Gun control might not deter regular criminals, but it would these mass shooters

[yurbud]

The NRA argument about banning certain kinds of guns, simply driving criminals to the black market may have some grain of truth for career criminals who would know where to go to get those black market guns, but not for mass shooters.

Nearly all of these mass shooters have no prior criminal record, especially involvement in armed robbery or the drug trade that would make them familiar with how to buy illegal weapons.

For someone with a mental illness and poor relationship skills, the interactions it would take to figure out how to get those illegal arms and actually get them might be an insurmountable obstacle.

Sure, some of these guys might go on a mass knifing or cross-bowing, but I haven't heard of too many successful drive-bys with either of those weapons.

[Logical]

1. No it would not. Have you researched these past mass shooters? Most got their gun legally. Or.....

borrowed them. If you want to mass shoot people, getting the gun and ammo is the easy part.

[yurbud]

12. that's what I said.

[Duckhunter935]

2. so what laws would have stopped this?

You put it out there they would be stopped, now step up and be specific.

Lets here them............

Why do you not list that 50% of the deaths were due to knives? Does that not fit your narrative?

[treestar]

5. Like what they have in Australia

Only hunters can get guns.

[spin]

6. So we should only allow hunters to own firearms? ...

I'm not a hunter.

What should I do when a man or several men break into my home and attack me and my family? Should I grab a butcher knife or throw a can of beans at them?

The reality is that since they are criminals they will likely be armed with guns and will simply shoot me when I try to resist.

[treestar]

7. Seems to work in Australia

I don't see that country breaking down. If several men break into your home, are you going to shoot them all? And what are the odds of that happening. And once the guns are off the street, they will be less and less likely to have them. If they can be arrested for having them, they can be locked up before they use them.

It won't solve all problems, but it will result in fewer shootings.

[spin]

23. Australia is not the United States. ...

If several armed men break into my home with the intention of killing me, I would rather die fighting than begging for my life.

Hell, I'm 69 years old with a bad back and a candidate for a hip replacement. The best years of my life are behind me so I don't really worry much about dying. In fact, I almost welcome it. That gives me a significant edge in a life or death fight.

Realistically I know that the chances of my having a home invasion are just slightly better than my winning the Florida Lotto if I buy just one ticket. I don't lay awake at nights worrying about it. I'll probably just die of old age.

As far as getting all the guns off the street how much chance does that have to happen anytime in the near future considering gun control advocates can't even get another assault weapons ban to pass in a Democratically controlled Senate? I would put those odds as slightly better than my winning the Florida Lotto if I don't bother to buy even one ticket.

[treestar]

29. I think it's a goal for shoot for

like single payer, not doable right now, but what's worth having can take a long, long time. Over that time, the culture could change enough.

We could legalize pot and other things and concentrate on arresting people with guns. It's a path society could take. I think the old saw of only criminals having guns might be completely wrong. Get rid of the drug laws, the motivator for so many of them to have guns.

In our case, guns might come from Mexico, as we aren't as lucky as Australia on that score. Drugs have a lot to do with it, though. Anyway, that's my thoughtful solution.

[spin]

36. I agree that we should focus on taking guns away from criminals. ...

Any person who has been ever convicted of a violent felony and is caught carrying an illegal firearm or even owning one should receive a lengthy prison sentence.

I will totally agree that ending our failed War on Drugs could decrease gun violence in our nation considerably. You don't see many gangs fighting turf wars over the smuggling and sale of alcohol ever since Prohibition was repealed.

I don't see firearms being banned and confiscated in our nation in the next few decades and maybe not in even 100 years. Firearms are simply far too ingrained in our culture to allow this to happen and Americans tend to distrust government far too much to allow only the military and the police to own firearms. Many of our citizens value their firearms as a means to resist a tyrannical government if one were to take power. Confiscation of firearms would probably require participation by our military and that in itself is questionable as many in the military might simply refuse to follow orders.

Of course many federal agencies are now well armed so perhaps the military would not be necessary. At any rate gun confiscation would be a daunting task.

USA Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies Combined
That is 14,033,824,000 billion+ rounds of Ammo..you think that is why we have an Ammo shortage?

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!

The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world. countries by number of troops...emphasis added
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/#

Notice that this report dealt with firearms purchased in 2009. Since then firearm sales skyrocketed to even higher levels.

[treestar]

59. I dunno if they'd be enough to get a tyrannical government gone

Though with our system, I don't think we'll ever get one. It's pretty much tyranny-proof.

Police wouldn't have to be armed as much if people didn't have guns. Police would have fewer excuses of self defense. Less reason to think the other person had a gun.

[spin]

64. I tend to agree with you on the issue of a tyrant taking over the United States. ...

I think the Founding Fathers would have been amazed that the government they designed has lasted this long.

There has been an arms race between the police and the bad guys. I remember the days when cops used to carry six shot revolvers and drop pouches for ammo on their belts.

Today they carry semiautomatic pistols with 15 round magazines on their belts and often shotguns, semiautomatic rifles and even sometimes fully automatic rifles in their police cars.

[CTyankee]

35. I know about bad backs and I have to say...

if there were a home invasion and given your infirmities, how would you manage to put up a resistance to a (probably younger and abler) home invader? My guess is that you would have to keep a loaded weapon bedside, just in case. If you think that's an OK scenario, well, that's your decision and all of Bush's appointees to SCOTUS heartily agree with you having that gun...but, as a practical matter, do you think that's a great idea?

[spin]

37. In my younger days I attended jujitsu classes but those days are long gone. ...

I realize that physically I would have little chance in a fight with a much younger and stronger attacker. I also realize that predators pick the weakest members of the herd to attack and with my bad limp, I qualify. That's mainly why I legally carry a concealed weapon.I doubt if I will ever be attacked but still I wish to have some means of self defense available.

I do have a lock box in my bedroom that I can open quickly. Two loaded revolvers are inside and with time I can access and quickly load a 12 gauge coach gun with buckshot.

I would caution anyone who wants to have a handgun in their bedroom readily available that you should place it so that you have to get out of bed before you grab it. It's all too easy to wake up from a nightmare and shoot your mate who is returning from the bathroom It has happened and will happen again. In my case my handguns are in a lock box and I currently am alone in the bedroom with the exception of a big tom cat that I adopted as a stray kitten found by a neighbor.

I have owned firearms for 50 years and over that period of time I have accumulated a small collection. I see no real harm in having a couple ready in case something very unlikely happens.

[CTyankee]

38. well, I dunno...you could well wake up with a loaded gun to your head and some guy

telling you to open your safe...cuz he'd prolly know what was inside...money and guns would be a real valuable find...

geez, where is your coach gun? It's long, right? How does it fit in your bedroom lockbox? Is there any chance your invader/burglar wouldn't run across it and steal it while you were sound asleep?

Now I'm worried that if you take meds at night, you might not be in the best shape to confront anybody. I sometimes have to take a pain pill for my spinal arthritis (I'm even older than you) and that medicine can be strong and induce dizzying.

Oh, to be 20 again!

[spin]

39. A coach gun is a very short double barreled weapon that's extremely easy to load...

and when loaded with buckshot, EXTREMELY deadly. The weapon itself is well hidden in my bedroom but not loaded. One advantage of a coach gun is that it can be loaded very quickly.

The bedroom door is sturdy and locked when I sleep. The house has a high tech security system to alert me to intruders in the very unlikely event one enters.

I avoid taking any strong medication even for the pain in my back and hip. I've seen far too many people get addicted to that shit. I sleep well but I also wake up fast.

There is no money, jewelry or gold in the safe. I don't carry money and use it only rarely. I don't wear jewelry, only a cheap Seiko watch. All the firearms are well used and the majority have had thousands and thousands of rounds fired through them. None are particularly valuable or collectable. There's really nothing of any value in this home to attract a profession thief. I'm far from wealthy. I live on social security and a small pension.

[CTyankee]

45. well, you know that about your safe's contents but a burglar might not...

I think your security system is your best bet. I think, though, that I would move out of any neighborhood that is that menacing. But that's just me.

I don't take the meds regularly because I don't like the way they make me feel. If I had my druthers, I would return to physical therapy for regular visits but my insurance won't cover them. My PT got me out of pain when I first went and I kiss the ground she walks on...I still do my exercises/stretches every day but I really need to stop sitting at my computer...like I'm doing now, LOL...

[Lonusca]

62. "I would move out of any neighborhood that is that menacing. But that's just me."

I would bet some people wish that they were as fortunate as you.

[CTyankee]

63. Yes, some people can't and I get that. I also get my white privilege.

I have no doubt that I am where I am today because I had extra benefits being born into the middle class and being white (in a segregated, evil system).

[spin]

65. I actually do plan to move to a more rural area in the future. ...

The problem right now is that the housing market here is still depressed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. I think your third paragraph is the most realistic one.

In 69 years, I'm guessing you've never had 'several armed men' break into your home with the intention of killing you. Chances of it happening are probably less than you getting hit by lightning, but how much time do you spend fantasizing about being hit by lightning, worrying about it, and buying gear to protect you from lightning?

I'm guessing 0.

You're being suckered by fearmongering marketing meant to sell guns.

[spin]

70. I don't spend a lot of time worry about lightning but since I lived in the ...

Tampa Bay Area of Florida which calls itself the "lightning capitol of North America", I am well aware that lightning is dangerous and can kill you. I have learned to take precautions when I hear thunder.

I will agree that the NRA and gun manufacturers do try to scare the public in order to increase membership or sales.

In several posts above I have pointed out that I don't spend a lot of time worry about a home invasion. I don't pay much attention to scare propaganda from the NRA or gun manufacturers as I realize that violent crime in our nation has fallen to levels last seen in the late 1960s. This fact is rarely mentioned by either the gun industry or gun control groups but is based on FBI statistics.

When I first moved to the Tampa Bay Area I bought a home in what was a nice neighborhood. Over the 35 years I lived in that home, the neighborhood gradually went downhill.

I thought of moving but I owned the house and was nearing retirement even though there was a lot of crime and gangs in the area. Two houses down from mine a drive by shooting occurred at the home of a gang leader. I personally chased off four guys who had broken into the neighbor's house across the street and almost got shot for the effort. More than one time I witnessed cops running down my street or within walking distance of my home with drawn weapons chasing a bad guy. Several clerks were shot and killed in different store robberies also within walking distance of my home. A girl was raped in a hurricane canal 100 feet from my house.

I did have one attempted home invasion. The burglar alarm went off one night when I was at work. My daughter went to investigate, wisely carrying a large caliber revolver with her. She found a man forcing the sliding glass door of our home open. When she pointed the revolver at him, he ran.

I later asked her, "Why didn't you shoot him?"

She replied, "Dad, you told me to never shoot anyone who was not in the house. He was only half way in."

Shortly after I moved to Tampa, I had developed an interest in target shooting handguns. By the time the neighborhood turned dangerous I already had a small collection of handguns that could be used for home defense. My daughter was using one of these target revolvers.

I retired and moved to a small city in north Florida. Still there is a considerable amount of drugs and violence in this town. I can walk two blocks from my home and buy any illegal drug I want. I don't use such drugs but it seems to be a thriving market in this area. We have even had gang shootings here. Home invasions here are very rare. This is an area with lots of hunters and almost everybody has a rifle, shotgun or handgun in their home and the bad guys know it. However it is wise not to leave anything of value outside overnight or it will disappear.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

74. Well, I gotta say

if anyone is going to worry about it, it sounds like you might. Sorry to say, your neighbourhood seems a lot more dangerous than average for the country.

[spin]

80. I guess since I've lived in such neighborhoods for such a long time ...

I don't see them in the same light that you do.

I simply take reasonable precautions and try to be prepared. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

[yurbud]

14. if you have your guns stored safely, they won't be available in that scenario. If you don't have

them stored safely, there's a chance your kids will play with them and shoot each other or one of their friends.

If you live somewhere home invasions occur, you could defend your family better by moving.

[spin]

16. Wrong on all counts. ...

Ten feet from where I am typing, a S&W 9mm revolver (a rare handgun) is sitting harmlessly in a lock box that I can open in a heartbeat. The weapon is loaded. There are no children in this home.

A home invasion can occur in a gated community and they have.

Authorities investigating another home invasion

Posted: Mar 12, 2014 5:44 PM EDT
Updated: Mar 13, 2014 6:04 PM EDT
By Christy Andrews - email
By Rick Ritter, Reporter - email

Four home invasions in one month. Wednesday night, authorities are searching for armed robbers that could be responsible for a string of home invasions in Collier County.

The latest happened Tuesday night in the gated community of Estuary at Grey Oaks.

Naples police say gunmen barged into the home, held a couple at gunpoint and tied them by their arms and feet.

This is an extremely unusual situation for Naples and especially a neighborhood like this. But it was enough to bring both the Collier County Sheriff and Naples Police Chief together Thursday to comment on the string of home invasions.

The four robberies are all eerily similar.

"They bound the victims and searched the home," said Naples Police Chief Tom Weschler.
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/24958721/authorities-investigating-another-home-invasion#.U4OcaNq9KSM

Realistically a 9mm revolver that holds only five rounds might not be adequate to stop four armed intruders but it could allow me a fighting chance to get to my bedroom where I have more firearms.

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about a home invasion. Still, my daughter once stopped an intruder forcing the sliding glass door of our home in Tampa open. A burglar alarm was sounding and a 60 pound Black Lab was insider the home (but hiding due to the noise.) She pointed a large caliber revolver at the man and he ran.

[yurbud]

30. Florida is a pretty fucked up state. Besides moving to get away from the crime...

consider what global warming will do to your property values (zero them out when your property is underwater).

I have known some very wealthy people here in California who never had those experiences, and the few that I've read about in the news were in immigrant communities where rich people hide their money in their mattress instead of putting it in a bank.

[spin]

34. Global warming will not flood my home in Florida in my lifetime. ...

In fact it may never flood my home. The chances of that happening are far less than the chances of my having a home invasion and my chances of having a home invasion are slim to none.

I live near the Florida/Georgia border and the elevation above sea level here is 151 feet.

[yurbud]

40. I'm glad to hear it. I didn't wish you ill. On the other hand, if you lived at a lower elevation..

the tide might wash away the home invaders before you have to deal with them.

[spin]

42. Who knows, I might be living close to the Gulf of Mexico ...

which might improve the value of my home.

[NickB79]

43. Step One: Amend the US Constitition

Seeing as SCOTUS has ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right not relegated to just hunting, good luck with that.

[CTyankee]

46. Not if we get a progressive Dem president in the future who will appoint

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

more progressive jurists for SCOTUS and the lower federal courts. We need more women who agree with Ginsburg and Sotomayor on the interpretation of the 2nd A.

And that's one reason I'm on DU...to help elect more progressive Dems to office...

[NickB79]

56. The SCOTUS doesn't amend the US Constitution, the states do

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

2/3 supermajority vote in both the House and Senate, THEN 2/3 of the states convene to ask for such an amendment, THEN 3/4 of the states approve it.

There's a reason the US Constitution's amendments have so rarely been amended: it's fucking hard.

You could pack the entire SCOTUS with Al Franken clones, and you still couldn't simply remove the 2nd Amendment. At best, you could overturn the recent high-profile gun rulings that firmly set the 2A as an individual right, but that just puts us back legally to where we were in the 1990's, and there were plenty of guns for purchase back then.

This idea that all we need is a Progressive Dem president to lead us out of the darkness like a savior is bunk, IMO. It's just another way to justify fantasies that somehow just removing one of the original amendments from the US Constitution is in any way plausible with the current and future political climate.

In the meantime, there are real thing we could do today to reduce gun violence further that are far more easily achieved. Improved mental health care, universal background checks, prosecuting people who are denied guns via the NICS (that alone would put a MILLION felons behind bars), expanding the ATF to put gun shops knowingly supplying straw buyers out of business, etc.

[mwrguy]

8. Repealing the 2nd amendment and banning the sale of pistols and repeating rifles

That would have prevented this.

Hunters could still hunt with single-shot rifles and shotguns.

[Duckhunter935]

9. go for it

I will not. Those would not have prevented the 50% of the deaths caused with knife.

[mwrguy]

10. Preventing 50% of the deaths makes it worth it

And he probably wouldn't have even started with the knife if he wasn't able to continue on with the gun. His whole plan would have been invalidated.

[Duckhunter935]

11. he would have just used a bomb or arson

We shall never know for certain. Wish he would of just used the gun on himself first.

[EX500rider]

71. I worry more about crazies turning to their cars as WMD's if they can't get guns...

.....plow into a big crowd at 100+mph and the dead could be in the 100's.

Look back to the Le Mans accident in 1955, 83 dead, 120 injured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_Le_Mans_disaster

Elliot Rodger's could have done more damage if he just stayed in his BMW. Scary thought.

[yurbud]

13. According to the FBI, in 2011, 67.7% of murders were done with guns, 13.3% with knives

Most of those gun deaths, 72%, were done with handguns.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Handguns concealability and ease of use makes them more desirable for criminals and easier to grab in an out of control moment in a domestic dispute.

You could still use your rifle or shotgun for home defense as well as hunting.

I wouldn't limit it to single shot or muzzle-loaders as someone else put it here.

[Duckhunter935]

15. so why the big push for

the AWB? All that ends up doing is riling up the opposition.

Interesting idea, would not affect me much.

[yurbud]

31. assault weapon crimes are like nuclear accidents--they are rare but when they do happen...

they make a big mess.

Like the North Hollywood shoot out cops had with bank robbers here in Southern California, or when mass shooters use them.

I don't know why a hunter would need a full auto rifle unless he wanted to tenderize his meat before it hit the ground.

[Duckhunter935]

33. they do not as full auto rifles

are very expensive as none have been allowed to be manufactured fro civilian use since 1986. They also and require additional federal background checks and a 200 dollar tax stamp.

A standard semi-auto rifle males a very nice hunting weapon. The numer of rounds allowed is usually capped at the state level for hunting. Usually only 5 allowed.

[Logical]

19. Where the fuck did you find that stat? nt

[Duckhunter935]

20. the original OP was talking about the latest

tragedy where 3 people were stabbed to death and two were murdered and the killer committed suicide. Actually the knife deaths would be more than 50% in this case if you do not count the suicide.

[Logical]

24. You know a knife is less lethal. Everyone does. So why argue the point? nt

[Duckhunter935]

26. they seemed to be pretty

lethal on 9-11 and two these three.

[Logical]

28. ok, you are one gun nut who will not admit guns are more lethal than knifes. Good to know. nt

[Politicalboi]

27. Bringing a knife to a gunfight

[Logical]

18. Name 10 democrats in congress who would propose this! nt

[Duckhunter935]

21. Name 5

You know you need to get 3/5ths and most states to approve

[mwrguy]

22. We need another Carolyn McCarthy

[LittleBlue]

25. I think he's asking for plausible solutions

Not ones that only exist in the DU fantasy bubble.

[yurbud]

32. You can disagree with what he said without insulting DU

I happened to disagree with it as well.

[NickB79]

44. That simple, eh?

If that's the best you can propose, we're royally fucked, because that's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

[onehandle]

3. (Insert NRA talking point)

(Insert more NRA talking points)

[Duckhunter935]

4. and where would I find those?

[Logical]

17. The NRA is full of idiots and are in business to sell guns. But nothing will stop mass shootings. nt

[geomon666]

85. Want to play Gun Nut Bingo?

[hollowdweller]

41. Here's what I think should be done.

I think obviously we need an expanded background check if this many mentally ill people are getting guns.

But here's what me, a gun collector would say.

Make it more expensive to buy weapons that have a high potential for abuse.

Slap a tax of say a hundred bucks on any clip over 10 or 15 rounds and if you are buying a so called Assault Weapon put a two hundred and fifty dollar tax on it.

Same way with pistols. You can still have a pistol holding 12 rounds or more but it's going to cost you more.

You aren't stopping anyone from owning them. What you are doing is making it more expensive so only the hardcore afficianados or collectors will pay it.

You could still get revolvers, semi auto 22's and stuff like Remington 742's and without the fee, but any gun that has the potential to kill a lot of people very quickly or to be able to lay down a field of fire you have to pay a lot for.

[VScott]

48. So, in other words

only the wealthy will be able to afford those particular firearms while the peons have no choice but to make do with less.

Yeah... that sounds like a real progressive plan.

[Laelth]

47. Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.

It might prevent some tragedies (but very few, I would argue). At the same time, it will drive a lot of men (and the women who love them) into the waiting arms of the NRA and the GOP.

It's just not worth it in this political climate.

-Laelth

[CTyankee]

49. Right now, we might have to stick with concentrating on getting a Progressive Dem President in 2016.

That way, we could keep the "official" party platform on guns right there...in the platform and point to it so as not to get the menz all upset. You know, like President Obama did during the 08 campaign...and then, when he became President he got us two more liberal justices, Sotomayor and Kagen, who dissented in the Heller decision...ditto with Bill Clinton who appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

A question for ya...would you vote for such a Democrat for President in 2016?

[Laelth]

50. I will vote for whomever the Democratic Party nominates.

That person will still be better than the alternative. That said, I hope we drop gun control as a party platform plank, and I hope we do nothing that pushes a large number of men (and the women who love them) toward the GOP.

-Laelth

[customerserviceguy]

53. We're all going to do that

We all know that Cruz-Paul-Santorum-Rubio-Perry-Christie-Bush, or anyone else that stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination would be worse than the least capable Democratic candidate who ever got the nomination in Party history.

In two years, we will all find reasons to get out and vote for Hillary in the general election, I predict she will have the nomination mathematically wrapped up by this point in 2016. Whoever the last few surviving Republicons are, we will all have dozens of reasons to oppose them. What matters is how effectively we communicate those reasons to the mushy middle, the folks who have been paying so little attention, that they don't make up their minds until the weekend before an election.

We will need enthusiasm to do that.

[Laelth]

55. I have to disagree with you, in part.

I could care less about the "mushy middle," and I said so in 2010, here. Working-class men who might naturally vote for Democrats were it not for the fact that they don't want to think of themselves as "wimps" for aligning themselves with the more "feminine" party ... those guys should vote for us, but it's not because they're the "mushy middle," it's because they're men with siege mentality. "Moderating" our positions won't get their votes. Being strong and standing up for the Constitution (which secures the individual right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment, as said Amendment is now interpreted by the SCOTUS) might just do the trick.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[CTyankee]

57. but my point was we had a party platform that included a pro-gun position on the 2ndA, but

the SCOTUS justices they got on the court dissented on Heller. We get more like that and we can make some progress, e.g. overturning Heller and going back to what we had before. It's hard to repeal the 2ndA itself. Better by court decision than the constitutional amendment process.

[Laelth]

58. No doubt.

Changing the SCOTUS is the right way to change how we interpret the Constitution, and that's an added benefit of having Democrats controlling the executive branch of the Federal Government. I'd like to see some liberal rulings on a whole host of issues. The 1st Amendment (money=speech, corporations are people) and the 4th Amendment (privacy) are two of my primary concerns.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[WinkyDink]

54. Most sensible, human-helping policies are. But trot out "Guns, Guts, and Glory," and you've got a

chance against even worse policies.

[Laelth]

68. I think most Americans agree with the liberal position on most issues.

But no other issue has the kind of tangible, totalitarian, Constitution-shredding, gut-wrenching, freedom-denying, authoritarian feel that gun control does, and that's why I think our pushing for gun control is unwise politically.



-Laelth

[WinkyDink]

73. We shall see in November.

[customerserviceguy]

52. I doubt that the Aurora, Colorado shooter

would have been seriously deterred by any sort of gun laws. He was easily intelligent enough to have dealt with any obstacles that would have come in his evil path. As evidence, I cite the fact that he rigged his apartment to blow up, and bombs have been quite illegal for some time now.

[yurbud]

66. For that guy, yes. Some seem to have a deficit of social skills and street smarts that would allow

them to navigate the criminal culture.

[customerserviceguy]

89. Perhaps

But criminals don't seem to mind your lack of those skills if you have enough cash. Both the Santa Barbara shooter and the Newtown shooter came from upper middle class (or higher) backgrounds, and would have been able to save up enough money to be able to transact business with those willing to sell them guns. It's not that much different than a drug deal.

[stevenleser]

60. Getting a permit to own a gun should be as hard as getting a top secret security clearance.

They review everything about you, talk to all of your family, friends and neighbors, and make sure you are stable, don't have vendettas against people, etc.

Then they should ask you why you want a gun since under this system, hardly anyone else will have one.

If you make it past all of that, here is your permit to own a single shot, low count magazine gun.

[yurbud]

67. a lot of people would balk at that last bit, but if they think they're going to use the gun to fight

the government, they might as well have a flintlock because all the fully auto weapons they can buy aren't going to stand to the sheer number of weapons our military has or even a mid-sized police force.

[MicaelS]

69. As soon as equally severe restrictions are placed on all journalists, including you.

They review everything about you, talk to all of your family, friends and neighbors, and make sure you are stable, don't have vendettas against people, etc.

You have to undergo a background check, and you have a license to be a journalist / media outlet. Totally reform the libel / slander laws to put the onus on journalists / media outlets.

You will have to have $10,000,000 in personal liability insurance, paid for by you, not your employer. And $1 billion insurance for the media outlets.

You fuck up, your insurance carrier drops you. You can't be a journalist. You really fuck up and ruin someone's life with a false story, like what happened with Richard Jewel, then YOU go to prison.

You want to play scorched earth politics, I'll play. If it takes a Constitutional Amendment, so be it.

[stevenleser]

72. Right because owning a device that can shoot small pieces of metal through the air at lethal speeds

is just as important as the right of free speech and a free press.

Do you even listen to how ridiculous you sound?

[LAGC]

75. If we ever were foolish enough to repeal the Second Amendment...

The entire rest of the Bill of Rights would be up for debate, with the precedent set.

That's not a path we want to travel down...

[stevenleser]

78. I disagree. Eventually the 2nd amendment will be seen for the anachronism it is.

This isn't the 1700s or 1800s. You don't need a gun as part of your daily going out ensemble.

[LAGC]

82. Maybe in a hundred years.

Just remember: it takes at least 3/4 of the states (>38 states) to ratify an amendment. And only once has a prior amendment ever been repealed.

You'll definitely have your work cut out for you.

[stevenleser]

86. That's what they said about the 13th amendment. My guess is less than 20 yrs. nt

[Travis_0004]

79. So we can make the process expesnive so poor people can not own a gun

And also make it possible to discrimate, so maybe some black people will get denied, because they don't seem trust worthy, but I'm sure when a rich white guy applies, he will have the permit in no time!

Who is going to pay for this? I assume a tax on the permit itself? So you are fine with regressive taxes I guess? I'm not to worried, I have a college degree, know a few cops, and I'm white, so I'll probably get approved for the permit in no time.

[stevenleser]

88. I have no idea how you manage to get there. But no, you are wrong. nt

[hack89]

81. You certainly have an active imagination

Have you considered a solution grounded in American cultural and political reality? Or is your goal here to earn a little progressive street cred?

[stevenleser]

87. If I do, this isn't evidence of it. Many people are looking for solutions to mass shootings.

The only question is, why aren't you?

Oh that's right, you worship the right to own portable devices that shoot small pieces of metal through the air at lethal speeds.

I have to say this is one of the stranger religions in western civilization.

[hack89]

90. I support all proposed gun control legistlation with only two exceptions

I do not support registration or an AWB.

UBCs, magazine size limits, gun owner licensing, storage laws - I support them all. I support single payer health care with full mental health coverage. I support a means for identifying possibly violent people and temporarily taking away their guns by creating a place where mental health professionals can go when they have serious concerns.

Surely with all that there is some common ground between us to solve this problem?

[beevul]

61. So CA doesn't have gun control?

How come the brady campaign to prevent gun violence gives CA an A- then?

Also, I'm sure that the idea that CA doesn't have gun control would come as a shock to the pro-gun people that live there, who go through universal background checks, waiting periods, and have to live under assault weapons ban and magazine capacity restrictions.

I guess gun control doesn't mean any of those things, and we can all agree on repealing them, right?

[villager]

76. Thanks for your sanity, Yurbud. Needless to say, the breathless fetishizers have rushed into the

...thread, to remind us of what their NRA brethren say all along:

"It's impossible to do anything about Lord God Gun. Even to try is heresy..."

[yurbud]

83. or as the Onion said, "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this,36131/

[villager]

84. That Onion "parody" was practically "verbatim DU gun apologist post" language...

nt

[yurbud]

91. this is what stymies me as a writer: satire is impossible when reality is strains credulity

[Hoyt]

77. It might take decades for restrictions to work, but delaying isn't working.

Australia's tough laws enacted in 1996 are helping significantly.

[DanTex]

92. It would also deter regular criminals. Don't buy the NRA talking points.

Every other advanced country has far less gun violence of all kinds. Because they have sensible gun laws.

[LAGC]

93. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

As Michael Moore pointed out: there's something peculiar about this culture of violence in American society, something much deeper than just the prevalence of guns.

I think a lot of it has to do with this notion of "American exceptionalism", this idea that we all have to be so ambitious to succeed in life.

Even if we were able to snap our fingers and make every single firearm magically disappear overnight, I have no doubt our levels of violence would still be quite high, compared to other more civilized first world countries where these notions of greed and avarice and "getting ahead" at all costs aren't so engrained in their cultures.

[Erose999]

94. Gun control would deter regular criminals as well. There is an "iron pipeline" through which straw

purchasers buy guns in the states with lax laws and traffic them to areas with strict gun control. Guns from GA bought in private party sales or at gun shows with no questions asked and no accountability end up used in crimes in NY, DC, etc etc.