Beepster
Also there is ONE person in this thread who went all in on the politicizing of this issue... and he sure don't strike me as a "gun grabber".
 
Now back to your regularly scheduled post massacre 2A flamewar.
 

Beepster
Also there is ONE person in this thread who went all in on the politicizing of this issue... and he sure don't strike me as a "gun grabber".
 
Now back to your regularly scheduled post massacre 2A flamewar.
 

Beepster
Also there is ONE person in this thread who went all in on the politicizing of this issue... and he sure don't strike me as a "gun grabber".
 
Now back to your regularly scheduled post massacre 2A flamewar.
 

bdickens

bitflipper

 
The real question is: why weren't these things happening 50 years ago? What changed in us? 
 
 

Someone else alluded to the real problem earlier: the media.

The media salivates every time something like this happens. The "news" media is a business and let's face it: dead bodies are good for business. They don't exist to inform us, they exist to enrichen their shareholders. Keeping people glued, breathlessly awaiting the latest non-update to the manufactured crisis du jour boosts ratings. Ratings mean ad revenue.

The media is absolutely complicit in these tragedies. The psychopathic losers who perpetrate them crave fame and noteriety and the media gives it to them by repeating their names over and over. These people felt they were nothing in life, but they know that in death they will be famous. The media turns them into a twisted kind of negative folk-hero by essentially glorifying their accomplishment.

If the media would let these people languish in anonymity by refusing to give them any publicity, their incentive would noonger be there.

slartabartfast
One problem is that the debate is still going on between people who think the other side is talking about something completely different than the position they actually hold. Some people are still arguing that one does not require an assault rifle or large capacity magazine to hunt groundhogs. The NRA, which was once primarily a hunter safety and target shooting proponent, moved away from that argument years ago. They are currently championing gun ownership as a method of self defense. Clearly if one has the most paranoid view of a world in which evil people have effectively unlimited access to advanced weaponry and the stamina to besiege a household, then an arms race mentality can justify the citizens' need for automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and fifty caliber sniper rifles. In fact, the only rational scenario this would fit is an attack by the police or the military forces, which the well armed citizen who rejects the legitimacy of his government might envision. Some opponents of gun restrictions do in fact state that the need to be prepared to fight an insurgency is the basis of their principled stand. That argument was not well accepted by most Americans when it was made by the Black Panthers in the 1960's, although it is given a surprising amount of respect when made by contemporary self styled militias. Telling such people that a single gun per household in the hands of a trained adult would be sufficient for self defense is not relevant to them. And it is equally tone deaf to suggest that an effective registration and accounting of weapons would make diversion to illegal activity less likely, since their intended use of their weapons to fight the government is illegal. They argue they are obeying a higher law, and need to keep secret their arsenals in order to avoid disarmament, harassment or attack by the rest of us via our government.
 
Not very many "gun control" proponents actually expect to prohibit personal ownership of all firearms, even if it were possible, anymore than most Americans would expect the government to be able to apprehend and deport all people in the country illegally. As a practical matter, laws restricting firearms ownership will not eliminate firearms anymore than laws against murder will eliminate murder. That is not a strong argument for legalizing murder. The argument that an imminent deadly threat cannot be reliably met by calling the police is irrefutable, and most Americans would not deny their fellow citizens the right to effective self defense, which might include a firearm.
 
But strong arguments can be made that the sense of personal security that comes from gun ownership is largely illusory. I do not walk around my house with my pump action twelve gauge at the ready to repel a home invader who might kick down the door and enter guns blazing, although given enough warning I might be able to find it and menace a burglar. In fact most cases of citizen use of guns against other citizens are either frankly criminal actions, exchanges of fire with or by police or shootings that could most reasonably be expected to prevent loss of property. I am not sure that most of us would be willing to kill a man for taking our television, but in most jurisdictions we would be pretty well protected by the law if we shot an uninvited visitor, even if the visitor is unarmed, and in his drunken stupor mistook our house for his own. The people who have the most to fear from a deadly attack are probably young criminals, who may be in a constant state of war with gang members or police, and these are the most likely citizens to face legal action against their gun ownership and the least likely to be excused for using guns in self defense.
 
My neighbors' duly elected representatives find no problem restricting me to ownership of a maximum of four licensed house cats in a rural county, but they cannot see their way clear to limit my ownership of unlimited numbers of guns, hundred round magazines, or munitions that can kill a man hiding behind his car. They will not allow the sheriff to refuse me the right to carry a hidden weapon, presumably so that I can surprise an attacker with deadly force who might be deterred from attacking if he saw it in a holster outside my jacket. Reasonable people can agree on reasonable restrictions on guns if they think about it in nuanced terms.

michaelhanson

slartabartfast
 
But strong arguments can be made that the sense of personal security that comes from gun ownership is largely illusory. 

You may want to read The Harvard Journal of Law's study on reducing fire arms.  Also the CDC's findings on protection with fire arms.  They don't support the statement that it is an illusion.  

michaelhanson

slartabartfast
 
But strong arguments can be made that the sense of personal security that comes from gun ownership is largely illusory. 

You may want to read The Harvard Journal of Law's study on reducing fire arms.  Also the CDC's findings on protection with fire arms.  They don't support the statement that it is an illusion.  

bapu
I've lost track. What's the score on this debate?