It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103292 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107690 May 19, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
1) your government is useless and has failed dismally to get any gun reform past, even when watered down, it is a number of brave and far seeing States that have managed all that.
2) America admired? ROTFLMAO.
The last time the federal government banned assault rifles, the democrats lost both houses of congress. You won't see much action from congress. They were burned the last time.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107691 May 19, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The last time the federal government banned assault rifles, the democrats lost both houses of congress. You won't see much action from congress. They were burned the last time.
Exactly and the Leninist within the Democrat party have burned themselves again and the Democrat Party.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107692 May 19, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
The AR15 is a 5.56mm and a .223 caliber weapon depending on the model. It is used for hunting deer, elk, bear and other animals. It is also used for target shooting, rifle competition and home defense. The war zone argument is stupid. Bolt action rifles are used on the battlefield, ban those too? Muzzleloaders have been used in recent engagements, should they be banned as well? They all are war weapons.
Well that is what the Democratic rep has done in Conneticut.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107693 May 19, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The last time the federal government banned assault rifles, the democrats lost both houses of congress. You won't see much action from congress. They were burned the last time.
Yes but in Connecticut they had full bipartisan support...that has got to hurt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/us/politics...

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107694 May 19, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Rights are not based on a zip code.
How many states with gun control now? They are gaining ground and it only took the massacre of little kids to do it in Connecticut....but then some of you heartless bastards choose to ignore their loss not realising that next time it might be your town. And I noticed all you gun crazy nuts and NRA supporters at the funeral of these kids, because a zip code wouldn't stop you from supporting the parents and families in tragedy....don't make me laugh.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107695 May 19, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you've jut proven how disconnected from reality you are concerning American government. First of all, there was NOT a "majority". Second, they are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in our Constitution from doing ANY such thing. It was just a knee-jerk reaction to a horrendous occurrence. We have no intention of becoming a crime-ridden laughing stock like Australia.
What are they losing...they still have the constitutional right to bare arms and protect themselves, don't they? And in both Conneticut and now Maryland where the majority of gun owners as well as those without chose to support these new laws with the belief that gun control is now needed on assault weapons and ammo...or don't you read.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107698 May 19, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
By the time it reaches the Supreme Court most will be overturned.
Common sense shows emotional reactions to tragedy seldom cures the problem. Gun control is not the cure nor based in common sense.
The thing here is those who see the need for gun control are gaining ground...that is another two States who have gone down the gun control road and Conneticut have put some good thinking into their ban of assault weapons, mental health checks etc....these people did their homework....the days of people having access to assault weapons is coming to an end and rightfully so....the NRA doesn't have that much money, people (yes, even gun owners are now seeing the need for stronger background and medical checks and for the ban of selling assault weapons and ammo) are leaving them in droves, because they realise how radical they have become when they fashion guns for kidies, the sick bastard and so are the parents of those that give these guns that see nearly four hundred children die a year from their gifts....I saw a show where a pretty girl in a prom dress was holding a massive gun...seems you dick heads give your princesses the gift of death on prom night OOOOOh how sweet, too feckin' tight to by her diamonds or pearls.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#107699 May 20, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the irony wasn't lost on me there Teaman....and yes it is the States that will change the stance on making it illegal to buy guns such as AR15, and ammo....this is a good thing, they have not wanted to stop sportsmen shooting at targets or hunters or those that need certain weapons for their own protection...they are just trying to remove those guns that are useless anywhere other than a war zone...brave and valiant stance by a selection of Republicans and Democrats for pulling together to fight death threats and verbal abuse etc, to effect such a major change.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/0...
Pssst....here's a little clue for the clueless. AR-15's are NOT used on the battlefield. They merely LOOK LIKE their full-auto cousins and are no different than any other semi-auto hunting rifle.
Call me

Australia

#107700 May 20, 2013
call me, any drugs you wont. 0439130082

call any time 24/7

I will drive anywhere in Melbourne
mickey mouse

New York, NY

#107701 May 20, 2013
Im 100% against backround checks. The 2nd Amendmendnent is for all Americans, Period. no free man shall be denied the right to firearms We do not need background checks We already have them, They do no good Once a nutjob has decided to go get some sort of weapon and go on a killing spree its already too late
FormerParatroope r

San Jose, CA

#107702 May 20, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that is what the Democratic rep has done in Conneticut.
And it will be challenged in court.
FormerParatroope r

San Jose, CA

#107703 May 20, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
How many states with gun control now? They are gaining ground and it only took the massacre of little kids to do it in Connecticut....but then some of you heartless bastards choose to ignore their loss not realising that next time it might be your town. And I noticed all you gun crazy nuts and NRA supporters at the funeral of these kids, because a zip code wouldn't stop you from supporting the parents and families in tragedy....don't make me laugh.
First, I abhor what the mentally ill individual did to those children. And defending my right does not make me heartless or a criminal.

Second I do not belong to, or contribute to the NRA.

What you are blind to is the fact the mentally ill person responsible for the crime was neglected by the State. His mother attempted to get him the care he needed, and the system failed. It was not the firearms he used, it was a failed mental health system.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107704 May 20, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssst....here's a little clue for the clueless. AR-15's are NOT used on the battlefield. They merely LOOK LIKE their full-auto cousins and are no different than any other semi-auto hunting rifle.
Pssst.....heres a little secret for you, it's only real use in suburbia was killing little kids...it won't be missed.
FormerParatroope r

San Jose, CA

#107705 May 20, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing here is those who see the need for gun control are gaining ground...that is another two States who have gone down the gun control road and Conneticut have put some good thinking into their ban of assault weapons, mental health checks etc....these people did their homework....the days of people having access to assault weapons is coming to an end and rightfully so....the NRA doesn't have that much money, people (yes, even gun owners are now seeing the need for stronger background and medical checks and for the ban of selling assault weapons and ammo) are leaving them in droves, because they realise how radical they have become when they fashion guns for kidies, the sick bastard and so are the parents of those that give these guns that see nearly four hundred children die a year from their gifts....I saw a show where a pretty girl in a prom dress was holding a massive gun...seems you dick heads give your princesses the gift of death on prom night OOOOOh how sweet, too feckin' tight to by her diamonds or pearls.
Again, you blame an inanimate object. You even blame people who are not committing crimes.

We have laws in place that restrict the sale of firearms to certain people. Yet, the ones who cry loudest for these checks have insured the system is not fully funded nor has the required information needed to conduct the checks.

People like you are the ones who contribute to the killing of children. You refuse to hold individuals responsible for thier actions and instead blame everything else. You have allowed the mental health system to be gutted. That is the problem with leftists, they have no shame.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107706 May 20, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
And it will be challenged in court.
Who's going to challenge it?

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107707 May 20, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I abhor what the mentally ill individual did to those children. And defending my right does not make me heartless or a criminal.
Second I do not belong to, or contribute to the NRA.
What you are blind to is the fact the mentally ill person responsible for the crime was neglected by the State. His mother attempted to get him the care he needed, and the system failed. It was not the firearms he used, it was a failed mental health system.
No you you don't abhor the availability of that boy to access his mothers guns else you would not oppose the tougher back ground checks for everyone that sells guns or the tougher checks into the mental stability of people that have access to guns....The mother had a safe....it was unlocked and it was in his room...these laws need to be stricter so that this doesn't happen...and if he hadn't used the bush master had used his gun that his mother gave him, more kids could have escaped when he reloaded?

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107708 May 20, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you blame an inanimate object. You even blame people who are not committing crimes.
We have laws in place that restrict the sale of firearms to certain people. Yet, the ones who cry loudest for these checks have insured the system is not fully funded nor has the required information needed to conduct the checks.
People like you are the ones who contribute to the killing of children. You refuse to hold individuals responsible for thier actions and instead blame everything else. You have allowed the mental health system to be gutted. That is the problem with leftists, they have no shame.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
You gun owners have blamed everything you can accept the fact the boy used the AR15 and with that was able to shoot off many more bullets faster than he could have done with the other weapon he had left in his car, so I would say getting rid or banning those guns would be a good start along with bringing every gun seller into line with gun shops. Also no parent should teach their kids how to shoot, especially if they have a mental illness...the NRA should be banned from selling guns for children and parents should not teach their kids how to shoot till it is deemed they have the mental capacity to understand what it actually means when something is dead and how a gun is capable of killing it and that is not at 5 years of age.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107709 May 20, 2013
mickey mouse wrote:
Im 100% against backround checks. The 2nd Amendmendnent is for all Americans, Period. no free man shall be denied the right to firearms We do not need background checks We already have them, They do no good Once a nutjob has decided to go get some sort of weapon and go on a killing spree its already too late
If you are a law abiding citizen what have you got against blanket background checks, unless you aren't so law abiding...a background check still allows you to have as many guns as you want you just have to prove you are law abiding....get it...
Teaman

Abingdon, VA

#107710 May 20, 2013
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
And it will be challenged in court.
That would be an interesting case if it happens. Scalia left "unusual and dangerous" open to interpretation. I don't know if anyone will touch it being a decision could go either way and back fire.
GoGoBar

Thailand

#107711 May 20, 2013
It is exactly what Australia was like before National Gun Control Legislation.

Of the 5 States, 2 had slack gun control laws.
The firearms were bought in these states legally, then onsold illegally to other states. By Rednecks,

Now the price of an illegal Glock is $70000 and god knows what for an AR15.
Martyn Bryant paid $9000 for his AR15 and ammo with the telescopic site. Which is why he was forced to shoot from the hip in the cafe. And that price was before the National Firearm Regulations.

So a criminal has very limited opportuntiy to buy a firearm cheaply or quickly. There are no private sales or gun shows. The price of an illegal gun is prohibitive.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/weapons-stash-stole... -
from-sydney-storage-20101216-1 8yng.html

Almost all other countries have licensure laws, and many demand that gun owners undergo training, also not required here. Hemenway scoffs at the rote objection, "A determined criminal will always get a gun," responding, "Yes, but a lot of people aren’t that determined. I’m sure there are some determined yacht buyers out there, but when you raise the price high enough, a lot of them stop buying yachts."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Aren't American lives worth saving? 11 hr Bozo666 37
News Watch Julianne Moore and Emma Stone implore cit... Sat Simplejim 9
News My Turn: Another day, another mass shooting in ... Sat payme 4
News Bump Stock Ban: Just the Tip of the Iceberg Oct 19 payme 3
How To Handle A Firearm With Your Opposite Hand Oct 17 SummerBB8 1
New Tactical Gear at LAX Ammo OC Store! Oct 16 SummerBB8 1
News Why are there always shootings in the US? Oct 15 youll shoot your ... 1
More from around the web