We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[dgaddis]

I wholeheartedly believe we have a gun problem in this country. But there's no arguing we also have a people problem.

Agree 100%.

So sorry about your friend and your group Matt.

[davids]

Since I'm looking at this thread again, I’m going to share what, for me, has been the single most upsetting thing in this thread.

In order to cite some data on violent crime, a VSalon member posted a link to a website that is run by a known racist and antisemite. In the same post, this member also accused "the press" of suppressing this crime data.

I checked out the website, and found that it features a horrifying collection of racist and antisemitic articles. I'll share just one particularly appalling example: The website's namesake wrote and published an article claiming that even if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is fake (and he's not convinced) there definitely is an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

I called this out in a post.

That VSalon member continued to contribute to this thread. He never acknowledged that he'd linked to a website brimming with lies and hate.

The member who posted the website link is clearly against gun control. I won’t accuse him of condoning the vile and hateful beliefs that litter that loathsome website. But I’d sure be more comfortable if he’d repudiate them.

[David Tollefson]

Since I'm looking at this thread again, I’m going to share what, for me, has been the single most upsetting thing in this thread.

In order to cite some data on violent crime, a VSalon member posted a link to a website that is run by a known racist and antisemite. In the same post, this member also accused "the press" of suppressing this crime data.

I checked out the website, and found that it features a horrifying collection of racist and antisemitic articles. I'll share just one particularly appalling example: The website's namesake wrote and published an article claiming that even if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is fake (and he's not convinced) there definitely is an international Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

I called this out in a post.

That VSalon member continued to contribute to this thread. He never acknowledged that he'd linked to a website brimming with lies and hate.

The member who posted the website link is clearly against gun control. I won’t accuse him of condoning the vile and hateful beliefs that litter that loathsome website. But I’d sure be more comfortable if he’d repudiate them.

That was me. Frankly, that's the only article from that site I've ever read, and I got there via a link from an outside source (a high school friend). I don't condone hate, lies, racism or anti-semitism.

But I also won't discount everything some one says just because I don't agree with everything some one says (or even most things). As for my continued participation in this thread, it's been scant. I try to stay out of these discussions because I'm not all that eloquent, and I don't think it's really anyone's business whether I own firearms or not.

I am not against "gun control", but I do disagree on what, exactly, that means by most posters here.

[mzilliox]

I really do wish this forum and its thinkers were representative of the population in general, because we would not be having to have this talk if that were the case. thanks (most) everyone for reminding me there is some sanity in the world and that people still care and think beyond their tiny little bubbles. And thanks to King of Dirk for the honest response. while i can not agree with your rationale, its pretty level headed and fair.

thanks all for the enlightening discussion, i should probably quit now as ive already said too much.

[King Of Dirk]

I really do wish this forum and its thinkers were representative of the population in general, because we would not be having to have this talk if that were the case. thanks (most) everyone for reminding me there is some sanity in the world and that people still care and think beyond their tiny little bubbles. And thanks to King of Dirk for the honest response. while i can not agree with your rationale, its pretty level headed and fair (Emphasis added by KOD).

thanks all for the enlightening discussion, i should probably quit now as ive already said too much.

Thank you for that, friend. Your kind words truly mean a lot to me. I, too, am grateful for this forum and the people who make it what it is. I'm going to follow your lead and leave this topic to others, but I'm really touched by your willingness to hear me out in good faith, not despite the fact that we disagree, but because of it. Thank you.

[King Of Dirk]

Have a link you can share? I've mostly heard it reported that the ban worked and mass shootings are on the rise since it expired. But if there's sound data to support a different conclusion, I'm all ears.

For those keeping track, the cyclist shot this morning, where I ride everyday on the group ride I do often, died. Not surprisingly, the comments in the article are mostly about cyclists being annoying for riding in the road. I wholeheartedly believe we have a gun problem in this country. But there's no arguing we also have a people problem.

Mr. Strongin I didn't mean to leave without answering your question. You deserve better than that, so y'all forgive me one more post in this thread:

I don't wish to have a battle of the experts with anyone. Given some of the issues in this thread with sources, and the agendas that are behind sources, and junk science, and all of that, I tried to find something that at least appears to be trying to be fair and objective. At the very least, the link seems to suggest both Senator Dianne Feinstein and Wayne LaPierre are full of shit - and I don't want to waste time discussing anything with anyone who can't take those two conclusions as given.

If someone points out the Annenberg Public Policy Center is an arm of the Trilateral Commission or the International Socialist Organization, I disclaim any affiliation, this is not an endorsement, close cover before striking, and Your Mileage May Vary: Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

What I take from the factcheck.org link is that restricting magazine capacity would be far more effective than worrying about the instrument into which the magazine is inserted; a semi-auto is a semi-auto, whether it's a deer rifle or an AR-15. I believe, but have zero non-anecdotal proof to cite, that many people who own guns but not "assault rifles" oppose banning "assault rifles" because, if one were to conclude (correctly) that the only meaningful difference between an AR-15 and a semi-automatic deer rifle is that one's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of black plastic while the other's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of wood, an otherwise-reasonable-non-AR-15-owning gun owner might conclude that as soon as some kook shoots up a Burger King with a deer rifle, some significant number of public officials will be clamoring to ban deer rifles. Some see it as a slippery slope. When legislators who introduce bills to ban "assault rifles" can't explain what it is about the firearm in question that makes it distinct from others, I think it's fair to wonder if the legislators even understand what they're attempting to regulate. Nah, I'm being too generous...there's no reason to wonder - they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I particularly like the ones who suggest we might ban automatic weapons. My achin' head...

Look, I'm being harsh, but it's because I do not accept the status quo. Loose talk by members of Congress and others is making it harder, not easier, to effect meaningful change on this issue. Not everyone has the luxury of pontificating about the philosophical distinctions as some of us here do, and to be a real asshole, there are at least 150 million people in this country that just aren't very bright. If you give any person who is attempting to defend his/her position an opportunity to take something out of context to their benefit, you can bet they'll do so. Gun control advocates need to be precise in their message and their language, and perhaps work on appearing a little less contemptuous of the people they wish to (nay, need to) convince. They are failing miserably, and the NRA bears absolutely none of the blame for that inconvenient truth.

[Dallas Tex]

Mr. Strongin I didn't mean to leave without answering your question. You deserve better than that, so y'all forgive me one more post in this thread:

I don't wish to have a battle of the experts with anyone. Given some of the issues in this thread with sources, and the agendas that are behind sources, and junk science, and all of that, I tried to find something that at least appears to be trying to be fair and objective. At the very least, the link seems to suggest both Senator Dianne Feinstein and Wayne LaPierre are full of shit - and I don't want to waste time discussing anything with anyone who can't take those two conclusions as given.

If someone points out the Annenberg Public Policy Center is an arm of the Trilateral Commission or the International Socialist Organization, I disclaim any affiliation, this is not an endorsement, close cover before striking, and Your Mileage May Vary: Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

What I take from the factcheck.org link is that restricting magazine capacity would be far more effective than worrying about the instrument into which the magazine is inserted; a semi-auto is a semi-auto, whether it's a deer rifle or an AR-15. I believe, but have zero non-anecdotal proof to cite, that many people who own guns but not "assault rifles" oppose banning "assault rifles" because, if one were to conclude (correctly) that the only meaningful difference between an AR-15 and a semi-automatic deer rifle is that one's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of black plastic while the other's stock, grip and foregrip are usually made of wood, an otherwise-reasonable-non-AR-15-owning gun owner might conclude that as soon as some kook shoots up a Burger King with a deer rifle, some significant number of public officials will be clamoring to ban deer rifles. Some see it as a slippery slope. When legislators who introduce bills to ban "assault rifles" can't explain what it is about the firearm in question that makes it distinct from others, I think it's fair to wonder if the legislators even understand what they're attempting to regulate. Nah, I'm being too generous...there's no reason to wonder - they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I particularly like the ones who suggest we might ban automatic weapons. My achin' head...

Look, I'm being harsh, but it's because I do not accept the status quo. Loose talk by members of Congress and others is making it harder, not easier, to effect meaningful change on this issue. Not everyone has the luxury of pontificating about the philosophical distinctions as some of us here do, and to be a real asshole, there are at least 150 million people in this country that just aren't very bright. If you give any person who is attempting to defend his/her position an opportunity to take something out of context to their benefit, you can bet they'll do so. Gun control advocates need to be precise in their message and their language, and perhaps work on appearing a little less contemptuous of the people they wish to (nay, need to) convince. They are failing miserably, and the NRA bears absolutely none of the blame for that inconvenient truth.

If the anti-gun folks would bring forth honest meaningful proposals that could keep guns out of the hands of loons & criminals, I believe everyone would be on board. But don’t expect pro-gun folks to happily sign on to what appears to be ineffective laws that just seem like the first brick in the foundation of developing a mechanism to take guns away from law abiding folk while leaving them in the hands of non-law abiding folks.

[sk_tle]

law abiding folks, non law abiding folks. What is the difference ?

Time.

[fastupslowdown]

That was me. Frankly, that's the only article from that site I've ever read, and I got there via a link from an outside source (a high school friend). I don't condone hate, lies, racism or anti-semitism.

But I also won't discount everything some one says just because I don't agree with everything some one says (or even most things). As for my continued participation in this thread, it's been scant. I try to stay out of these discussions because I'm not all that eloquent, and I don't think it's really anyone's business whether I own firearms or not.

I am not against "gun control", but I do disagree on what, exactly, that means by most posters here.

i'm sorry, this is like saying I don't like nazi genocide policy but i like its stance on the economy and border security. i would refuse to visit any website or promote one that has links to the elders of zion. what you're basically doing is getting them new hits and a potential weak mind. i find it repugnant -mike g

[Dallas Tex]

law abiding folks, non law abiding folks. What is the difference ?

Time.

The person that uses a gun to harm you or your family: non-law abiding. The person that uses a gun to defend himself or his family from someone trying to do them harm: law-abiding.

Were you trying to be funny, or did you sincerely need that explained to you ?

[e-RICHIE]

The person that uses a gun to harm you or your family: non-law abiding. The person that uses a gun to defend himself or his family from someone trying to do them harm: law-abiding.

The person who needs no gun at all - enlightened.

[Dallas Tex]

The person who needs no gun at all - enlightened.

Unless you are forced to protect your family, friends, or yourself than you are simply unprepared.

[BBB]

The person that uses a gun to harm you or your family: non-law abiding. The person that uses a gun to defend himself or his family from someone trying to do them harm: law-abiding.

We’re you trying to be funny, or did you sincerely need that explained to you ?

You do realise that's a black and white view. The right of self-defence is not absolute (at least in this and I assume most other countries) and has to have some degree of proportionality to the threat. So, while you may argue that you were protecting from harm, your actions maybe judged by the law in a different way and push you into the non-law abiding category.

Perhaps this was the intention of the post you responded to. Waving a gun around is a sure fire way to cause things to go south pretty quickly and the line between law abiding or otherwise is pretty thin.

[Dallas Tex]

You do realise that's a black and white view. The right of self-defence is not absolute (at least in this and I assume most other countries) and has to have some degree of proportionality to the threat. So, while you may argue that you were protecting from harm, your actions maybe judged by the law in a different way and push you into the non-law abiding category.
.

I’ll take my chance with a judge/jury every time, as opposed to the hope that the crack head that breaks into my house in the middle of the night has a kind heart and won’t hurt my wife or daughter.

When the cops are 20 minutes away, IF you were able to call them, would you rather be prepared to defend your loved ones or not ?

[colker]

Unless you are forced to protect your family, friends, or yourself than you are simply unprepared.

Do you believe it´s only about those two sides of that particular situation?

[colker]

I’ll take my chance with a judge/jury every time, as opposed to the hope that the crack head that breaks into my house in the middle of the night has a kind heart and won’t hurt my wife or daughter.

When the cops are 20 minutes away, IF you were able to call them, would you rather be prepared to defend your loved ones or not ?

In some countries you can have a gun at home but there is no concealed carry..

[Dallas Tex]

Do you believe it´s only about those two sides of that particular situation?

Yes.

[thollandpe]

Look, I'm being harsh, but it's because I do not accept the status quo. Loose talk by members of Congress and others is making it harder, not easier, to effect meaningful change on this issue. Not everyone has the luxury of pontificating about the philosophical distinctions as some of us here do, and to be a real asshole, there are at least 150 million people in this country that just aren't very bright. If you give any person who is attempting to defend his/her position an opportunity to take something out of context to their benefit, you can bet they'll do so. Gun control advocates need to be precise in their message and their language, and perhaps work on appearing a little less contemptuous of the people they wish to (nay, need to) convince. They are failing miserably, and the NRA bears absolutely none of the blame for that inconvenient truth.

Thank you for the reasonable discourse on this difficult subject. I'd like to turn the tables on the political discussion.

I no longer think it's up to the proponents of common-sense gun control laws, like Moms Demand Action and similar groups, to bring up ideas that get swatted down by the NRA and Republicans in congress. The quote is that the best defense is a good offense, but I really think that's not the way this should be handled.

The gun enthusiasts should offer solutions that can make progress against this violence. These sickos have unfettered access to incredibly efficient machines for killing multiple people at once, and thousands of rounds of ammo, and the opportunity to practice and get proficient at using them. In most cases these nutjobs are obtaining the hardware legally, and even practicing at ranges with other law-abiding shooters.

How do you propose keep your access to the weapons you want, and minimize the chances that nutjobs like the Sandy Hook shooter don't? Or is that acceptable collateral damage?

TH

[BBB]

I’ll take my chance with a judge/jury every time, as opposed to the hope that the crack head that breaks into my house in the middle of the night has a kind heart and won’t hurt my wife or daughter.

When the cops are 20 minutes away, IF you were able to call them, would you rather be prepared to defend your loved ones or not ?

I just don't understand this madness. We have drug problems in Australia and home invasions, but the average punter doesn't have a 50 calibre machine gun under his or her bed to guard against all possibilities ("Sorry your honour, he asked for my wallet, so I gave him 25 rounds with the old peacemaker. He won't be making that mistake again. The Mrs was very grumpy at the damage to the house. That's punishment enough I submit"). To the extent they did have a gun it would be locked in a gun safe. If everyone is armed to the teeth, then you will just end up with more and more gun related deaths. I think the statistics support this view.

And, to get back to the point of the right to bear arms, it wasn't - ever - about being prepared to defend against crackheads - it was about something more substantial. The rational or reason supporting the right, as I'm sure you will appreciate, has since evaporated.

[Dallas Tex]

And, to get back to the point of the right to bear arms, it wasn't - ever - about being prepared to defend against crackheads - it was about something more substantial.

Couldn’t agree with you more.

The rational or reason supporting the right, as I'm sure you will appreciate, has since evaporated.

Couldn’t agree with you less.