There's a difference between...

[byco42]

I don't think that's true. I've at least read some studies that showed it did. and law enforcement has been against it too, since suspects armed with assault rifles are a lot more dangerous than those not.

it may be a moot point though, since it doesn't look like a renewed ban will pass... even Harry Reid opposed it (he's far from a "liberal" in practice though), but either way, I think your claim that "liberals" don't have answers either is remiss since closing background check loopholes is the biggest issue, and the Senate appears to be moving forward on that, despite the opposition of the NRA, gun manufacturers, and the bulk of the GOP.

not disputing that most gun violence is perpetrated with handguns; it's just that there really is no reason to permit widespread ownership of assault rifles & high capacity magazines; they represent a particular risk to law enforcement and the public in general that justifies banning them in my oh so humble opinion

What would you rather point in the face of a baddie who would kill you and your family as casually as he sneezes? A .38 snubnose or an AR15? I know my preference. And will the baddie care that they are illegal? Will that deter him from obtaining them? No...he'll celebrate that because that reduces the chances of him staring down the barrel of one.

As far as liberals not having answers ... well, one only look at the effectiveness of gun control laws on the books. I don't for a second advocate repealing any of them, but piling on more will not deter criminals and crazies in the least.

 

[Michchamp]

What would you rather point in the face of a baddie who would kill you and your family as casually as he sneezes? A .38 snubnose or an AR15? I know my preference. And will the baddie care that they are illegal? Will that deter him from obtaining them? No...he'll celebrate that because that reduces the chances of him staring down the barrel of one.

As far as liberals not having answers ... well, one only look at the effectiveness of gun control laws on the books. I don't for a second advocate repealing any of them, but piling on more will not deter criminals and crazies in the least.

the laws on the books are the result of compromises with the gun-lobby funded elected officials (largely GOP, but also some Dems). I don't think you can blame "liberals" for that exactly.

you can't force someone to water down a law in order to get your vote then complain the law is ineffective.*

*Well, technically I guess you can.

...and judging from the opinion polls, most conservatives or voters who lean that way will believe it because it comports with their previously held notions, regardless of the fact that it's misleading and dishonest. and some portion in the middle will probably be swayed too, so ... nevermind. it makes perfect sense to do that. USA USA

 

[byco42]

the laws on the books are the result of compromises with the gun-lobby funded elected officials (largely GOP, but also some Dems). I don't think you can blame "liberals" for that exactly.

you can't force someone to water down a law in order to get your vote then complain the law is ineffective.*

*Well, technically I guess you can.

...and judging from the opinion polls, most conservatives or voters who lean that way will believe it because it comports with their previously held notions, regardless of the fact that it's misleading and dishonest. and some portion in the middle will probably be swayed too, so ... nevermind. it makes perfect sense to do that. USA USA

The Gun Control act of 1968 prohibits the sale of guns to minors, felons and people determined to be mentally ill, or those committed to mental institutions. No interstate trafficking for non-federal-licensed dealers. No importation of foreign-made military weapons. None of this is proscriptive, because people lie and falsify in the expectation that they won't get caught. That element will never be swayed by even an all-out ban on all weapons, which I don't think you are for.

And anyone who is is, well, delusional, because only the rich and famous and influential will be able to apply weapons to defend themselves -- and they will of course -- while stiffs like us are relegated to using our wits and the harder parts of our bodies to disarm the people who will still possess firearms illegally.

 

[Michchamp]

the harder part of my body is a deadly weapon, oh damn!

 

[byco42]

the harder part of my body is a deadly weapon, oh damn!

Properly applied, your head can kill someone, or at least remove all will to fight.

 

[zyxt9]

another point that i think champ has missed, the stabbings took place in TEXAS, a state that is not known for having extreme gun control laws, so it isn't like there were gun restrictions that were responsible for this guy using a boxcutter. and looking at it solely from proper methods for killing, he used it ineffectively. that is little different from a person with a gun shooting people ineffectively. he cut up 14 people. if he had shot 14 people who only went to the ER but survived, how or why would that have been any different? wouldn't that have caused a huge uproar? this is the problem, trying to return it to being about gun laws as opposed to fixing the problem, the mental illness that is causing people to do these things.

 

[Michchamp]

another point that i think champ has missed, the stabbings took place in TEXAS, a state that is not known for having extreme gun control laws, so it isn't like there were gun restrictions that were responsible for this guy using a boxcutter. and looking at it solely from proper methods for killing, he used it ineffectively. that is little different from a person with a gun shooting people ineffectively. he cut up 14 people. if he had shot 14 people who only went to the ER but survived, how or why would that have been any different? wouldn't that have caused a huge uproar? this is the problem, trying to return it to being about gun laws as opposed to fixing the problem, the mental illness that is causing people to do these things.

Ok, you've convinced me... background checks are a terrible idea.

 

[turok]

Mental illness no longer can be controlled nor "fixed" IMO, b/c the vast majority of those who are ill lack the funds, credit, and/or insurance to pay for short, much less long-term, in-patient treatment. Some, if not many, don't actually WANT to be treated, and would in some cases even violently resist becoming obligated to seek treatment, and as a result, they would likely need to be forcibly compelled to do so.

The US Congress and state congresses are most certainly not going to pass legislation meant to address the growing problem. Many if not most of those who have earned income and pay taxes are going to strongly object to it with their votes, to the prospects of their taxes most probably being raised to pay for it, and the rest...well...they most likely already are on the government dole, in prison/jail, or are being supported by family, relatives and/or friends.

 

[redandguilty]

Properly applied, your head can kill someone, or at least remove all will to fight.

Head-butting was my go-to move when I lived in the dorm.

 

[redandguilty]

another point that i think champ has missed, the stabbings took place in TEXAS, a state that is not known for having extreme gun control laws, so it isn't like there were gun restrictions that were responsible for this guy using a boxcutter. and looking at it solely from proper methods for killing, he used it ineffectively. that is little different from a person with a gun shooting people ineffectively. he cut up 14 people. if he had shot 14 people who only went to the ER but survived, how or why would that have been any different? wouldn't that have caused a huge uproar? this is the problem, trying to return it to being about gun laws as opposed to fixing the problem, the mental illness that is causing people to do these things.

"proper methods for killing" needs to be re-phrased

 

[Michchamp]

Mental illness no longer can be controlled nor "fixed" IMO, b/c the vast majority of those who are ill lack the funds, credit, and/or insurance to pay for short, much less long-term, in-patient treatment. Some, if not many, don't actually WANT to be treated, and would in some cases even violently resist becoming obligated to seek treatment, and as a result, they would likely need to be forcibly compelled to do so.

The US Congress and state congresses are most certainly not going to pass legislation meant to address the growing problem. Many if not most of those who have earned income and pay taxes are going to strongly object to it with their votes, to the prospects of their taxes most probably being raised to pay for it, and the rest...well...they most likely already are on the government dole, in prison/jail, or are being supported by family, relatives and/or friends.

we should treat mental illness, then give people their guns. Don't make everyone suffer through the indignation of a background & mental illness check just because of a few bad apples.

"You appear to be cured of your psychotic paranoid schizophrenia, Jed. Here's your AR-15 and the 6,000 rounds of ammunition you ordered. Make sure to keep taking your lithium."

 

[zyxt9]

"proper methods for killing" needs to be re-phrased

I was using the phrase in relation to intent of use. If the intent was to kill, the method of use was improperly performed.

 

[zyxt9]

Ok, you've convinced me... background checks are a terrible idea.

Yeah, that was what I was saying.

 

[tinselwolverine]

we should treat mental illness, then give people their guns. Don't make everyone suffer through the indignation of a background & mental illness check just because of a few bad apples.

"You appear to be cured of your psychotic paranoid schizophrenia, Jed. Here's your AR-15 and the 6,000 rounds of ammunition you ordered. Make sure to keep taking your lithium."

Lithium is a mood stabilizer; primarily used for bi-polar disorder. It's not an anti-psychotic, which is the classification of the medications used to to treat schizophrenia.

Thorazine was used to treat schizophrenia for years; since then a number of anti-psychotics with less severe side effects have been developed, as is the case regarding lithium and the treatment of bi-polar disorder.

 

[redandguilty]

I was using the phrase in relation to intent of use. If the intent was to kill, the method of use was improperly performed.

I understood that. If I didn't, I would have commented on morals rather than word choice.

 

[zyxt9]

I understood that. If I didn't, I would have commented on morals rather than word choice.

Sorry if the word choice was viewed as wrong, was just looking at technical nature of it and sometimes that can come across as cold and harsh. I'm open to suggestions on how to better phrase it for better use in the future.

 

[TheVictors]

another point that i think champ has missed, the stabbings took place in TEXAS, a state that is not known for having extreme gun control laws, so it isn't like there were gun restrictions that were responsible for this guy using a boxcutter. and looking at it solely from proper methods for killing, he used it ineffectively. that is little different from a person with a gun shooting people ineffectively. he cut up 14 people. if he had shot 14 people who only went to the ER but survived, how or why would that have been any different? wouldn't that have caused a huge uproar? this is the problem, trying to return it to being about gun laws as opposed to fixing the problem, the mental illness that is causing people to do these things.

I was thinking the same thing but from a different perspective. The stabbings took place in TEXAS, so where the hell was the "responsible" gun owner when he was needed to shoot this mad stabber and prevent this tragedy after only 2, 3, 7 or 10 victims?!

If anything, random acts like this one illustrate precisely why everyone in America should be armed at all times.