• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

Someone is called discredited because his points have already been refuted.

Calling something "partisan" discredits the source without having to respond to facts.

Here's a really long take-down of Lott, linked from the original article. He essentially is on an island arguing this stuff, no other serious researcher agrees with him and no one else can validate his results. Sort of like the 4 or 5 climate scientists who still deny global warming is a thing. Unsurprisingly, conservatives line up behind the cranks because they support the ideologically correct position.
 
His mom's not going to jail. However, she's a good example of why "closing the mental health loophole" means nothing. Most people with mental issues who would be barred from purchasing a gun know someone who either has guns on hand or can purchase them easily.

The only thing that is going to stop mentally ill people from getting weapons is if everyone is stopped from getting weapons
 
I've seen little evidence that many of these people are mentally ill unless everybody who kills is considered mentally ill. They seem to be socially isolated like many Americans. They just choose to solve their problems by killing people.

Guns are too available with no requirement to be responsible.

This weekend, a guy in my neighborhood posted on our neighborhood Facebook page that he had 2 small rifles to give away to anybody who wanted to come by his house and get them. Just like giving away baby toys.
 
I've seen little evidence that many of these people are mentally ill unless everybody who kills is considered mentally ill. They seem to be socially isolated like many Americans. They just choose to solve their problems by killing people.

Guns are too available with no requirement to be responsible.

This weekend, a guy in my neighborhood posted on our neighborhood Facebook page that he had 2 small rifles to give away to anybody who wanted to come by his house and get them. Just like giving away baby toys.

 
I've seen little evidence that many of these people are mentally ill unless everybody who kills is considered mentally ill. They seem to be socially isolated like many Americans. They just choose to solve their problems by killing people.

Guns are too available with no requirement to be responsible.

This weekend, a guy in my neighborhood posted on our neighborhood Facebook page that he had 2 small rifles to give away to anybody who wanted to come by his house and get them. Just like giving away baby toys.

Did you go pick them up to keep them from falling into the wrong hands?
 
They were claimed way before I saw the post. #murica
 
I just checked. It took my neighbor 1 minute to give away the guns.
 
Uh, what crime are you going to charge her with? Being an idiot is not a crime. Neither is being a bad parent. Seems like they bought all of those guns legally. Being a gun nut isn't a crime. Neither is owning like 15 weapons. So what crime are we going to charge her with that we couldn't charge you?
In full disclosure, I am a "gun enthusiast". However, any responsible gun owner should keep their weapons secure and certainly out of the hands of their socially isolated and "strange" child. The mother bears some responsibility for this tragedy and should face the consequences for failing to adhere to basic gun safety and general common sense.
 
This Facebook post is from singer/songwriter/author Roseanne Cash (daughter of Johnny) and is worth reading:


Dear Followers and Likers-- if you can't maintain basic courtesy on my page, please allow me to show you the door. This is my page and I do have a right to my beliefs and convictions, as all of you do. I was raised to have the courage to stand behind those convictions and it's too late in life for me to sacrifice my integrity by keeping the most passionate of them secret. Those who tell me to 'stay out of politics and stick to music', or, in other words 'keep your mouth shut' are perhaps so obsessed with the Second Amendment that they haven't noticed the First.


I have as much concern for the safety of my children as any mother alive and if that makes me 'political', so be it. I don't hurl insults because I think some of you have a bewildering attachment to military-grade weapons and a refusal to consider mandatory background checks. I'd appreciate the same civility.


For ten years, I was on the board of PAX- an organization whose sole purpose was to prevent gun violence among children. (PAX merged with Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence several years ago.) After ten years of meeting grief-stricken parents of children killed by guns, I had to quit. I couldn't take the endless parade of innocent people with shattered lives. It was eating at my soul. More pre-schoolers die by guns every year than police officers in the line of duty, and people seem to accept it as collateral damage for 'freedom.' Whose freedom are we talking about? Certainly not a classroom of first-graders lying in a pool of blood. And we're not talking about the freedom of their parents either, whose lives are utterly destroyed.


In 2000, as a representative of PAX, I attended the Million Mom March in Washington, DC with my husband, my year-old baby and my 11 year old daughter. I had a lot of hope that day-- the energy was powerful and the thousands of parents holding pictures of their dead children was a mandate in itself.


At the end of the day, my friend Patty Smyth, who marched alongside me with Bette Midler, Emmylou Harris, Raffi and many, many more, said 'if nothing else, we helped carry the burden of the grieving mothers for one day.' I wrote an article for Rolling Stone about that day. I was full of expectation that our elected officials would rise to the occasion and enact basic gun safety legislation like background checks, safety locks and a ban on military-grade weapons.


It turned out that, in fact, all we did was help carry the burden for a day. Nothing changed.


Several years later, my precious daughter, Chelsea, was held up at gunpoint in the jewelry store where she worked. The gunmen held her for twenty minutes. I'm so grateful she was not killed and I'm also so acutely aware that the difference between me and the moms carrying the photos on the march is a split second. Do NOT tell me that Chelsea 'should have had a gun.' If she had, she'd be dead. She is not physically or mentally able to coolly aim a gun at someone who is already pointing a gun at HER, and fire sharp-shooter style at another human being while terror-stricken. Nor am I. Nor are millions of other people.


The logic that 'if more law-abiding citizens had guns, there would be fewer mass shootings' is confounding to the point of nihilism. What's the end game? Every first grade teacher should have a gun in her desk to prevent another massacre like Newtown? Every pastor in his pulpit? Every movie-goer, mall shopper, night club patron and mom pushing a stroller, until we are reduced to anarchy and violence in every social venue of this country?


If you can make a compelling argument why we have laws requiring safety locks on medicines to protect children, but no law requiring a safety lock on a gun, I'd like to hear it. If you can make a compelling argument why a mentally disturbed youth should be able to easily stockpile military-grade weapons because of loopholes in the law and no background checks, please-- go ahead. I'd like to hear an articulate and reasoned logic behind that thought.


The Constitution is a living document-- if it hadn't changed since its inception, I personally would not be allowed to vote. The language 'well-regulated militia' doesn't equal 'mentally ill person with stockpile of automatic weapons' in my interpretation, but if you believe the amendment extends to that, then I believe Congress needs to amend the amendment, as it has done before in other cases.


Personal handguns and hunting rifles will never be banned in this country. Not a single person talking about the gun issue, that I have heard or read, has suggested that.


If one classroom of first graders can be saved just by requiring background checks and a ban on military style weapons, wouldn't it be worth it? One teenager in a movie theater, one student nurse, one pastor in the pulpit, one little pre-schooler? If the answer is no, or the answer is just more vicious rhetoric, then we should be ashamed. That child could be yours. It was almost mine. So don't tell me to keep my mouth shut.


Thanks to the kind follower who posted this fantastic essay:

https://idlehandsworkshop.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/lets-not-talk-about-gun-control/
 
In full disclosure, I am a "gun enthusiast". However, any responsible gun owner should keep their weapons secure and certainly out of the hands of their socially isolated and "strange" child. The mother bears some responsibility for this tragedy and should face the consequences for failing to adhere to basic gun safety and general common sense.

Again, what violation of the Oregon criminal code did she commit? I'm assuming most states' criminal codes are pretty similar. And I can't think of a VA criminal law that she would have violated. We may all agree she isn't a candidate for mom of the year, but again, you don't get charged with a crime and thrown in jail for being an idiot. (Now some cop might creatively charge something, but I doubt there is anything out there that will stick.)

Now, if you can develop an argument that she negligently permitted her whack job son to have access to these weapons, than maybe the families of the victims can sue her civilly under such a negligence theory. But that would only be worth it if there is some insurance $$ out there that you can get to. Getting a judgment for huge amounts of $$ against her solely is a waste of paper because she is not a deep pocket. That said, I would not be surprised if the community college and state are sued under a negligence theory by the victims' families, just like happened when Cho killed 32 folks at VT.
 
The family of an 8-year-old White Pine girl who authorities say was shot and killed by an 11-year-old neighbor will receive friends Wednesday night.

...

According to neighbor Chasity Arwood, the boy was in his home at the time of the shooting, in a bedroom. The shooting happened near her home, Arwood said. She said MaKayla lived nearby with her two older siblings and mother.

At the time, MaKayla was playing across the road with neighbors -- outside the boy's home-- when she and the boy had a conversation through his open window.
"He asked the little girl to see her puppies. She said no and laughed and then turned around, looked at her friend and said, 'Let's go get the --' and never got 'puppies' out."
The boy had shot Makayla with a shotgun, according to Arwood.

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/2015/10/04/fatal-shooting/73329258/
 
So can somebody explain to me how that home was safer because that 11 year old could get his hands on a gun?
 
Trevor Noah did a mic drop opening segment on the Republican "pro-life" hypocrisy when it comes to gun violence.
 
Gun control gets the headlines. Mental health care gets the headlines. Violence and video games and misogyny and internet forums and atheism — the list is endless at this point.

Here’s what doesn’t get the headlines: Empathy. Listening to those around you. Even if you don’t like them very much. We have come to live in a culture where it’s taboo or unacceptable to simply check in with people emotionally and offer some empathy and understanding. I’m not saying this would magically fix all gun violence. I’m just saying that all of these things — the lack of gun laws, the lack of health care, the inability to have basic conversations with friends and neighbors about what’s going on with them, these are all extensions of a callous and self-absorbed culture that lacks any real empathy.

Despite being relevant and important discussions, the glamorous headlines are ultimately distractions — they just feed into the carnage and the attention and the fame the killer desired. They are distractions from what is right in front of you and me and the victims of tomorrow’s shooting: people who need help. And while we’re all fighting over whose pet cause is more right and more true and more noble, there’s likely another young man out there, maybe suicidally depressed, maybe paranoid and delusional, maybe a psychopath, and he’s researching guns and bombs and mapping out schools and recording videos and thinking every day about the anger and hate he feels for this world.

And no one is paying attention to him.

http://markmanson.net/school-shootings
 

this was posted by a (pro-gun) friend on facebook. I read it and I don't really get it. Two of the most recent school shootings were perpetrated by young men living as shut-ins with their heavily armed mothers. If their own mothers weren't aware of the problem and unable to use some "empathy" to get help, WTF are the rest of us supposed to do? Other than put some significant barriers in the way of people who want to hoard a bunch of guns and ammo?
 
Yep. Guns give a disproportionate amount of power to people who do not deserve it. Guns are not toys. They are weapons.
 
Back
Top