I shared The Libertarian Atheist's photo.
Saturday at 8:27am via mobile ·
Fact-checked, it's legit (although it's actually like 14:2):
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ MY AUNT:
perhaps we could just stop the insanity... learn from other countries with none of these lousy statistics. Ban weapons of mass destruction on our streets... no AK-47 for every disaffected teenager in America.
Saturday at 9:36am · Like
MY AUNT: What is wrong with reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment, just like we have reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment. otherwise we are all just crazy killing machines. The world sees us as insane rednecks. Are they right? Do we have any common sense at all, or shall we worship the NRA and put armed guards on every corner? Remember if school districts have to arm everyone, who benefits? The gun companies. Follow the money. Who loses? We all do, and America turns into a war zone. A war against ourselves.
Saturday at 9:40am · Like
ME: Which "reasonable restrictions" will stop psychos from going to "gun free zones" and opening fire on easy targets? I understand this is a terribly emotional subject, but there are no hard statistics that support guncontrol= decreased violent crime. Chicago, LA and DC have the strongest gun control laws in the nation (CT, as well for that matter). How's that working out for them?
I agree efforts need to be made to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, absolutely. But limiting the access to the tens of millions of law-abiding and responsible American gun owners is simple-minded pandering to a very natural emotional response to a national tragedy. In a nutshell, gun control WILL NOT stop psychos from killing innocents. Ask Tim McVeigh. Our government knows this already.
By the way, Dianne Feinstein had a concealed carry permit and weapon. I guess she's just more important than the rest of us, though.
Saturday at 10:18am via mobile · Like
MY AUNT: Rifles and hunting guns are one thing. If we look outside the US, we see that limiting unfettered access to guns does work. Our homicide rate is exponentially higher than anyone else’s, including Iran and Iraq. we are killing ourselves. And by the way, there was an armed guard at Columbine, and that didn’t help. You can get an AK-47 at a gun show, you can also get as many rounds as you want and bullet proof clothing anywhere. The type of gun does matter, and it makes sense to try to be sensible. It is out of hand.
I am guessing that Feinstein doesn’t carry a repeater?
Lanza’s mom was a law-abiding yet obsessive gun owner; where did it get her to have them around? Is it really sensible to be so saturated with WMD’s that our children are afraid to go to school? Is there no common sense middle ground?
The NRA says that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. How about we keep the wmd’s out of the hands of the bad guys in the first place.
There will always be psychos, but perhaps we don’t have to make it so easy for them to kill children to get their name in the paper for the highest body count. The problem is multi-faceted, and all sides need to be addressed. Mental health is huge. But to say we cannot address guns means that we all have to pack; that is just crazy. That is not the America I want. We should not be held hostage to the NRA, which is mostly about greed. As I said, follow the money, and see how the organization manipulates public opinion. Money.
Like your gun? Keep it. Keep it locked up, and empty. The stats on little kids shot by mistake is mind-boggling.
We have reached a critical mass, and it is time for a realistic conversation.
As for what is reasonable, remember that the US Supreme Court has for centuries been the harbinger of government restrictions on speech, etc. Right now it is a right-wing court, so the NRA might just get a big boost from all the attention.
Or, we could all wake up finally and call it what it is. Too many guns. Everywhere. We have to start somewhere.
This is a divisive cultural issue, so there will never be full agreement.
J
21 hours ago via · Like
ME: I agree it is time for a reasonable discussion. But blindly banning certain guns and features with no evidence to support the efficacy of those changes is simply pandering to an emotional public outcry.
Chicago has the TOUGHEST gun laws in the country, bar none. 446 school-age children have been shot there in 2012 alone. Their gun laws don't work because criminals don't care about gun laws.
20 hours ago via mobile · Like
ME:
From Harvard Law (2006):
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence
http://www.law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564/ Excerpt from abstract: "Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant."
Irrelevant
20 hours ago via mobile · Like · Remove Preview
AUNT:
Out of curiosity… if you don’t intend to shoot up people, what is the need for a military style repeating gun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition?
Is there something sexy about that that I just don’t get?
19 hours ago via · Like
ME:
I shot 50 rounds in a half hour during target practice yesterday. It's easy to burn through hundreds of rounds quickly, and it's much cheaper in bulk. It's like any other hobby in that regard.
The "military style" semi-auto rifles are mechanically exactly the same as semi auto hunting rifles, they just look like weapons of war. To be clear, however, they are not the same as a true military gun. Civilian guns cannot go full-auto like a military arm (unless you want to spend $10,000 and wait a few months for the ATF and local law enforcement to issue you permission).
As for why, people use them for hunting, for defense, and for sport. The AR15 is the most popular rifle in the country, due in large part to the fact that the owner can very easily customize it to suit their particular purpose. Between 1994 and 2004 when the last ban on "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines expired there was no appreciable difference in gun crimes.
I can understand why someone would question "why". I can't understand why anyone would propose banning something simply because they don't understand why someone else would want it, especially when it can't be directly linked to anything negative.
I don't understand why anyone needs a 400hp car, and car accidents kill people, so...
19 hours ago via mobile · Like
ME:
More fact-checking:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate I don't know about all those African nations, but Mexico, Brazil and Russia all have VERY restrictive gun laws, and much higher murder rates than the US.
19 hours ago via mobile · Like · Remove Preview
AUNT:
Wow. 50 rounds, easy to burn through hundreds of rounds quickly, and cheaper! impressive.
And unlike other hobbies, guns from a law-abiding citizen collector just slaughtered 20 children. Easy, quickly, and cheaply. I call that being linked to something very negative.
Too bad we can’t come up with creative hobbies that don’t facilitate mass murders. But I suppose the high of all that fire power is elusive in more thoughtful pursuits.
I don’t understand other peoples “hobbies”, and don’t need to. Cars don’t assault innocents in movie theaters. All that violent capacity in one pretty metal package is just made to encourage murderous fantasies from people that have nothing else going for them. What a great hobby to encourage man’s more brutal compulsions; and so good for society.
Your efficient target practice… what were you practicing killing?
I don’t call what the NRA and all this insanity is doing to the country encouraging a “hobby”. I call it a violent cultural factor, and it is out of control.
But in Texas, that is heresy, right? Everyone and their baby needs a gun, that is the answer. That and really big walls.
Whatever.
9 hours ago via · Like
ME:
There are 15 shooting events in the Olympics. Is that not a pure sporting endeavor? Some people shoot just for fun.
"Cars don't assault innocents in movie theaters."
Neither do guns.
In both cases it takes a nut behind the wheel. That's where our focus needs to be. I'm all for making changes that keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But again, criminals don't really have a problem breaking laws.
I don't agree that every teacher needs to be armed. I think that one very carefully selected and well trained teacher in each school needs to be armed, like air marshals and airline pilots. Have we had ANY more domestic hijackings since they put guns on every plane? Eleven years, that's a pretty good run.
I understand the outrage over this tragedy. But there needs to be more than emotion brought to this discussion. Otherwise we'll end up passing some feel-good legislation that decreases the rights of millions of gun owners while doing nothing at all to directly address the problem of homicidal psychos trying to go out in a great attention seeking blaze of glory. Just like the last assault weapons ban in 1994.
Results are what matter, right? What is more important, banning guns and accessories that some people can't understand the need for, or making changes which can be proven to actually keep people safer?
It's not enough to just feel strongly about something, not when we're making laws.
