Has America become numb to tragedy?

[Brehvolution]

I have a 360, PS3, and a HDTV.

Why didn't I spend the money on a gun instead? I need to defend these items.

WTF?! Wal-mart doesn't sell guns anymore? My dad bought me my first(and only) 20 gauge shotgun there years ago.  

I killed a doe with it at least.  

[siamesedreamer]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident. That guy there used hand guns and had a liscense for years. If the others involved ARs, then that's a different story.

I don't really have an opinion either way on this issue. Kinda like abortion for me. *shrugs*

[Human Snorenado]

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.

How so?  In what way?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If having guns available is for the purpose of a "well regulated militia", then I think it's time we a do some regulatin'.

[duckman2000]

I don't really have an opinion either way on this issue. Kinda like abortion for me. *shrugs*

Also see: thread title

[duckman2000]

How so?  In what way?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If having guns available is for the purpose of a "well regulated militia", then I think it's time we a do some regulatin'.

Oh, I'm talking squarely about the psychological evaluation bit, as in individual fitness to bear arms. Training is something I believe even NRA supports, although it obviously needs to be a strict requirement. Which is frustrating because it would really be in the NRA's own interest to push for stricter regulation.

[The Fake Shemp]

I really don't see the hazard of psychological evaluations, just as you would get a physical depending on certain job requirements.  Doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a state sponsored shrink, either.

[Oblivion]

Damn, I can't believe Bill Maher is for regulating guns too. :/

[siamesedreamer]

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).

That doesn't really make sense. AFAIK, teen restrictions don't have any say over what type of car they can drive.

[Mr. Gundam]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

[The Fake Shemp]

But - hey! - if we aren't going to regulate firearms amongst the civilian populace, why not give teenagers a point system where they could accrue points to apply for dangerous, NASCAR grade cars?

[duckman2000]

I really don't see the hazard of psychological evaluations, just as you would get a physical depending on certain job requirements.  Doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a state sponsored shrink, either.

Just to make it clear, I don't agree with the arguments I'm typing up, I'm just relaying some things that I read quite often on other boards I frequent. But staying in character for a bit longer, if it's not a state sponsored shrink, then the whole regulatory thing goes out the window. It'd be to psychology as wartime ordainment was to religious clergy. As for similarities to corporate methods, keep in mind that corporations operate under its own rules, and that people are generally more suspicious of its government than of corporations.

[The Fake Shemp]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

The Pittsburgh guy was just nuts and apparently was worried that the Obama administration was going to take away his guys, so what better way to rally folks around your cause then shoot a bunch of cops!

[TVC15]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

And of course, in the US, guns are by far the most common way to commit suicide (51%).  The second amendment really basically is the freedom to efficiently kill yourself.

[The Fake Shemp]

True.  Not only that, most of the gunmen that open fire on the public end up taking their own lives.

[Mr. Gundam]

After shooting each of his kids MULTIPLE TIMES WITH A RIFLE, he drove back to where his wife was supposed to be so he could kill her, but she wasn't there so he shot himself with the same rifle.

[duckman2000]

Which, again, comes back to the vastly inflated importance of the self, and of course the old national favorite of avoiding responsibility at all cost.

[Human Snorenado]

The fucker in Pittsburgh was telling the cops that were guarding him on his way in to be booked that he wished he killed more of them.  Class act all the way around, frequented Stormfront and probably supported Ron Paul in the primaries last year.

[duckman2000]

I will just say that living in Korea, where gun control is much stricter, I feel 100% safer walking around the streets at night. It's nice being certain that every random Joe isn't strapped.

As someone born and raised in one of the least gun-happy nations around, I'd say it's safer in some ways, and worse in others. For one, people don't have guns but they like to drink and fight, cheaply. And people tend to not quite understand what damage a punch or a kick can do, whereas with guns, it's generally understood that you might end up killing someone. The other bit is that there just aren't as many random brawls going on here, presumably because of an underlying understanding that, hey, someone might be packing heat. It's not a universal truth or anything, just an observation.

[siamesedreamer]

I really don't see the hazard of psychological evaluations...

Would they really work though? I can see it helping in the case of the VT shooting where I believe the guy bought the guns right around the time he committed the crime. But, the Binghamton guy had his guns and a liscense for years. Mandatory psych evals wouldn't have had any impact there unless they are done on a regular basis. And even then they would have to be done for every gun owner on a very regular basis (every month?)

[Oblivion]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

Do you think if the guy didn't have a gun (or rifle or whatever), he wouldn't have found any other way to kill the kids?

[Mr. Gundam]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

Do you think if the guy didn't have a gun (or rifle or whatever), he wouldn't have found any other way to kill the kids?

He had been convicted of child abuse in 2007, so he might have tried. BUT, having access to guns made it a hell of a lot easier for him.

[TVC15]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

Do you think if the guy didn't have a gun (or rifle or whatever), he wouldn't have found any other way to kill the kids?

He had been convicted of child abuse in 2007, so he might have tried. BUT, having access to guns made it a hell of a lot easier for him.

Isn't child abuse a felony?  If so, he shouldn't have even had guns.

And if it's not a felony, child abuse should 100% in all cases be a felony.

[duckman2000]

To go into morbid mode here, guns simply add efficiency, and remove the ability to stop something midway. I don't think it's a realistic scenario, but someone intent on killing another person might have a change of heart half way through if he has to intimately deal with the deed for several minutes. With a gun, you pull the trigger and that's that. No turning back. 

[Mr. Gundam]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

Do you think if the guy didn't have a gun (or rifle or whatever), he wouldn't have found any other way to kill the kids?

He had been convicted of child abuse in 2007, so he might have tried. BUT, having access to guns made it a hell of a lot easier for him.

Isn't child abuse a felony?  If so, he shouldn't have even had guns.

And if it's not a felony, child abuse should 100% in all cases be a felony.

None of the articles talk about what he was convicted of, other than being put on a parenting plan and following through on it, they don't discuss his right to having guns.

[TVC15]

No, I really didn't know the circumstances of the shootings besides the Binghamton incident.

The guy who killed his five kids before shooting himself did so because his wife was leaving him for another man.

Do you think if the guy didn't have a gun (or rifle or whatever), he wouldn't have found any other way to kill the kids?

He had been convicted of child abuse in 2007, so he might have tried. BUT, having access to guns made it a hell of a lot easier for him.

Isn't child abuse a felony?  If so, he shouldn't have even had guns.

And if it's not a felony, child abuse should 100% in all cases be a felony.

None of the articles talk about what he was convicted of, other than being put on a parenting plan and following through on it, they don't discuss his right to having guns.

I guess if it was a first offense he could have made a deal of some sort to prevent major consequences.  Sadly, that shit is common even with stuff like child abuse.

[The Fake Shemp]

Is it really that difficult to demand reasonable regulations on civilian firearm permits?  I'm not taking abolishing the right to bear arms, but even people that are playing Devil's advocate are pretty much stating that we need standardized, strict controls on licenses.

[Cormacaroni]

I know I've become numb to tragedy because it's the typo that disturbs me in the headline below, not the content:

[The Fake Shemp]

Arvie is a reporter?

[brawndolicious]

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.

Why would we need a legal basis for self-protection if we lived in a hypothetical "lawless" society?  I mean, if western civilization suddenly melted down and it was every man for himself, no one's going to give a shit about the constitution.

The argument that it'll keep the rulers in check is fine.  I mean, one example that I know of  Rockefeller using his government connections to have a state militia fire upon striking miners and their families.

That situation can't exist today though.  Maybe it's because of globalization that we're becoming more like other countries but we like using ballot boxes today whenever we want to do a major policy change.

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).

That doesn't really make sense. AFAIK, teen restrictions don't have any say over what type of car they can drive.

I was meaning that teen drivers can't drive past midnight/without a chaperon/whatever.

[duckman2000]

Why would we need a legal basis for self-protection if we lived in a hypothetical "lawless" society?  I mean, if western civilization suddenly melted down and it was every man for himself, no one's going to give a shit about the constitution.

The point of the constitution is not actually to uphold the constitution, dude. For the second amendment, it acts to for some part ensuring that all citizens have the power to protect themselves in the case that the state or union can or will not offer proper protection. Whether or not it is as valid of an argument today as it was in lawless times is debatable, but the constitution does not exist merely to protect its own existence.

[brawndolicious]

No I don't think so.  The amendment specifies "militia" and back then, the governments of the time provide their militias with weapons.  Even though you were essentially drafted into the militia during wartime, you had to get your own weapon.  The reason that the founding fathers put in the second amendment was so that the state governments didn't fear that the federal government would ban them from having their own "army".

I think the reasoning behind the second amendment is a lot more basic.  I highly doubt the founding fathers anticipated the wild west back then.

[Eric P]

I killed a doe with it at least.  

you killed a doe with a shotgun?