. We must make it so that no politician can dare vote to let people have weapons of war in our cities, suburbs, and towns. If a Muslim had killed those 20 kids, the Mosque he went to would be rubble. Yet time after time after time, we lose dozens of people because some nut has a gun, and nothing happens. It will take the pictures, we need our faces shoved in them, and then it will be possible to pass sensible massacre control. Scotland had two of these massacres, laws were passed, and they haven't had one for over a decade. Australia had one of these, laws were passed, and they haven't had one in over a decade. We have had dozens, no laws are passed, and trust me, we will have another soon.

Newtown, someone in Newtown, has a power to end this. Show us the pictures. Do what Medgar Evers convinced Mrs. Till to do. Do what Jackie Kennedy did. Rub our noses in it. Show us what the cowardice of those who know better, and the arrogance of those who don't, have wrought upon the land. Break our hearts, or we surely will break yours.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. This isn't going to work.

Because it does nothing to stop people form thinking that they will be immortalized when they shoot up a school.

[dsc]

4. let them try to do a massacre with a six shooter which has to be cocked before it is used

Yes we might lose people on occasion but we won't lose 20 at a time. we have far and way, but leaps and bounds, the highest rate of homicide in any first world country. We have more homicides on a typical day, than Japan has in a year, while we are only about double Japan's size.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. You're still not addressing the psychology of these killers.

[mwrguy]

10. It doesn't matter what their psychology is if they can't buy assault weapons

They can have all the desire to kill in the world, they won't be able to follow through once we get the guns off the street.

[Gravitycollapse]

17. That's called treating the symptom.

And it rarely ever works.

[sangsaran]

43. When someone dies of a gunshot wound,

the cause of death is the bullet.

Of course we should make every effort to treat the problems which lead some people to commit crime in the first place. However, until we arrive in an era of world peace, limiting access to the most deadly weapons is the best way to prevent murder.

[JVS]

19. Unless they make a bomb, or drive a car through a bus stop, or us a plain shotgun, etc.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. If only stricter gun control had existed before the OKC bombing...

Wait...shit.

[dsc]

63. I love when people on your side bring this up

actually in the wake of OK city controls were put on nitrates and fertilizer containing nitrates, the response, not another such bombing since. Funny how that works.

[davidn3600]

29. Ever hear of a bomb?

Its amazing how some people in here think a gun is the only way to kill someone.

The government can't get ANYTHING off the streets that it bans. The war on drugs is proof of that.

[sangsaran]

44. Drugs can be manufactured at home.

Assault rifles, not so much.

[X_Digger]

83. Actually, you can, and legally.

Right now most homemade guns are made with a mill, but DIY CNC mills are coming down in price, not to mention the advent of 3d printing.

Additionally, look at cocaine- coca doesn't grow in the US, doesn't stop tons of it from flowing across the border.

[dsc]

13. So the US is nuttier

I refuse to believe that. I think our public health system is more poorly run and thus we might have a nut or two out in the public that shouldn't be, but the simple fact is, we are by far, the most homocidal first world country and we also have, by far, the most guns, and the most high powered quick shooting guns. I don't think that is a coincidence.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. I can't take anyone seriously who calls those with mental health issues "nuts."

It's a pretty shitty thing to do, if I'm being honest.

[dsc]

23. fine call them sick, ill or whatever

the simple fact is you want to blame them for all mass murder so I think for you to now say shame on you for calling them nuts is a bit well hypocritical. But you are right I shouldn't use the word. But the simple fact is we have always had crazy people. and I believe we have always had them in roughly the same numbers, but we haven't always had massacres. We only started having those when we started having guns capable of shooting mass numbers of bullets quickly become readily available. Again, I don't think that is a coincidence.

[Gravitycollapse]

26. They're people. Not "sick" or "ill" but people who have problems.

Problems that end in disaster. That does not mean you can disparage those with mental health problems.

[dsc]

27. Of course they are ill

it is absurd to think they aren't. That is why it is called mental illness. To the extent you have any degree of a point, these people have to be ill, for if they aren't, then literally there is nothing our society could do at all about them. I happen to think it is the availability of guns which lead to gun massacres being vastly more common here than in any other first world country. I see no evidence that mental illness is a greater problem here than in other first world countries, though I do think our poor treatment of mental illness is likely somewhat of an issue. Bottom line I think we could have France's or Norway's medical care systems with our gun laws and have very close to the same result we have now. But if we had Australia's gun law with no change at all in our medical system we would see gun massacres plummet.

[lapislzi]

59. Um, ah...mental illness is, you know, an ILLNESS

It's called that because that's what it is. Often organic, part nature, part nurture, mental illness is an illness like any other that sometimes responds to medicine and treatment.

I don't know what you'd call mental illness if not an illness.

I do not believe that dsc was in any way disparaging the sufferers of mental illness.

YOU have an agenda, and your posts are reflective of that. Please take your agenda elsewhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. It is mental ILLNESS

It is a disease. Something neuro chemical in balances in the brain. Mental illness is not just people having problems.

I think the person having a problem with the meaning of the word it's you.

[JDPriestly]

33. Do you have a better suggestion, a better, easier, surer way to stop the bloodbaths?

If so, what is it?

If not, why don't we try an assault weapons ban? If it doesn't work we can always end it.

[Gravitycollapse]

35. I don't think an assault weapon ban would stop the mass shootings.

As an example. The shooting in Tucson was conducted with a 9 mm pistol.

Basically what I'm saying is that if we want to treat the symptom instead of the problem, let's treat the fucking symptom instead of beating around the bush with AW bans that probably won't be as effective as stricter gun control (and thus may further the false narrative that gun control does not work).

But I happen to believe that the more effective, and more ethical, path is to address the mental health concerns of those who are prone to such violent outbursts.

[JDPriestly]

36. Are you advocating for free mental health care for all?

Do you think that people prone to excessive gun violence will voluntarily accept free mental health care if they will then lose the privilege of owning a gun?

Specifically, how would you address the mental health concerns of those prone to violent outbursts?

I assume you believe that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the unfettered right to own guns. Assuming that to be true, does the government have the right to require people to get mental health care? How would you make sure that people prone to violent outbursts got mental healthcare?

I think it would be difficult to ban assault weapons, but I think it would be even harder to get people who tend to be violent to follow through on mental health care.

I've seen some succeed with anger management training, but I've also known some people with Type II personalities and other types of personality disorders who do not respond to mental health care counseling.

It's easy to say we need better mental health care. In fact, I think most would agree with you, but how would you make sure that those who need it get the care? Would you get court orders to require them to take medication? What would you do?

[Gravitycollapse]

40. I support socialized medicine.

And a lot of these people sought treatment and slipped through the cracks. This goes all the way back to Charles Whitman in the 1960s.

It always seems to be the case that, while the services exist, they are either inadequate or poorly guided.

The Tucson shooter was kicked out of school for erratic behavior. He was visiting a university therapist who thought his violent tendencies were as risk to the public. It's these lost connections and further investigations that should be examined for improvement.

What we need more than anything though is compassion and understanding towards those who suffer mental health problems. They are neglected because either no one cares or their problems are misunderstood. And in their abandonment their problems are allowed to fester and, eventually, explode outward with horrific consequences.

I've experienced the mental healthcare system first hand. It is cold and much of the staff involved are jaded and, in some cases, outright abusive. I've seen this. How we attack such systemic problems is something I don't necessarily have an answer for other than to say that we must continue to advocate for the rights of those with mental health problems.

[Sherman A1]

42. Precisely

I don't seem to be hearing any alternative beyond "this won't work".

It will not be a perfect solution, but it will be a start.

[RobertEarl]

2. That would do it

If it saves one life it would be worth it. I'd bet it would help save hundreds of innocents from the senseless gun deaths.

Probably the only people opposed to showing the truth would be the damn gun nuts who hide behind their bullets and only want more guns everywhere.

[winter is coming]

11. That wouldn't do it. The die-hard gun nuts would look at the photos and

claim the tragedy could have been prevented if the school had had armed guards. The super-deluxe wackos would claim the photos had been doctored and/or "the left" had shot up the victims even more after the fact to make it look worse. And it would traumatize shooting survivors and their families, and probably other people as well.

[RobertEarl]

14. So what is your idea?

Look, you just gave a list of lame reasons for not shocking the people into demanding laws that might just stop another slaughter. I think it would work.

[winter is coming]

18. The assumption that people need to be shocked is fallacious.

Most Americans are already supportive of enacting new restrictions. It's the NRA that's dead set against it, and no amount of "shock" is likely to change their minds.

[RobertEarl]

22. Yes it will.

I see you present no solutions.

Look, when it comes out just turn off the TV and don't look or read.

When I imagine the sight of those poor children laying there in pools of blood with half their heads blown away, it makes me want to get rid of all the damn guns. Doesn't it have the same effect on you?

[winter is coming]

57. I don't need to see pictures to know we need better gun laws, and neither do

other reasonable people. If you want to believe that grotesque visuals will somehow effect people who are already willfully denying the evidence of their senses, knock yourself out.

I have no doubt that the pictures will be circulated, sometime, somewhere. I just think you're wildly overestimating their power to convert people already entrenched in their ideology.

[Jennicut]

71. Exactly.

But Republicans worry about primaries and Dems in redder areas worry about being reelected. The NRA has a crazy amount of influence considering their #'s.

[winter is coming]

119. I'm wondering if the realization that the NRA backed a lot of losers in 2012

will have any effect.

[agentS]

32. These 'gun nuts' forget that Columbine had armed guards when the shootings went down

They forget that guards can't be everywhere.

So now they want to arm the teacher.... I don't see this ending well.
What happens when the gun falls out of the holdster or gets swiped by a confused/unbalanced student? Now you have an armed student in the classroom? Are you gonna hope he holds still and waits while the teacher calls in the school police?

What about the teachers themselves? Sometimes the classroom gets stressful. Kids talking too loud, throwing things...
ALRIGHT THAT'S IT I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU IGNORANT FUCKWITS!!! *SHOOTS 3 HOLES IN CEILING*. WHO'S WANTS TO TALK NOW?

[Crepuscular]

51. If it saves one life.....

So you are for banning swimming pools?

Drowning in swimming pools is the leading cause of death for children between ages 1 - 4 in this country. Using your logic, banning swimming pools would be worth it because it would prevent those drownings from occurring. So would you ban them? Don't we need to do it for the sake of the children?

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2012/Nearly-140-Tragic-Child-Drownings-In-Pools-and-Spas-Reported-By-Media-In-Summer-2012/

[dsc]

64. swimming pools are highly regulated under the concept of attractive nuisance

the owners of pools are required to have fences of a certain height, covers for when not in use, and other such things.

[Crepuscular]

72. Really?

Which Federal laws regulate residential swimming pools & spa's? Link please.

Attractive nuisance is not a regulation or a law, it's grounds for civil liability, which has nothing to do with the Federal regulation or banning of a product.

[99Forever]

87. What fucking horsepucky.

My swimming pool can't shoot my next door neighbor or even leave my property. Name me a LOCAL ordinance or "law" that can stop one Delicate Flower from another state from driving somewhere and mowing down another 20 babies. My fucking swimming pool isn't a mobile killing instrument, your "The Precious" is. Go kiss your guns.

[Crepuscular]

89. your swimming pool

Your swimming pool or others like it kill more kids every year than guns do. But that probably doesn't matter to you because you view yourself as a "responsible pool owner". Double standard hypocrisy. Let me know when you start advocating for a swimming pool ban.

[99Forever]

97. Get back to me when a swimming pool ...

... is carried into a grade school and used to massacre any children. Of all the stupid, idiotic, asinine, ridiculous, moronic arguments, and there are many NRA Delicate Flowers make, this one is the most stupid, idiotic, asinine, ridiculous, moronic argument of them all.

[Crepuscular]

100. Kids drowning is Ok, huh?

Because the number of kids that die isn't important, only if they die as a result of the shiny objects that you have an apparent obsession with, right?

[99Forever]

103. Like every other Delicate Flower...

.., you've got nothing so you make shit up. Don't fucking care what you think. You are now on Ignore with a bunch of your fellow Delicate Flowers. Go kiss your guns. Goodbye.

[Crepuscular]

111. Kind of typical

When you run out of arguments, hurl invective, put your fingers in your ears and run around in a circle yelling "I can't hear you!". Very adult.

If you include the word "fucking" several times does it make a more compelling argument?

[Iggo]

98. Swimming pools aren't designed to kill children.

[Crepuscular]

104. Design flaw?

Maybe not designed to but they kill more children in this country in certain age groups than anything else. Is a child's death less of a tragedy because the object that caused the death was not specifically designed for that purpose?

[Iggo]

113. Let me just say...

...accidents are accidents and massacres are massacres. I'd rather get rid of the guns, and then take my chances with the swimming pools.

[Crepuscular]

114. That's true

And dead kids are dead kids. "Massacres" account for an exceedingly small percentage of the deaths resulting from firearms. So instead of calling for banning something, when there is little to no evidence that banning will reduce the number of children killed, wouldn't it make more sense to emphasize safety, take steps to insure that kids are not exposed to potentially hazardous situations and enact other meaningful regulations that may prevent a tragedy? That should be the case whether we are talking about guns or pools or matches. None of them need to be banned, all of them need to be treated with respect and kids should be educated about their dangers.

[Tx4obama]

3. Michael Moore Calls For Release Of Sandy Hook Dead Body Pictures To ‘Finish Off The NRA’

Michael Moore Calls For Release Of Sandy Hook Dead Body Pictures To ‘Finish Off The NRA’
Here: http://www.mediaite.com/online/michael-moore-calls-for-release-of-sandy-hook-dead-body-pictures-to-finish-off-the-nra/

[dsc]

5. He is right

Our country refuses to grow up on this issue and frankly that is the only way I think it ever will.

[malaise]

45. Sadly I think Moore is correct

It will frighten people big time and they will act

[librechik]

73. That's how the formerly liberal media stopped the Viet Nam War

sadly, I don't think you would get the same initiative from the networks in 2013.

[Turbineguy]

6. What if

instead of paying LaPierre a measly $24 for every person shot dead we paid him $96? That way we could cut deaths by 75% and he wouldn't have to take a pay cut.

[dsc]

7. there literally isn't enough money in the world for the greedy pigs of the NRA

If it would sell one more gun Wayne would gut his grandson like a deer.

[Turbineguy]

9. Yeah.

You're probably right.

[Jenoch]

12. There are hundreds of models

of guns that are not on DiFi's list of guns to be banned that are just as lethal as the guns that are on the list of guns she wishes to be banned.

The people that commit these horrific crimes are mostly severly mentally unstable. They need to be identified and helped before they commit these crimes.

There is a bill in the Minnesota legislature that would increase the penalties for felons possessing guns. Several community groups in north Minneapolis are complaining that such a law would unfairly target minorities. Those groups are part of the problem and not the solution.

[dsc]

15. I have no problems with increasing penalties for felons possessing guns

but frankly think it is way more important to have penalties for selling felons guns. Currently, we de facto, have no penalty in most states for buying a car load of guns, taking them to a gun show, and selling them to felons in so called private sales. Under fast and furious, the AZ federal attorney refused to take to court cases of welfare recipients who bought hundreds of guns, costing thousands of dollars, for either reselling guns or welfare fraud. In other jurisdictions, federal attorneys refused to take cases where people went in and bought guns saying they were for personal use, went out in the parking lot, sold the gun, under the theory they could have changed their mind between the time they signed the document and the time they sold the gun making the signed document true instead of purgery.

[Jenoch]

58. There are penalties for selling guns to a felon

or anyone else prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm. The penalty for selling a firearm to a prohibited person is up to ten years in prison. The problem is that these charges are too often plea bargained down and/or out. Straw purchases need to be prosecuted more often and with more effort. Many more firearms get into the hands of criminals in this manner than are stolen from legal firearm owners.

[dsc]

79. they exist but are enforced rarely because the NRA makes sure they aren't

No stings are allowed. Gun sellers are not required to keep any kind of inventory either.

[Jenoch]

118. Huh?

It's the judges who plea bargain out the gun violations, not the NRA. The vast majority of guns sold to felons are not sold by licensed dealers, they are sold to criminals through straw purchases. If you don't believe gun dealers don't keep an inventory of their merchandise, well, I can't help you then. There was a sting at a New York gun show just the other day. Here's a link:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/nyregion/most-ny-gun-shows-to-take-steps-on-background-checks.html?_r=0

Where did you get the idea of 'no stings allowed'?

[premium]

121. Everything you just said is false.

Stings are conducted all the time

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/nyregion/most-ny-gun-shows-to-take-steps-on-background-checks.html?hp&_r=1&

Gun stores are required by federal law to keep an inventory of what they have.

http://www.therecordherald.com/article/20130302/NEWS/130309969

[dsc]

122. Oh really?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

It directly notes that gun dealers are not required to keep an inventory which is what I said. The feds can't do stings and the NRA is directly trying to pass laws forbidding states from doing so.

[MicaelS]

20. As long as guns are legal,

And I can legally own them, and am mentally and physically capable of using them properly and safely, I will do so. If I ever reach the decision to not own guns, it will be solely on my own accord. I will not be shamed, or guilt-tripped, or embarrassed into not owning guns. Not by anyone.

And I'm not a member of the NRA or any other pro-gun organization. I support Universal Background Checks. I say pass a Universal Background Check law, including Mental Health Reporting. Amend HIPAA as needed, And then make enough available funds to states, so there is no excuse for not reporting violations, or prosecuting, and jailing the hell of Straw Buyers, or felons who attempt to buy guns.

Of course Congress has the perpetual habit of "We MUST do something!" Or at least SEEN "To be doing something", while not actually funding the law they just passed.

[RobertEarl]

24. Just imagine

The sight of 20 little kids laying there in pools of blood with half their heads blown away. Still love guns?

[Homerj1]

28. Do you drive a car?

I can show you a thousand more pictures of torn up kids (due to drunk driving), so you will be trading in your car for a bike? Forgetting that fact that owning a gun is a RIGHT unlike driving a car.

[RobertEarl]

31. Yeah, i have a license

Insurance, too. Was trained and examined before I could drive. Pay taxes, get re-licensed. Can have my license pulled. Can't drive anywhere I want. Have to stay between the lines.

And yeah, seeing the torn up kids makes me a safer driver and accept the restrictions. Keeps the bad drivers at home.

What else ya got there, homer?

[Niceguy1]

34. over 10000 children

Are killed each year by drunk drivers.

How many are "massacred" by those oh so scary "assault rifles "

I think you are a bit confused about what is the greatest danger to our delicate children

[RobertEarl]

37. We have laws against drunk driving

You think the gun nuts should not have any laws keeping them honest?

Are you in favor of laws for everything but guns?

We have the constitutional right to bear arms, but we don't have the right to do whatever we please with the gun, so that is where the constitution ends. Now we are talking about where a peaceful society begins.

And while you are at it, look up how many kids are killed by guns each year and if that doesn't piss you off and make you want better gun laws, well, maybe this society and you are not compatible?

[JVS]

41. We have laws against shooting a bunch of people too

And for the most part people obey both the laws against drunk driving and the laws against shooting a bunch of people.

[dmallind]

60. Absolute bullshit

Even if you believe MADD propaganda that 40% of traffic fatalities are due to "drunk drivers" - when the data this absurdity use count as drunk drivers 50% who were never BAC tested, pedestrians, and those with BACs far below actionable levels and even within measurement error of a properly calibrated meter - you still get 17000 or so people, 70% of whom are the drivers themselves - definitively not children. The vast majority of the remaining 30% - less than half that of your claim for children alone - are the drivers of other cars who are assumed to bear no resposibility for the accident ( a sleepy teetotal driver barelling into a stopped car at a red light driven by a guy who had a glass of wine three hours ago with dinner counts as a "drunk driving death&quot . The number of legitimately noncausal children killed by legitimately drunk drivers is not zero, and is by its nature too high, but your hundreds-fold exaggeration is an asinine claim.

[Homerj1]

38. Then we agree

if you break the law you shouldn't be able to own guns.

I don't need to see torn up kids to drive safely but you do what you have to do to make sure you don't drive recklessly.


Oh and fail on the lic/insurance point, again owning a firearm is a right unlike driving a car. I mean look at the nimrods that voted for Bush II, I think everyone should have a lic to vote, don't you? Now if you don't want it to be a "right" I suggest you get cracking on amending the Constitution/BOR.

[RobertEarl]

39. It's a right to bear arms

But we don't have a right to do whatever we please with the arms. Right?

I take it you don't want to see the pics of those 20 kids laying there in pools of blood with their tiny bodies blown to pieces?

[davidn3600]

48. Using dead kids to further your political goal is just as sick and twisted as shooting them up

Putting those pictures out could trigger a backlash against gun control supporters because people may think you are using those kids to achieve your own goals.

The public is not stupid. They recognize a political stunt when they see one.

[HangOnKids]

75. Wanting Children To Live Is A Political Stunt?

How many pictures of 9/11 were shown to the American public? Not wanting 3000 Americans killed and showing what happened was a political stunt? Really?

[slackmaster]

91. Your agenda has nothing to do with wanting children to live. You just don't want people to own guns.

[HangOnKids]

105. My agenda?

Care to post some proof on MY AGENDA? Please post links to my agenda where I state I don't want people to own guns. And as for the comment that I do not want children to live, well that is about lower than the belly of a snake.

[slackmaster]

108. It's obvious from everything you have posted that you are a prohibitionist

[HangOnKids]

110. Everything I have posted?

I have maybe 10 posts at MOST where I have even spoken about guns. So please post all my posts that show my agenda and where I am a prohibitionist.

[Marr]

25. We'll get gun control when one of these massacres happens on Wall Street. /nt

[beevul]

46. Clearly, you do not understand people very well.

"The people of this country won't do diddly if they don't have their noses rubbed in this like a puppy who shits on the floor."

When one puppy shits on the floor, all the puppies need their nose rubbed in it, is where you went with this.

People at large, are not your "puppies" or your children, and I submit that if you get your wish, it will backfire most spectacularly.

"We must make it so that no politician can dare vote to let people have weapons of war in our cities, suburbs, and towns."

Sounds good for a soundbyte, to those that might not know any better. But it also reinforces the resolve, determination willpower and stance, of those who do. "Weapons of war", are not at issue here, in any way, shape, size, or form.

[Hoyt]

47. How about gun "enthusiasts" who like to shoot melons, water jugs, etc., to simulate heads exploding.

Sick isn't it?

[Crepuscular]

55. false presumption

Simulate heads exploding?

Is that what David Letterman was doing when he dropped watermelons off of a building and showed them exploding on impact?

Who knew that Dave was such a sicko.......

Pathetic attempt to try and smear the opposition.

[hack89]

49. Graphic pictures worked so well for anti-choice groups ... oh wait.

it is more likely your idea would backfire in a spectacular manner as you offend people by using dead children to advance a political agenda.

The flaw in your logic is assuming that everyone that disagrees with you on gun control doesn't care about dead children. Not only is that nonsense but implicitly or explicitly telling people that will do nothing more than enrage them. That sword you want to swing has two sharp edges - you are just as likely to hurt your cause than to help it.

[dsc]

66. have you tried to get an abortion in most counties in america

or in states like MS ND SD arkansas or several others. Like it or not, the anti choice movement has been pretty damn successful at putting extreme limits on the right to abortion. It is easier to get a gun in NYC than to get an abortion in MS today.

[hack89]

69. Yet public attitudes towards abortion has held pretty steady

so it is hard to argue those graphic images provoke a large swing in public sentiment.

[dsc]

76. actually that is an impressive victory on their part

Think of Brown vs Board, Loving vs Virginia, and Lawrence vs Texas. All of them are much better thought of now than when they were decided. Literally no one would run for office on the platform of repealing the first two. The very small number of people who today feel those cases were wrongly decided are considered cranks and racists. In contrast, Roe is barely more popular now than it was then. To this day it is used by many, including more than a few pro choice liberals such as Ginsberg, as a case that was too far ahead of public opinion, yet it was no further ahead than Brown or Loving. It is just that public opinion never caught up.

[hack89]

78. But in the context of the OP

my only point is that those graphic images were not instrumental in creating a significant swing in public opinion. I have seen them and was repulsed - but I am still pro-choice. My only strong reaction was anger at anti-choice groups for using such images to advance their political agenda.

[dsc]

81. preventing a swing that otherwise would have occured is a swing

like it or not, the anti choice movement has presided over a stasis in opinion when the anti Brown movement saw a complete collapse in support. The anti Lawrence movement again a strong collapse in support. The anti Roe movement has largely succeeded in making abortion a right in name only in large swaths of this country and holds near complete sway over one of our two political parties.

[hack89]

82. Hard to prove a negative.

you are merely assuming there would have been a large swing in support of abortion. And you are also assuming those graphic images are the reason why it did not happen.

[dsc]

84. they likely deserve some credit

The fact is until recently, where I think they have overstepped, their political ability is hard to argue with. I can think of no other Supreme Court granting of a right, that hasn't led to a reasonably large change of public opinion in favor of the right. This is all the more striking when you consider that the right was granted to a majority and not a minority.

[Robb]

50. You'll notice not *one* of DU's Progressive Gun Squad(tm) agrees with you.

Notable.

[hack89]

65. We can recognize desperation as well as anyone else

saying bloody pictures of dead kids are the only way to get what you want reeks of desperation.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. FORCE them to watch ala "A Clockwork Orange". That should do it.

Desensitization to horrible violence sounds like a grand idea.

[NCTraveler]

53. I really don't think it will do much.

I have no problem if they are released. It is a part of life in this country and may do some good. There are also some negatives involved.

There are pictures of abused and hungry children all over the internet. Yet we don't seem to be dealing with the problem of poverty very well.

[HappyMe]

54. No. Just no.

Somebody that has it in their head to go out and shoot people up isn't going to be moved by photos. If anything I'm sure there is some sick fuck out there that may be inspired. Shock photos work so well for the anti-choice crowd....oh, wait...

Had my child been one of those killed and the photo was shown, I would be very angry. My poor dead baby shouldn't be used for any cause. Exploiting people's grief is just plain wrong.

[dsc]

67. It isn't them who need moving

it is the public at large who need moved to the point that our representative will actually give a damn.

[HappyMe]

68. I still say no.

Shock photos don't work.

Exploiting dead children is wrong.

[dsc]

77. really? they don't?

then tell my why health experts want photo warnings on cigarette packages and the tobacco companies are adamantly opposed.

[HappyMe]

80. I have no idea.

If someone wants to smoke, they're going to smoke. I believe they already had photo inserts in cigarette boxes.

What about the shock photos that the anti-choice people use? I find this desperate need to see those photos creepy, to say the least. I truly don't believe exploiting dead children and their parent's grief admirable.

[slackmaster]

93. My decision not to smoke did not require seeing graphic photos of the damage caused by smoking.

I don't need to see photos of dead children to know that shooting children is wrong.

[dsc]

95. apparently both sides of the smoking debate believes for some people it is necessary

it isn't about one or two people, it is about masses.

[slackmaster]

99. The Astute Reader(TM) will note that smoking is still legal, and few if any people are seriously...

...advocating outlawing it. Your point in posting the OP appears to be looking for ways to get people to want firearm ownership outlawed, so your comparison with smoking is hardly a reasonable one.

[dsc]

101. but smoking in public, the part which affects others, pretty much isn't

Now if someone whats to have an assault weapon in a locked safe at a range from which it never leaves nor can leave, then fine, they can have it. But otherwise, no they can't.

[slackmaster]

102. Shooting in public is pretty well restricted too.

Now if someone whats to have an assault weapon in a locked safe at a range from which it never leaves nor can leave, then fine, they can have it. But otherwise, no they can't.

But you aren't calling for tobacco products to be stored in dispensaries and handed out only when someone is going to smoke, so you are completely out in left field.

[dsc]

106. they can smoke them in their houses

in many states that is about all the place they can.

[slackmaster]

107. But you wouldn't allow people to keep their own firearms in their homes.

[dsc]

109. ordinary guns yes

assault weapons no. Assault weapons should be under 24 hour guard, in a bank vault type safe, when not in use. They should not be permitted to be transported in anything less than an armored car with multiple armed guards. Also the bullets should never be stored in the assault weapon.

[slackmaster]

116. What's the difference between an "assault weapon" and an "ordinary gun?"

You put ammunition in them. They all shoot bullets, one at a time.

[RZM]

56. You're overly optimistic about what would happen here

Best case scenario isn't much. People would look at the pics, say that's awful, and move on. That's kind of what's happening now, minus the pics.

Worst case is it backfires and the pro-control movement is seen as using the dead children for political purposes.

Anti-abortion activists have done this for a long time. So have numerous others, including anti-war activists. I just don't think it's all that effective. I think pictures of the grieving family members can do the job without giving offense to people.

[One_Life_To_Give]

61. Exterminate all the Humans?

In what millennium were there no spree killers? McVeigh used fertilizer to do his damage. There are plenty of items in the local hardware store that could be used to accomplish similar results. We can't even control home made weapons within prisons.

[Jennicut]

70. I don't know, I live in CT.

I just don't see it happening. There were 20 children, not all the parents would agree. I don't know if it stops the NRA gun worshiping types. They don't care what gun violence does to others because they don't care about others to begin with. Maybe it cuts too close to home, literally, for me. I have no desire to see the pictures of the dead bodies of children that lived 25 minutes from me released to the public.

[Throd]

74. You can get the most horrific murder photos on the internet yourself. Start your own website.

Perhaps you'll get the reaction you want. Perhaps not.

[alc]

85. how will that stop anything?

Each year 10 people out of 300+ million in the US do something like this ( 0.000000001%?). It's less than ten, but I'll let you assume 100 people if you want. How do you think the pictures will stop those people?

The killers have serious problems. They think completely differently than most of us (I assume). But they don't act that differently until they finally kill. I can't imagine that seeing the pictures will stop anyone. Do you think that seeing the pictures will cause the government or other citizens to do something? What specifically would it do and how would that help.

There are 10s of thousands if not millions of people who ACT just like the killers (until they kill). Should the government monitor ALL of us to determine who MAY snap at some point? Should the government try to figure out what all of us THINKS not just how we ACT? Should the government start locking up 1000s of people or making them go to regular therapy because they did something like something a killer did? Should we all start being suspicious of anyone who does anything that we think may indicate that they are one of the 0.0000000001% of the population who may kill many people?

I don't have a clue what these killers are thinking but I'd guess it won't help to take away guns. Some put weeks into planning. They can almost certainly make explosives, start a fire, or drive a bus into a crowd and kill more people than at Newtown. Gun control MAY stop many other killings. But I can't imagine it will stop the kind of people who commit these types of acts.

We should all be alert. And we should all take some precautions that are right for us (whether that's knowing the exits or carrying a legal weapon). But I hope we don't get to thinking that anyone who "looks suspicious" may be on the way to committing a massacre. And I REALLY don't want the government to take that attitude.

[dsc]

86. no guns no massacres

it is that simple. Again, we are the only developed country in which these occur with any regularity. I think the pictures are needed to end the NRA's control over our political process.

[slackmaster]

92. No guns, no massacres?

[dsc]

94. again go ahead and bring up OK city as it prove my point in spades

After OK city congress passed a law regulating nitrates and the fertilizer made with nitrates. We haven't had another such bombing since. In short, we had two bombings (WTC 93 and OK city 95) we passed a law, and poof no more bombings. Fancy that. As to the WTC 01 we completely changed flying and again, no repeat performance. fancy that yet again laws worked.

[slackmaster]

96. That's not true. Nitrate fertilizers are still unregulated. DHS has proposed an Ammonium Nitrate...

...Security Program that would include tracking of purchases of more than some specified amount of ammonium nitrate, but the rules are still not finalized. The status of the program is still "proposed."

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2012%20Chemical%20Sector%20Training%20and%20Resource%20Web%20page%20Update%20-%20ISCD%20Regulatory%20Update%20presentation.pdf

[slackmaster]

90. I doubt that the families of the victims would appreciate that, and it wouldn't change anything.

People who don't massacre children would feel no connection whatsoever between their life choices and the horrible crime.

People who do massacre children would just be amused.

ETA when I was in high school we had a full week of driver training. Included in the materials presented was a gory color film called Signal 40, which included grisly car crash scenes. We were also shown an earlier film from the 1950s called Signal 30.

Not one person in my class decided not to own a car after seeing those films.

[sarisataka]

115. A site to help you

http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/tips/housetraining_puppies.html

I suggest you read it before you get a puppy.

As an aside, corporal punishment does children more harm than good.

[cali]

117. Your lack of compassion is disturbing.

And it wouldn't work. I'd bet my last dollar it would backfire. I notice you omit the Norway massacre of children which killed over 70. Norway has strict gun control.

Beyond all that if every single parent agreed- and that sure as shit ain't happening- it would still be an awful idea. How about the siblings and friends of the dead kids? Can you imagine the additional horror and trauma that would befall them? there is no way that they'd avoid those pictures. Not in this day and age.

Sick, sick, sick.

[apocalypsehow]

120. Looking over this thread, those most opposed to your proposal are the most "pro-RKBA" (see sig)

in most instances. They got all kinds of reasons and excuses, almost all of them bogus, as to why they think your OP is a bad idea - which is very telling that they are well aware how effective your proposal very well could be.