Did you? You take a stand against something by stating that talking about gun control now isn't logical and then advocate it two lines later without explaining why? The reason you state without substantiation is that it provokes a "huge emotional response", implying that it's actually not an optimal time and we might do something that we'll regret.

And I take issue with you saying that incidents such as this are an "unavoidable aspect of gun violence" - do you not think that there would be a substantially higher chance that fewer people would have been killed in this incident if getting access to guns was much more difficult? If the shooter had one handgun instead of two (or three), isn't the chance that fewer people would have lost their lives considerably higher? In a macabre coincidence, something very similar happened in China where an adult psycho went crazy in a school. Compare the body counts. You can not start discussing gun regulation by thinking that what you're doing would not have had an impact on what just happened. The twisted logic you'd need to be consistent escapes me.

OMG CAPS. I shudder in my boots for the day you discover that you can actually make things bold, underline them etc. When reason fails resort to formatting. It is not possible to talk conclusively about events that have occurred and whether they would have either happened or not happened had the laws been in place - it's essentially a false dichotomy because you can not reduce events like this to a binary nature. This is the current argument - had access to guns and ammo been harder, there is a good chance that fewer people might have been killed. One can not hide the very motivation for what he or she is doing by claim that it would taint the debate - the debate shouldn't even exist if it doesn't play a role (and not necessarily an all-encompassing one as you imply)

yes but you state that having fewer guns helps prevent gun violence because it changes our culture ("more realistic possibility") - not because of the intrinsic fact that fewer guns means fewer psychos get access to them. Talking about gun culture is a punditry distraction - why are you trying to create a level of abstraction when the factors affecting the debate (access to guns, enforcement of gun ownership responsibility etc) are all concrete?

If you're going to argue politics over the internet, at least have the decency to state your main point disclaimer-free in the first few lines.

Edit- quote formatting

its sort of messed up to say this but i dont think people should be out there killing kids in school or elsewhere. just my input. thanks all

"I know this isn't going to go over very well but was he mad about the endings for Mass Effect 3 and lost it?"

oh my lol

3029ad i kiss my gunwife on her cold steel mouth as i get into my car (giant revolver with wheels) and head to work at Gunco

The solution is more guns. File your teeth down and put tiny guns in your mouth

follow @dogboner ok bye ideaots 4ever *rides off into sunset on giant gun shooting at the ground launching me into space*

You COMPLETELY misread my first post.

I said that it's illogical that we can ONLY talk about gun control when a big milestone like this happens, and that it seems to be forbidden discourse otherwise. If it were up to me, we'd talk about it a lot more.

You're reading way more into the "huge emotional response" thing than I intended. How is it not an optimal time to talk about it? How would we do something we'll regret? By passing gun control laws? Which I want? Why would I ever say anything like that? It make no sense

Look at the context of how I was saying that. I was defending against those saying "well this guy would have still got illegal access to guns anyways so gun control does nothing herp derp". You choose to argue against them by making the case that, in this particular instance, fewer people would have died if gun control were stricter. I am making the argument that, even if that weren't true, cases like this would be a far outlier with stricter gun control laws, the last holdouts of an issue that is otherwise dead. Neither of us are capable of proving what we're arguing because of the reality, which is such laws are not in place. I don't understand how you can therefore act like your argument is stronger than mine, or that the two are exclusive. I don't care whether this particular scenario was avoidable or not, because IT ALREADY HAPPENED. I just care about reducing the overall number of gun homicides in the future, because that is preventable.

cont'd below

I don't understand why you're getting so worked up when it seems to me like (other than my oh-so offensive use of the dreaded caps lock key) we see eye-to-eye on this issue. I too agree that we cannot take about past events conclusively, which is why I don't understand when you say things like:

"You can not start discussing gun regulation by thinking that what you're doing would not have had an impact on what just happened."

I think we can discuss gun regulation by completely avoiding how to answer that question. Regardless of what happened here, I feel like it's just as important that cases like this are the anomaly in that it's even in question whether gun control could play a role in changing things. In most cases, it's 100% clear that it could. Isn't that enough? Why are you arguing about this one unknowable case?

Yes, I do believe gun culture is a serious and existing problem, IN ADDITION to the question of access to guns (which is I also acknowledge).

I don't think gun culture is any more abstract a factor than any of the others, because the extent to which access to guns and the like would go down with stricter gun control is really just conjecture on our parts, just like any sort of gun culture that may exist. I think talking about access to guns going down is concrete because sometimes common sense can replace actual statistics when none are available, and the same is true in terms of gun culture.

I did, you just misunderstood it.

You're essentially nitpicking when both of us feel very similarly overall. Honestly, this whole thing feels like you misread my first post, attacked the misinterpretation, and are now too proud to back out of it.

What about my post makes it dumb? The fact that you have states willing to break from the union over the 2nd amendment? Or that you have millions of gun owners willing to lose their shit for the same amendment?

That I said America is a fucked up place? Because you and I along with the rest of the world can blatantly see the country we call home is fucked up.

Or the fact I said even if laws got stricter, if you had the money you could do as you please? To add on to that it'll become like the drug trade, In fact it even happens now. How the fuck do you think under age kids get handguns or assault rifles. They steal or they buy them.

America fucked up in the first place by saying every citizen is entitled to a gun. The best thing they can do is either say fuck it, or slowly make one ammunition type available to the public. Even then you'll still piss off a shit ton of people.

*edit* It looks like your stance is to lower crime rates dealing with guns in the future. To do that mustard, you will have to abolish the 2nd amendment or come up with some bull shit law. And you have to do all that with out upsetting big game states or millions of people.

People can get explosive weapons. But it is the ridiculous taxing and background checking that makes it not worth it. A grenade can cost $500 but you have to go through your sheriff and pay a $200 tax. FOR EACH GRENADE YOU WANT.

I'll admit this would be a good thing to add for guns, and add a limitation to what and how many you can own. If you can afford it then you got yourself a shiny piece of metal. Of course it doesn't eliminate the problem, but it'll make it a little bit better.

I think large parts of their dismissal have to do with things like "historical context", and "actually reading it."

Considering multiple people have already spelled out that while gun control could not with certainty have prevented this and that there needs to be something done about the availability of firearms, how about the other mass shootings this year? "Oh but if they want a gun they'll get one", see previous post.

This is America so the only opportunity we get to talk about gun control is after yet another lunatic goes wild on innocent bystanders. Considering I live in Chicago which has one of the highest number of gun homicides per year, the news doesn't tend to cover gun control ever and instead runs the usual, "4 men were shot dead today on the south side, but tonight's top story: Is Rahm Emanuel taking away teacher's rights?"

I think everyone already stated quite clearly that access to mental health services is also an issue, unfortunately people will actually argue against the gun control issue based on faulty, outdated reasoning.

What you and I call "gun control" are two entirely separate notions of gun control though. NRA members support the form of "strict gun control" that means that you can't buy assault rifles and you have to wait 3 days to buy a gun (which even this is debated against). I said previously that there are people that seriously think that limiting people to buying one gun a month is a serious restriction on their freedom. That's 12 guns a year. What in the fuck does anyone in suburban U.S.A. need 12 different fucking guns for? As clockwork already demonstrated, it's a lot easier to draw that line then you want it to be.

Wow. I guess we never should have studied medicine either since you're going to die anyway. Let's let private citizens own entire arsenals of automatic weaponry too, because hey, the people are the problem not the guns.

This is how gun control arguments always go.

Pro gun control dude: You don't want firearms to be unilaterally banned? MIGHT AS WELL GIVE EVERYBODY 50 ASSULT RIFLES FOR FREE

Anti gun control dude: You want stricter firearm regulations? DONT STEAL MY HUNTING RIFLE SOMEBODY WILL COME INTO MY HOME AND KILL ME GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

holy shit

wanting the right to bear arms =/= everybody owning 50 AK47's

wanting gun regulations doesn't have to be wanting no guns whatsoever

That does sound pretty nice, though. Unless there are any other pros to guns than hunting. Seems like a lot of bad versus one recreational activity. Then again, America is fat as fuck, so we could really use as many reasons to get people to do shit outside as possible.

please don't

i have championships in skeet shooting unlike tf2 :(

It's not only recreation though, in some areas people practically live off of venison during hunting season.

If you unilaterally ban firearms, you're taking away some people's perfectly peaceful way of life. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

They also wanted to secede because Obama was re-elected. How can you even read "millions of gun owners willing to lose their shit for the same amendment" and not see that as a problem? Millions of people NEED guns in America? For what, to defend themselves from the other millions with them I guess.

"Stuff is shit, deal with it" A+ logic.

Money happens to be quite a barrier for a lot of people that want to do things that require money so I'm not exactly sure how your argument holds up. I mean this is econ 101 that if price goes up, demand goes down. Will there be ways for people to attain guns illegally? Yes, but as Jim Jeffries pointed out yesterday, "The kid was autistic, I doubt he had many connections to the black market."

Once again someone makes an argument while completely ignorant of the circumstances and historical differences under which the 2nd amendment was ratified. How is either option "the best thing", even using language like that betrays bias or at the very least, unwillingness to consider alternatives. You've written off gun control working before ever even considering it.

Who gives a fuck about either big game states or millions of assmad gun owners? There are just as many millions of people that would be upset if their child was shot by "yet another" fucktard with a semi-automatic handgun. You don't have to abolish the 2nd amendment to make firearms less prevalent in society. Though considering what "arms" details nowadays, it might be better to rethink just how necessary it is for people to have a "right" to owning them. Before I even hear shit about, "considering changing the constitution" let's not forget that it had to be amended to abolish slavery.

Also, immediately labeling a law meant to keep excessive amounts of fire arms away from private armories is hardly "bullshit." If duder wants to get upset that the state tells him he can now only own one gun that is on him, I'm sure the rest of society would appreciate maybe dropping the gun homicide total below 11k for a change.

http://i.imgur.com/AA5Ym.png

that's an assault rifle idiot

Because it's been demonstrated that it is so much more difficult to kill 20+ people with a handgun.

Oh

I defended the legality of hunting rifles, not handguns or assault rifles. Read.

And yes, I am well aware they are easy to kill people with.

But to me hunting rifles are along the same line as cars, knives, and bow/arrow arguments made earlier. Yes, they can kill people, however it is not their sole purpose.

dogboner, the best

Considering 0 people in this thread have seriously endorsed a unilateral ban to firearms, what point are you trying to make?

I'm fairly certain mustard and I have been the most vocal proponents of gun control and neither of us have ever even conjectured (other than myself being sarcastic) that we should just ban guns forever instantly. If you want to own a hunting rifle because that's how you make your living, go ahead. However, you shouldn't pretend that limiting people to buying one gun a month, or mandatory psychological testing, or limiting how many fucking guns someone can own is seriously jeopardizing your way of life.

If you can really think of a solid argument for why duder needs 6 guns, I'd love to hear it.

I entered my view into the discussion and only mentioned hunting. Some nerd responded that my views would lead to some dude being able to kill a bunch of people with an assault rifle. Then when I pointed out that his post was unrelated to my statement, you again implied that it was because the same thing could happen with handguns. Again unrelated to my stance.

Also:

This how my view on hunting was made relevant.

Hey I am in debate and I researched the shit out of this:

There are some really interesting arguments on both sides.

1. Gun Control laws are key in reducing firearms proliferation that escalates violence. Many gun related homicides committed every year are escalations. Obviously a large portion of the homicides are people who got a gun just to kill people, but many people only ended up using a gun for example to win a fight. (In Florida a man got in a bar fight, went home, came back 30 mins later with a gun, shot the guy he fought, and was acquitted due to Florida's "Castle Defense" laws). Gun Control solves b/c people like this would be unable to escalate the cycle.

2.a Stolen Guns (that means not borrowed, not purchased legitimately) accounted for 90.5% of firearm homicides in 2011. Some say that this would make gun control useless because 9.5% is a pretty low solvency rate, but remember that 9.5% is still almost 1000 people per year.

2.b I disagree with that assessment. A high percentage of "stolen" guns were originally purchased from a legitimate dealer or gun show. The laws that solve this would need to be structured such that those who purchase guns are forced to prove that they do in fact retain their guns. This would require a further bureaucratic structure, but since more than 60% of killers dispose of their gun afterwords, ultimately the amount of illegal guns available would shrink dramatically.

3. Many illegal guns come in from Mexico. There is not a way to solve this without doing much worse things (at least that I have read). This, however, is relatively small compared to the flow resulting from legitimate gun purchasers "losing" (selling) their guns away.

4. The idea that the right to bear arms would somehow stop some tyrant from taking over is nonsensical. The USA spends 41% of ALL MONEY spent on defense in the world. That is more than I believe the next 10 spenders combined. If you think that you and your fucking AK-47 are going to stop the more than 9000 M1 Abrams battle tanks in the US army (just as the tip of the iceberg), you are retarded. The fact of the matter is that unless you are allowed to purchase RPG-7s, Javelins, and Stingers at your local fucking Wal Mart then a tyrant with control of the army would very easily take over the country. There is no way to effectively solve that except for our structured government. Pretty much everyone who has tried to take too many powers has been shut down by the supreme court or congress or even the president. A tyrant is so unlikely as to be an impossibility. If you are worried about that small chance then you probably should stop going outside so as to prevent being struck by a rogue meteor.

5. Mass shootings are almost always carried out by people with a history of serious mental illness, substance abuse, and early trauma. We don't even understand the issues that many of these people face, so attempting to counsel them or "cure" them is probably a wild goose chase. We can't stop people from wanting to commit mass murder, but maybe we can stop people from being able to commit mass murder.

TL;DR: Strict gun control is good.

Wounded versus killed. Yeah good thing.

I rather see 22 people wounded rather than killed anyday.

The biggest problem is simply mental health. Now that the real shooter has been identified, everybody tells of how disturbed he was, emotionless, withdrawn, etc. People in the killers communities and all communities know of these people, but turn a blind eye to a person who needs help. They hope that they will be somebody else's problem till they turn up at our schools and malls.

Also guns inflict the most damage of anything that was designed to kill since the Bomb. If not gun control laws, how bout some actual gun control? Gun safe's mandatory or something. Hate for the next murder to be yours or a loved one since we refuse to have a real conversation about this. We will be scanned and searched for as much as a pair of scissors to board a plane but not make our weapons harder to reach and access?

I will give a couple of points when I wake up a little more, but I did want to say that this has been a pretty damn good discussion on both sides. I knew since I posted it that it would bring opinions and arguments, and I am glad you guys/girls proved people wrong about not being able to handle a topic like this.

Because some of the anti-gun control people in this thread are using hyperbole to attack arguments I didn't actually make, let me clarify.

I didn't say that people owning one handgun and people owning 6 assault rifles were like co-dependent, and that having one be legal instantly meant the other would be as well. I just think both should be illegal. It's instances like this where killers go so overboard with crazy weapons and ammo that it seems difficult to enforce, but I'm willing to bet 95% of the TWELVE THOUSAND GUN HOMICIDES PER YEAR IN THE U.S. HOLY SHIT are committed by a dude who has way fewer guns, probably used a handgun, and didn't put a lot of planning or effort into it.

Let me give an example of what I'm talking about so people can stop using their interpretation of this particular shooting to somehow argue ALL gun control is futile.

For those who don't know, Scotland is kind of a shithole. A LOT of violent crime occurs there, committed by youth gangs. By far the worst example of this crime can be found in Glasgow, where certain areas are like some of the worst ghettos in the Western world. Knives are the primary source of homicide. People call it the most dangerous city in all of Western Europe.

According to this document:
http://www.scccj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/0124207_homicide_scotland_10-11.pdf

From 2010-2011, there were 97 homicide victims in all of Scotland. The amount committed in Strathclyde (the region which Glasgow is in, which has 2.5 million people) was 61. The amount in the city of Glasgow itself (which has about 600,000 people) was 26.

Almost all these homicides were committed with knives, because guns simply are not available.

Compare that to the homicide rate of Baltimore, the most violent major city in the United States, which is only very slightly bigger than Glasgow (620,000 people). Baltimore reported 196 homicides in 2011, which was actually its lowest rate since 1978 (the year before, it had 223 and Glasgow only had 20).

SO STOP SAYING GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE GUNS IT'S A HELL OF A LOT TOUGHER.