Has America become numb to tragedy?

[The Fake Shemp]

MSNBC article brings up a good point, in a weekend where three policemen were murdered and thirteen civilians slain by mentally unbalanced, unemployed gunmen.  Not to mention the Worst Father of the Year candidate who shot his five kids and then himself - also over the weekend.

In March alone, 53 Americans were killed in mass shootings.

At what point, do we as Americans, have a serious dialogue about gun control (not outright abolishing firearms, but control - unless you want to ban 'em) in our culture?

[Human Snorenado]

Why do you hate America, Federwang?  The solution is obviously to allow everyone to carry concealed weapons, that will clearly reduce gun crime.

[Positive Touch]

times are tough in america, so some of us choose to vent our frustrations by mowing down a building full of people or killing our families.  you got a problem with that?

[Mandark]

Gun control's pretty much off the table.  It's one of those issues where a very dedicated, organized minority (centered around the NRA) are in control.

I think opinion polls consistently show a majority in favor of restrictions on gun ownership, but it's soft support and very very few of those people will switch votes based on it.

[The Fake Shemp]

Why do you hate America, Federwang?  The solution is obviously to allow everyone to carry concealed weapons, that will clearly reduce gun crime.

I'm well aware that such a statement falls in line with The ToxicAdam Doctrine, but I can't fathom how letting Americans carry concealed weapons, outside of anecdotal evidence of would-be victims stopping muggers, would be a positive thing in current socioeconomic conditions.

[Human Snorenado]

I like to think of it as The FoC Doctrine, myself.

But that should probably involve the gold standard, to be honest.

[Dickie Dee]

I remember post 9/11 the NRA successfully opposed a measure so that would've mandated that tracer chemicals be put in explosives so that in the event of an attack investigators would at least have an instant lead.

If people can't at least grab onto that and realize these people are fucking nuts, I'm not sure what will.

[Mandark]

It's funny/sad that after pretty much each of these events, you can surf around the conservative parts of Blogistan and read people saying "if only the security guards/teachers/congregants/cashiers/wait staff had guns, they could have mowed down the bad guy!"

Then it veers into funnier/sadder killing and revenge fantasies, with self-defense as a really thin rationalization.

[Phoenix Dark]

It is sad that frankly the issue can't even be debated in any manner that approaches rationality or actual, you know humanity, anymore.

You mean stuff like this?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/04/whos-responsible-for-the-new-york-rampage/

[The Fake Shemp]

Cohen, you pretty much just voice my frustration.  Here's what I don't understand.  The arguments always seem to be:

Proposal: "Let's ban all firearms!"
Rebuttal: "That is against the constitution!"

Proposal: "Stricter gun control measures!"
Rebuttal: "We already have strict gun control measures, they just need to be less convoluted and executed on a state level!"

Proposal: "Let's give everyone a gun - then everyone will be safe!"
Rebuttal: "That is a really dumb idea."

But those seem to be the only three arguments.  So our only option is to simply do nothing, because it'd break the constitution, force politicians to create adequate gun control or let NRA carrying card members hand out handguns like toys?

Why, as Americans, have we simply accepted those limited options and as a result, decided to wash our hands of any responsibility and continue Snuggies at an alarming rate?

I mean, sweet Jesus, so many Americans were shot during March that the mayor of Binghamton was already expressing his condolences to another mayor by weekend's end!

[Diunx]

Guns kill more people than pot, think about it guys.

[Human Snorenado]

Guns kill more people than pot, think about it guys.

So do cars, planes, tractors and probably cows.

[Boogie]

Then it veers into funnier/sadder killing and revenge fantasies, with self-defense as a really thin rationalization.

People who want to get guns "for home defense" disturb and bewilder me.

[Human Snorenado]

Yeah, I've got guns cause I LIKE TO FUCKING SHOOT THEM.  It's fun.  It's a hobby.  also cause I might need 'em to take down the gubmint/zombies/commies/whathaveyou one day.

[Boogie]

Yeah, I've got guns cause I LIKE TO FUCKING SHOOT THEM.  It's fun.  It's a hobby.  also cause I might need 'em to take down the gubmint/zombies/commies/whathaveyou one day.

At least you're honest about it. 

[The Fake Shemp]

I wonder what the actual ratio of handgun owners who accidentally shoot themselves, someone else or provoke violence - versus the gun owners that actually succeed in using handguns to prevent being victimized in the name of self defense, truly is.

[Human Snorenado]

I dunno, but it's probably the ones who keep their shit loaded in the house.  I don't load a gun unless I plan on shooting it.

[Diunx]

Guns kill more people than pot, think about it guys.

So do cars, planes, tractors and probably cows.

And they are all legal! wtf?

[drew]

People who want to get guns "for home defense" disturb and bewilder me.

you live in canada

you wouldnt understand

[The Fake Shemp]

The worst case scenarios of having a firearm in your house, especially if you have a family, are just too scary for me to even attempt to rationalize keeping one.  If someone really wants to rob me - so be it.  I'm not going to risk getting myself killed in a last ditch effort to defend myself in a pointless, albeit probably awesome looking shootout.

[drew]

get a gunlocker doye

DOYE

[TVC15]

No, Willco. I am pretty sure everyone hates your beard

[Oblivion]

edit: well that'll teach me to post without reading through a thread

[Mandark]

No, Willco. I am pretty sure everyone hates your beard

Is there a way to move a post so it's the first response in a thread?  Cause I think punchlines responding to the OP have the best impact that way.

[Dickie Dee]

It's possible to own a gun and not be a weirdo,

but I remember that recent GAF thread with the girl who accidently got shot by her husband and her blog post about her recent gun outing was still up, they had 10 year old kids posing with guns (probably loaded) pointed at people/at the camera, and one of her recent posts was about how her and her husband would get out the guns and play pretend that their home was being invaded...you can't tell me that's not the mentality of a huge number of gun owners.

[The Fake Shemp]

If my beard was a gun, it'd look like this:

But - hey! - it looks like we're spreading American cultural values to Iraq the only way we know how.

[Great Rumbler]

I don't mind people keeping a gun for home safety. It's not really about having some grand shootout with robbers or anything like that, but just having something close at hand that can use to scare someone off with if it comes to that. Now, granted, it's not the be all end all of home security, it's also a good idea to have something like Brinks as well, and even having a gun may not be enough to really protect yourself if someone's really determined to get at you, but I'd say it's better than nothing simply as a subconscious deterrent for would-be burglars. And it goes without saying that anyone who owns guns and has kids should do EVERYTHING possible to make sure that the kids can't get to them.

Having said that, we really NEED stricter gun control. The way things are now, it's just way to easy for anyone and everyone to get whatever high-powered rifles and shotguns they want. If we're talking about the Constitution and what the founder meant when they wrote, I'd say that it's a safe bet that they didn't want the country to turn into a warzone with shoot springs becoming a near daily occurrence. I'm not against owning guns, but there has to be a balance between the rights of gun-owners to own guns and the rights of the general public to not get shot by gun-owners.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

It's possible to own a gun and not be a weirdo,

but I remember that recent GAF thread with the girl who accidently got shot by her husband and her blog post about her recent gun outing was still up, they had 10 year old kids posing with guns (probably loaded) pointed at people/at the camera, and one of her recent posts was about how her and her husband would get out the guns and play pretend that their home was being invaded...you can't tell me that's not the mentality of a huge number of gun owners.

It isn't

[Madrun Badrun]

If my beard was a gun, it'd look like this:

Like a yellow Mexican drug lord with an uzi?  ya. 

[The Fake Shemp]

It's possible to own a gun and not be a weirdo,

but I remember that recent GAF thread with the girl who accidently got shot by her husband and her blog post about her recent gun outing was still up, they had 10 year old kids posing with guns (probably loaded) pointed at people/at the camera, and one of her recent posts was about how her and her husband would get out the guns and play pretend that their home was being invaded...you can't tell me that's not the mentality of a huge number of gun owners.

It isn't

[Madrun Badrun]

 

[Phoenix Dark]

The worst case scenarios of having a firearm in your house, especially if you have a family, are just too scary for me to even attempt to rationalize keeping one.  If someone really wants to rob me - so be it.  I'm not going to risk getting myself killed in a last ditch effort to defend myself in a pointless, albeit probably awesome looking shootout.

Agreed. If someone robs me at gun point the only thing that'll be on my mind is "how can I do anything/everything possible to ensure I don't get killed." Trying to shoot him first doesn't strike me as the safest choice.

Every two to four years the NRA/GOP uses the same "x is going to take your guns" rhetoric. And of course when the big bad liberal dem gets in office...the guns don't go away, the second amendment isn't abolished, etc.

I have no idea what to do about the situation; it's so political it seems almost impossible to fix. I mean, what's an effective method of gun control?

[Mandark]

it's so political

Argh stop it.

[Madrun Badrun]

Agreed. If someone robs me at gun point the only thing that'll be on my mind is "how can I do anything/everything possible to ensure I don't get killed." Trying to shoot him first doesn't strike me as the safest choice.

Yes.  When ever I have violent fantasies in the shower it's always this. 
"O mister please don't hurt me.  I'll do anything."  Good to know it's how you feel too PD.   

[Mr. Gundam]

the Worst Father of the Year candidate who shot his five kids and then himself - also over the weekend.

The father killed himself not very far from the elementary school I work at.  

[Eric P]

In March alone, 53 Americans were killed in mass shootings.

jesus christ

[Boogie]

People who want to get guns "for home defense" disturb and bewilder me.

you live in canada

you wouldnt understand

Well, I understand that more people use their guns to kill their family members, the very people they have the gun to protect, rather than someone invading their home.

[duckman2000]

I'm all for the right to bear arms, at all times, but there's a lack of balance. On the one hand, you have NRA nuts who feel that everyone (who is a member of the NRA) should get to brandish assault rifles and that every potential limitation of weapon types infringe on American civil rights, and on the other hand, you have those who want to abolish all guns. It's a PETA situation, really. You want to support it because, hey, animals shouldn't be allowed to be grossly mistreated, but then they launch some hippie-spearheaded, idiotic campaign against pet owners.

That said, NRA is helped by channeling the south, the Christian right and its less sensible values.

[Phoenix Dark]

it's so political

Argh stop it.

Argh what? It's a huge political issue with passionate people on both sides, with one particular side not interested in ceding any ground.

[duckman2000]

The worst case scenarios of having a firearm in your house, especially if you have a family, are just too scary for me to even attempt to rationalize keeping one.  If someone really wants to rob me - so be it.  I'm not going to risk getting myself killed in a last ditch effort to defend myself in a pointless, albeit probably awesome looking shootout.

This is a problem for sure. I'm a scatterbrain with a very curious 4 year old. The mere thought of the kid finding a gun that I stupidly forgot to put away is very troubling. It's troubling enough that simply thinking about it evokes a deep feeling of sadness and regret. Rifles are alright, but handguns, I can't do that.

Now, pepperballs and a Tac-1 jacked up to 20 balls per second at 500fps, on the other hand...

[Ecrofirt]

I dunno, but it's probably the ones who keep their shit loaded in the house.  I don't load a gun unless I plan on shooting it.

SCAN ME!

[Human Snorenado]

I dunno, but it's probably the ones who keep their shit loaded in the house.  I don't load a gun unless I plan on shooting it.

SCAN ME!

http://s182.photobucket.com/albums/x22/jseph666/?action=view&current=Jimmy_Tangos_Fatbusters.flv

[Mandark]

it's so political

Argh stop it.

Argh what? It's a huge political issue with passionate people on both sides, with one particular side not interested in ceding any ground.

What exactly do you mean when you describe an issue as political?  What issues are not political?

[Phoenix Dark]

it's so political

Argh stop it.

Argh what? It's a huge political issue with passionate people on both sides, with one particular side not interested in ceding any ground.

What exactly do you mean when you describe an issue as political?  What issues are not political?

I realize it's a cliche but I'm using it to describe social issues that are dominated by special interests to the point that they never seem to leave the public debate stage. Just endless sniping every 2-4 years with nothing getting done, and a bunch of threats from both sides that never come to fruition (x will be banned, y won't be allowed anymore, etc). The abortion debate is similar imo

[The Fake Shemp]

In March alone, 53 Americans were killed in mass shootings.

jesus christ

I should've said past thirty days, but it's just semantics.  Your response is exactly my point.

I think it's pretty obvious that we've crossed the point where an open dialogue on gun control is not just necessary, but demanded.  It's no longer a few crazy people every now and then.  The damage one person can do is pretty crazy - it goes beyond the handfuls of innocents murdered, but the damaged done on their families and communities.

I feel as a nation, we have officially hit the breaking point.

[siamesedreamer]

Are there any additional gun controls that would have realistically prevented the three shootings?

[Mandark]

First thing, don't say "political" when you mean "polarized".

Politics is how we sort out issues in a democracy.  When someone says an issue has become too political, they mean it should be taken out of the hands of the people.  Outside of technical matters, this is generally a Bad Thing.

Second, don't assume an equivalence between the sides.

While you can find plenty of individuals with absolutist views, there is no counterweight to the NRA with anywhere near its clout.  Votes, money, and organization are what get things done in politics and the gun lobby is way ahead of gun control groups (say the Brady Campaign, if that's still the primary one).

Third, when are issues meant to be settled?

Everyone brings up abortion as something that is still debated, when just as many people disagree on tax policy.  None of us get to be the arbiter of what are and aren't Real Issues.  If enough people care about it and there isn't a consensus, it'll get argued and that's how it should be.

[duckman2000]

I don't think gun control, or the lack of it, is the issue anyway. Americans are just self-centered to the point that the worth of human life seems insignificant next to the assumed worth of the self. And on the same note, personal failure, such as losing a job or similar personal troubles, then becomes such an important and devastating failure that it eclipses the worth of other human lives.

I'm also not convinced that the general obsession with crime in entertainment helps.

[The Fake Shemp]

Are there any additional gun controls that would have realistically prevented the three shootings?

Considering two of the three gunmen were using assault rifles (the other using a hunting rifle) - I guess nothing could be done to prevent the violence that occurred!

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

In March alone, 53 Americans were killed in mass shootings.

jesus christ

I should've said past thirty days, but it's just semantics.  Your response is exactly my point.

I think it's pretty obvious that we've crossed the point where an open dialogue on gun control is not just necessary, but demanded.  It's no longer a few crazy people every now and then.  The damage one person can do is pretty crazy - it goes beyond the handfuls of innocents murdered, but the damaged done on their families and communities.

I feel as a nation, we have officially hit the breaking point.

I don't think we're near the breaking point at all.

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, since police officers require psychological evaluations, training and certification to use their firearms, why are we so incredibly lax when it comes to certifying (if at all) civilians to carrying weapons?

[Phoenix Dark]

First thing, don't say "political" when you mean "polarized".

Politics is how we sort out issues in a democracy.  When someone says an issue has become too political, they mean it should be taken out of the hands of the people.  Outside of technical matters, this is generally a Bad Thing.

Second, don't assume an equivalence between the sides.

While you can find plenty of individuals with absolutist views, there is no counterweight to the NRA with anywhere near its clout.  Votes, money, and organization are what get things done in politics and the gun lobby is way ahead of gun control groups (say the Brady Campaign, if that's still the primary one).

Third, when are issues meant to be settled?

Everyone brings up abortion as something that is still debated, when just as many people disagree on tax policy.  None of us get to be the arbiter of what are and aren't Real Issues.  If enough people care about it and there isn't a consensus, it'll get argued and that's how it should be.

Polarizing. Ok, a better term. Also I did mention the lack of equivalence on the gun issue.

It's a huge political issue with passionate people on both sides, with one particular side not interested in ceding any ground.

Just perhaps not as clear as it could have been. I see your point though. Outside of some of the more ridiculous charges (socialist) in terms of the tax policy debate, I don't think it's nearly as vehement of a debate as abortion or gun control. I'm not saying tax policy isn't a real or important issue, just that it doesn't strike me as comparable to abortion/gun control.

[duckman2000]

Also, since police officers require psychological evaluations, training and certification to use their firearms, why are we so incredibly lax when it comes to certifying (if at all) civilians to carrying weapons?

Because it, according to the benevolent watch organizations, would encroach on personal liberty.

[Mandark]

PD:  Have you noticed that people are threatening to withdraw themselves from society as a whole in protest of the tax issue?

Of course guns and abortion are going to elicit strong emotional reactions, like the Iraq war did.  They deal with life and death.  That does help me understand why some people want them off the table, though.  The level of passion just strikes some as unseemly.

[Dickie Dee]

Some issues like abortion are pretty polarizing because it's hard to find common ground on, (using health services to reduce unwanted pregnancies is one, but alot of the strict pro-lifers that fuel the movement are also anti-sex and would take away birth control if they could), but either you are ok with aborting fetuses or you aren't...there's really no mushy middle ground to find. (except for the ol' rape/incest/life of the mother that some pro-lifers are willing to concede)

[The Fake Shemp]

I fail to see how psychological evaluations and rigorous training and certification encroaches on personal liberties?  It would help us effectively screen out who should not be carrying firearms.

[Mandark]

Are there any additional gun controls that would have realistically prevented the three shootings?

If this post doesn't get right to the heart of what Willco is trying to to, nothing does.

The thing that kills me is how obviously it's a rhetorical question.

There's about no chance that sd's really trying to figure out the best, most effective form gun control laws could take so they could prevent this.  He's just telling us this would happen anyway so don't bother trying.

[duckman2000]

I fail to see how psychological evaluations and rigorous training and certification encroaches on personal liberties?  It would help us effectively screen out who should not be carrying firearms.

But, see, that's unconstitutional. And naturally, the tests would be looked upon as discriminatory and as just another attempt by the Big Brother state to exercise control over the people, and the immediate reaction would still be "but criminals have guns." The very next argument would be that the government would then need to subject every American citizen to the same testing procedure in order to determine the specific requirements based on a natural mean, which according to the same people would absolutely validate their concern regarding the Big Brother state.

[brawndolicious]

Are there any additional gun controls that would have realistically prevented the three shootings?

Take away hand guns and assault rifles and  you eliminate 99% of gun crimes.  Neither are needed for home defense or any popular gun sports.

Also, it makes sense to treat a gun license like a teen's driving license.  If you own a .22 caliber rifle for a few years without any incidents, then you can buy more lethal firearms (but still only long guns).

To be totally honest though, I don't see any justification for the second amendment today.  With Apache helicopters, tanks and nukes, you CAN NOT defend against the russians or the chinese or whoever with a weapon that can actually stored in your own home.

[duckman2000]

I believe it's more about civilian defense. Protecting the home against potential dangers from a potential lawless society. In some cases, the argument goes that it's a necessity to keep the rulers in check.