2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Blubbartron]

I always love the argument of "criminals aren't obtaining their guns legally anyway, they'll still have guns." Especially in the context of discussing it after this particular incident. This man was seemingly a law-abiding citizen right up until the moment he wasn't. It's fucking stupid to claim that criminals will still all have guns when a lot of people don't BECOME criminals until the moment they do something stupid or crazy with a gun they already had available.

[Xajii]

I always love the argument of "criminals aren't obtaining their guns legally anyway, they'll still have guns." Especially in the context of discussing it after this particular incident. This man was seemingly a law-abiding citizen right up until the moment he wasn't. It's fucking stupid to claim that criminals will still all have guns when a lot of people don't BECOME criminals until the moment they do something stupid or crazy with a gun they already had available.

I'm lobbying for nuance here, nothing more. No one's going to get anywhere if we have people shrugging their shoulders and saying, "all we could do is make them illegal".Of course it would prevent certain crimes - maybe this one, maybe not - but to act like the problem isn't beyond the realm of simply banning something is failing to comprehend its scope.

Anyway, your example is kind of silly. If he was a seemingly law-abiding citizen right up until the moment he wasn't, then what's stopping him from taking that - often fairly simple - extra step and acquiring a gun that isn't legal before committing his murders which aren't legal? Does his apparent history of abiding by law only grant him one lapse?

[Byrthnoth]

Fundamentally we are discussing how dangerous a weapon people should be allowed to own. Given that some people are prone to doing crazy shit, how much should we handicap their destructive potential?

On the continuum of weapon danger:
* Rocket launchers, bombs, missiles, etc. - People don't even legitimately consider these as options
* Fully automatic weapons - Most people agree this should not be allowed
* Semi-automatic weapons with big magazines - These have been the gun rights battlefront since 1994, I think?
* Pistols - Concealment potential, no legitimate hunting purpose (unless you count more comfortably putting injured animals out of their misery), for some reason many people are okay with them.
* Rifles, Shotguns - Legitimate hunting purposes. A bit awkward to use for mass slaughter, but it probably could be and has been done.
* Bows, Crossbows - Impractical for mass slaughter, unless you're Rambo or Hawkeye.
* Knives - Impractical for mass slaughter. You can cut a lot of people, but the destructive potential is much less than a gun or even a bow.

For me, the line of what is allowable is probably just above Rifles and Shotguns. You can make a pretty solid argument for anything below that line being either useful for hunting or sport. Above that line, it's really only useful for killing either a lot of animals quickly or for killing large game at close range (aka humans).

[Ragnus]

The extra step is usually a decent enough deterrent. Hell, I'm 30 and I still couldn't tell you where to get pot in my town, let alone harder drugs. The extra step also allows for more avenues to stop crime before it happens like with the idiots who think they're hiring hitmen, but are actually talking to the authorities.

[Aksannyi]

@Aks, is your whole post about how it cannot be solved immediately and that's a good reason for not taking steps to eventually curb the problem? Even the most strictest of gun ban enthusiasts don't think it can happen immediately, but you've got to be crazy to think some provisions wouldn't get certain guns off the streets in a timeline of years. You seem to be thinking on the wrong timeline here

Not saying that at all ... I was just pointing out that people want immediate solutions and there just isn't an immediate fix. It isn't going to happen right now, and possibly not for at least a generation, maybe even longer. Change in this country is slow.

I don't think that we shouldn't do anything, I'm just saying that, to those who believe that doing this now is going to prevent the next one - it very well may not. And that's not a reason to write off all gun control as ineffective, just something that must be considered and something that people (in general) are going to have to understand. Yeah, we can enact stricter laws, but there's a possibility that it's not going to fix anything for a long time. People just need to be mindful of that. In this age of instant gratification, that's something a lot of Americans don't seem to grasp.

[Sho]

Not saying that at all ... I was just pointing out that people want immediate solutions and there just isn't an immediate fix. It isn't going to happen right now, and possibly not for at least a generation, maybe even longer. Change in this country is slow.

I don't think that we shouldn't do anything, I'm just saying that, to those who believe that doing this now is going to prevent the next one - it very well may not. And that's not a reason to write off all gun control as ineffective, just something that must be considered and something that people (in general) are going to have to understand. Yeah, we can enact stricter laws, but there's a possibility that it's not going to fix anything for a long time. People just need to be mindful of that. In this age of instant gratification, that's something a lot of Americans don't seem to grasp.

I'm lobbying for nuance here, nothing more. No one's going to get anywhere if we have people shrugging their shoulders and saying, "all we could do is make them illegal".Of course it would prevent certain crimes - maybe this one, maybe not - but to act like the problem isn't beyond the realm of simply banning something is failing to comprehend its scope.

Anyway, your example is kind of silly. If he was a seemingly law-abiding citizen right up until the moment he wasn't, then what's stopping him from taking that - often fairly simple - extra step and acquiring a gun that isn't legal before committing his murders which aren't legal? Does his apparent history of abiding by law only grant him one lapse?

Most arguments, including mine here aren't exactly going down this path. No one is saying "straight up ban them all" (or at least I'm not). When speaking of the 2nd Amendment, a constant, backwards glancing eye to the past on the issue is required -- you simply cannot say or act like the full banning of guns will stop all crimes. This is not how smoking (pot) laws, drug laws, child molester/sex offender laws, and alcohol laws are viewed. It would be foolish to think any one law in this nation and the world over would be absolute and not go without someone out there breaking the law. At the same time, the 2nd Amendment should be respected, and at the very least, reexamined, considering the term of "keeping a well regulated militia" is a term that is grossly depreciated.

Change is slow, but contrary to popular belief, it doesn't have to be so slow that it takes generations. All it takes is politicians not catering to special interest groups which often get in the way of well written law (like the oil/petrol industry, tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry, and obviously the firearms industry).

[Salodin]

Seems like some of us are talking about gun control affecting this specific crime, and the other half is talking about gun controls affect on the nation. Obviously stricter gun control will curb gun violence; we keep bringing up this point like it isn't obvious to any one in this thread.

What I'm saying is stricter gun regulations wouldn't have saved this woman's life. If you can legally buy a pistol than any single person you really want dead is dead. That's it, end of story. Are you not ok with that? Then repeal the 2nd amendment. Good luck.

[RKenshin]

As a former seller of guns, I support a more restrictive process to purchasing a firearm. I have sold to many people that I personally did not think should have been an owner, but could not refuse to sell to them. However, I do not think banning high capacity magazines or "assault rifles" would change any of this. If you gave this guy a mag with 5 rounds in it, he probably still kills these 2 people and himself. Other people like the Aurora shooter might have been limited by not having the beta C mag, but he also demonstrated the ability to create an incendiary device. Your next step for mass murderers is to go the Middle East route and then you have suicide bombers or just mowing people down with their car.

You shouldn't make unfair laws that have a negative effect on the rest of the law abiding population. A multitude of gun owners enjoy their hobby without causing mayhem and destruction.

I can't check the video again right now, and not that I really want to analyze this... but as I recall, if he had a pistol with only 5 rounds/clip he would've practically emptied the clip on just the blonde reporter. I remember at least 3 shots, if not 4 or even 5, caught on camera with the muzzle aimed at the reporter. That could have made the difference between the camera guy living and/or subduing the shooter or not, and/or prevented the lady from getting shot. It could've even saved the reporter, if the camera guy was able to get help quicker/deliver first aid.

I don't mean to get all hypothetical, but it definitely would've changed the chances here (for the better) and could have changed the outcome. I'm no expert but his aim and shooting seemed terrible and untrained too, which again would make things more difficult with less ammo.

And yeah, sure, magazine restrictions might not prevent an incident like this outright, but everyone seems to agree it could save lives in multi/mass shootings... so why isn't this worth it? What's the terrible aspect of this trade-off? Inconvenience while at the shooting range? Losing in an extended shoot-out with a bad guy? (has that ever even happened?)

I don't understand why this isn't something everyone can universally agree upon, at least on some level.

[Suvhater]

If you want guns off the streets you will have to violate the rights of a lot of people. I don't know any law enforcement who are itching to kick down the doors of previously law abiding gun owners for merely violating a government dictate.

[archibaldcrane]

>Concur that we need stronger regulations even though it wouldn't have changed this murder in any way
>Get responded as if I said don't take away my guns

No sane person agrees that we need zero new regulation on guns, but I wholeheartedly disagree if you think that agenda would have helped these poor people. The assailant was an overall decent guy, if a little paranoid that everyone was a racist. He used a pistol, not some heavy automatic weapon. He only attacked three people, but his target was one; two were targets of opportunity.

He would have been able to procure a weapon regardless of any new laws in place (using examples you guys thought were good), with out even using the loophole that is a gun show, and he would have been successful in murdering his ex regardless. The extra two attempts at murder were just bonus points for him. Your new gun laws would have been wasted and gun advocates nationwide would have come out in force using this exact case for why stricter gun regulation does nothing.

This whole thing is an unfortunate situation that can't be regulated away. Sans making gun ownership illegal, no regulation would have stopped this man from doing this. So he went through a background check (and passed since we have no reason to believe otherwise) and he waited two months (and used those two months to plan because maybe the max his clip can hold is 6 bullets now), and he can still repeat this exact scenario.

Like I said before, small premeditated murders like this won't change with regulations. It's the mass shootings where kindergarteners are at stake where it will help. If clips hold half the ammo, then the assailant not only has to reload more often, letting more people escape, but he only has so many pockets to hold extra clips as well. Ban assault weapons with out special permits, and make those permits hard as shit to get (yes, even for law enforcement or military). Those are reasonable changes that will occasionally help us lose less life when these things happen. Notice I didn't say prevent from happening, because no matter what you can't regulate the murderer out of some one like some people seem to think when they start talking about gun regulation.

Instead of focusing only on the guns, why not focus on the people? What pushed him to do this? Why was he so distraught over the church shooting and his ex that he wanted to do this? Why are we blind to people who are in so much pain or harbor so much hate that we can't notice that maybe they're going to crack?

Or maybe in that hypothetical 2 month waiting period he would have changed his mind, and the regulations would've prevented a double murder and a suicide.

People act like if you don't make something impossible that it's not worth making it harder, and that is completely ridiculous.

[Salodin]

You have no reason to believe that waiting longer would have changed his mind. The fact that he did already commit the crime means he is not only capable but wanted to kill her. The time it took to do it is irrelevant. Unless you can prove to me he might have changed his mind if he had to wait longer to do it.

[archibaldcrane]

You want me to prove that something that is clearly possible is possible? Uhh...

[archibaldcrane]

Maybe in that two months the "powder keg ready to explode" says some dumb shit and gets the police looking at him. Maybe he finds Jesus. Maybe he meets a cute lady and decides he has something to live for after all.

There's a ton of scenarios where simply adding time could prevent this murder.

[archibaldcrane]

Maybe the reporter gets promoted to work in Chicago and he can't be assed to make the trip. Maybe he falls and breaks his leg in that two months and can't murder anyone for a while.

I mean, do you need me to continue? I could do this for a really long time.

[Thunder]

Hooker sales would go up if pimps could get them to homes in a few seconds of a call.


C'mon sal. I'm pretty sure every anger management or anger management-like program respects the "cooldown" period for its ability to affect the decision-making of people who have snapped/chronic anger/etc.

Edit: Archi, your examples are pretty silly bro. The power of 'time off' or whatever it's called is in the person getting some time to think about things without all the neurochemicals swirling in his head from whatever made him upset/excited.

[Salodin]

And what I'm saying is you can make "maybe" scenarios all you want, the fact of the matter is he was not only willing to do the crime (and he followed through with it), but he filmed himself FPS style, posted it, commented on it, etc. No amount of gun control legislation will make a person not do these things unless you remove all guns from the population. Gun control would not help this reporter in the slightest. Gun control would help with mass murderers like the one in Sandy Hook, but I've yet to see information that proved that any of the suggestions you guys have offered would have prevented this. Do you deny this?

It's like archi subscribes to this mindset that making people sit in the corner while they wait on their mail order gun will suddenly make some one who has demonstrated he has the capacity to take a human life suddenly change their mind. That's ludicrous. If the person was sane enough for that to work then he wouldn't have killed a person to begin with. Gun control doesn't take the murderer out of a person.

[Thunder]

Sal, what is your argument? You believe making it more difficult for this guy to get a gun would not have curbed a thing because he was so sinister with what he did (go pro'd the shooting & commented on it)? And because it wouldn't curb him, making it more difficult is pointless?


For the record,

It's like archi subscribes to this mindset that making people sit in the corner while they wait on their mail order gun will suddenly make some one who has demonstrated he has the capacity to take a human life suddenly change their mind.

is absolutely right. This was a normal guy, you know? A lot of us could be pushed into a mental corner where we take someone's life, he isn't any more special because he 'demonstrated the capacity to take life'.

It's really kind of the same with beating people up, domestic abuse, vandalism, throwing your controller after losing a game of smash bros - some time off would solve a lot of scenarios. You're right, some people are crazy enough to come back after 10 minutes and still throw that controller against the wall, but that's not most people and arguing as if that's the only person committing murder is kind of silly to me - and exactly what Sho talked about before, "oh it's just a deranged man" talking point that conservatives hammer on

This is -really- similar to blaming addicts for being different than a regular person, making poor decisions, or whatever and not the fact that pain medication is extremely addictive and a lot of us 'regular guys' could fall into the same downward spiral if events in our lives happened to line up that way.

[Headspace]

Gun control doesn't take the murderer out of a person.

Citation needed

[Salodin]

The argument is the measures bought up in this thread would not remove these tragedies from existance. The first thing people jumped on in this thread is gun control, like that would have stopped this. That's ignorant. People will sometimes kill people. Gun control would make it harder, rarer, but it won't go away.

And enough with the strawmans. I already said I concur that we need more regulation, but that doesn't mean this type of tragedy will become extinct. This is how it'll go: we regulate guns more, and sometime down the road this happens again. We'll then have the same people in this same thread calling for more regulation, oblivious to the fact that no amount of regulation will stop a person dedicated to doing what they want to do. Maybe a month is enough for John Doe to blow some steam and prevent a murder, but it's not enough for Jane. So then what, make it two months? Now it's enough for Jane but not Bill. Three months? Where do you draw the line? Where IS the line?

Add into this the "don't take my freedom because of a few bad apples" and now you understand my reasoning.

[NinjaLotter]

Banning guns is the silliest thing ever. There's so many arguments against it, but I'll just raise one you probably never hear.

It's anti-women.

Not everyone lives 5 minutes away from a police station. I know that's hard for someone to imagine who lives in a city. There are people who live a 30 minute drive away from the nearest cop, through back roads, way the hell out in the middle of nowhere.

If you ban guns, and I was a serial rapist, I'd just drive out to the sticks. Rapist, killers and thieves could start preying on country people like sheep, and there's no neighbors to hear the screams or police officer to come to the rescue.

These kinds of people avoid going out into the country to rape women, kill people, and steal TV's, because they know they're more likely to find a shotgun shell to the face. Ban guns and all of a sudden these secluded areas suddenly become ripe for the picking, raping, killing and thieving.

Seriously just go to hell with your gun grabbing and focus your attention more on how fucked up our society is culturally, that people become raving lunatics.