All the politicians have to plan ahead...

[ellipses]

...for whatever it is they are going to say and/or tweet with the next mass shooting. Because there's always going to be a next one...and a next one...and the one after that. Should make it easy for them...

[Random Precision]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that most politicians have prepared fill-in-the-blank press releases for a mass shooting in their district.

Probably starts with the phrase "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the fine people of _______________ today in the wake of this senseless tragedy…"

And then it ends with a bill stalled in the House or the Senate.

[BJMoose]

The stalled bill comes after they go to the scene to get their pictures taken.

[Swammerdami]

You have asked me how I feel about gun control. All right, here is how I feel about gun control: If when you say gun control you mean stopping badly-raised children from massacring the helpless, stopping lunatics and monsters from murdering in cold blood, thwarting the godless men and ethnic thugs who would use an evil and deadly weapon to kill your friends and neighbors or rape your children then certainly I am for it wholeheartedly, and will work as your servant to stop these hideous evils.

But, if when you say gun control you mean hindering a God-fearing citizen like you or my brother Billie Joe from buying or selling a beloved weapon unless hateful government agents approve, tax and "register" the transaction, or preventing patriotic real Americans like you or me from owning the finest most rapid-fire arms to defend our family, or sticking their filthy gummint finger up Billie Joe's rectum to see if he's "sane" enough to own a firearm, then certainly I am against it and will fight it with all my power. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

[ellipses]

You have asked me how I feel about gun control. All right, here is how I feel about gun control: If when you say gun control you mean stopping badly-raised children from massacring the helpless, stopping lunatics and monsters from murdering in cold blood, thwarting the godless men and ethnic thugs who would use an evil and deadly weapon to kill your friends and neighbors or rape your children then certainly I am for it wholeheartedly, and will work as your servant to stop these hideous evils.

But, if when you say gun control you mean hindering a God-fearing citizen like you or my brother Billie Joe from buying or selling a beloved weapon unless hateful government agents approve, tax and "register" the transaction, or preventing patriotic real Americans like you or me from owning the finest most rapid-fire arms to defend our family, or sticking their filthy gummint finger up Billie Joe's rectum to see if he's "sane" enough to own a firearm, then certainly I am against it and will fight it with all my power. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

okay...didn't realize that's what I was asking...but okay. So I guess you're asking me how I feel about gun control. I think a gun license should be at least as difficult to get as a driver's license. They both involve potentially man-killing machines that require a certain amount of skill to operate safely so...yeah, we should have some discretion about how they are purchased and/or used.

I think if you want to own a gun, you should be sufficiently old enough, mature enough, responsible enough to use one safely. That means an age limit, that means a written test to assure knowledge of gun safety and gun regulations. And it also means, going to a range with a certified examiner to establish that you do in fact, know how to handle a gun safely. Cars are 'taxed and registered' - why shouldn't guns be? - they are certainly just as dangerous in the wrong hands. And just because you may be fully capable of passing such tests doesn't mean your brother Billie Joe is too. He needs to pass the same skill/knowledge tests.

Just sayin'...

[Jaglavak]

Adding some data to the discussion, nearly all mass shooters have these four things in common: (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data)

First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age.

Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.

Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives...Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.

Note that only one of these factors could even theoretically be affected by any form of gun control no matter how draconian. A gun is easy to make if you can't buy one. And there are plenty of other ways to kill a bunch of people.

The country has been swimming in guns since it was formed. But now we have 10 times more mass shootings than in the 1970's. What changed? It wasn't guns, that's for sure.

Perhaps it might be more effective to go after the real roots of these things. I'm afraid we have to do something a lot more hazardous than gun control. We're going to have to modify the first amendment to outlaw the hate speech web sites that these loser shitbags use to cheer each other on.

[Sputnik]

Well, we could stop making it front page news (world wide), complete with the picture and the name of the shooter, and newscasters second guessing motives and blame.

Suggested headline.

Another maladjusted loser kills people with a gun then loses his pathetic life in a gun battle with police.

[ellipses]

But gun control is not just about mass murder. How many 'accidental deaths by gun' could be avoided, if gun owners were more educated, more responsible, and maybe a little less 'it's ma right!' How many suicides wouldn't happen if it wasn't so fucking easy to just grab the nearest unsecured gun? We won't know until we try - and no responsible gun owner should have an issue with gun control. Just like we don't have a problem with the requirements for a driver's license.

[BJMoose]

What changed? It wasn't guns, that's for sure.



Ah, but the guns have changed. There is one hell of a difference between a single-shot Sharps and an assault rifle with a hundred-round "clip". The latter produces much more carnage in much less time. They can and should be controlled. There simply is no rational reason such power should be in the hands of any damned fool who can pony up the cost of one.

[C2H5OH]

I think a gun license should be at least as difficult to get as a driver's license. They both involve potentially man-killing machines that require a certain amount of skill to operate safely so...yeah, we should have some discretion about how they are purchased and/or used.

That might reduce accidental shootings, but there are no shortage of traffic accidents even with DLs. Being able to pass a test that shows you know the right way to do something doesn't stop people from ignoring the rules when convenient or spacing out and not pay attention to what they're doing.

Additionally, it would in no way eliminate or reduce mass shootings, drivebys, other murders, or suicides. There's also no shortage of nutters running people down or killing themselves by crashing their cars into bridge abutments.

A drivers license only proves you CAN operate a car safely. It does not affect whether or not you WILL do so. A gun license would be no different.

[Pencil]

You have asked me how I feel about gun control. All right, here is how I feel about gun control: If when you say gun control you mean stopping badly-raised children from massacring the helpless, stopping lunatics and monsters from murdering in cold blood, thwarting the godless men and ethnic thugs who would use an evil and deadly weapon to kill your friends and neighbors or rape your children then certainly I am for it wholeheartedly, and will work as your servant to stop these hideous evils.

But, if when you say gun control you mean hindering a God-fearing citizen like you or my brother Billie Joe from buying or selling a beloved weapon unless hateful government agents approve, tax and "register" the transaction, or preventing patriotic real Americans like you or me from owning the finest most rapid-fire arms to defend our family, or sticking their filthy gummint finger up Billie Joe's rectum to see if he's "sane" enough to own a firearm, then certainly I am against it and will fight it with all my power. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

This is a parody post, right?

[Random Precision]

I think a gun license should be at least as difficult to get as a driver's license. They both involve potentially man-killing machines that require a certain amount of skill to operate safely so...yeah, we should have some discretion about how they are purchased and/or used.

That might reduce accidental shootings, but there are no shortage of traffic accidents even with DLs. Being able to pass a test that shows you know the right way to do something doesn't stop people from ignoring the rules when convenient or spacing out and not pay attention to what they're doing.

Additionally, it would in no way eliminate or reduce mass shootings, drivebys, other murders, or suicides. There's also no shortage of nutters running people down or killing themselves by crashing their cars into bridge abutments.

A drivers license only proves you CAN operate a car safely. It does not affect whether or not you WILL do so. A gun license would be no different.
So do you think eliminating the driver's license requirement would lead to more or fewer traffic fatalities?

[Dragonlady]

I think gun owners should be required to maintain control of their guns. Most gun crimes are committed with stolen guns. If you leave your pistol in your nightstand, and someone steals it, you should be held responsible in some fashion. I want you to control your guns.

[Glazer]

I like guns, they're cool. I like to shoot them. I've always been for the right to own them. But the one thing that scares me to the point of getting behind a gun ban. Ninety percent of the guns in private hands are in the hands of Trump's base.

[C2H5OH]

NM. Misread the post I was replying to. Will formulate a reply to what was actually said and repost. Tomorrow. I'm going back to bed.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

You have asked me how I feel about gun control. All right, here is how I feel about gun control: If when you say gun control you mean stopping badly-raised children from massacring the helpless, stopping lunatics and monsters from murdering in cold blood, thwarting the godless men and ethnic thugs who would use an evil and deadly weapon to kill your friends and neighbors or rape your children then certainly I am for it wholeheartedly, and will work as your servant to stop these hideous evils.

But, if when you say gun control you mean hindering a God-fearing citizen like you or my brother Billie Joe from buying or selling a beloved weapon unless hateful government agents approve, tax and "register" the transaction, or preventing patriotic real Americans like you or me from owning the finest most rapid-fire arms to defend our family, or sticking their filthy gummint finger up Billie Joe's rectum to see if he's "sane" enough to own a firearm, then certainly I am against it and will fight it with all my power. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.As an owner of two handguns, just let me say that it is just this sort of response that angers gun control advocates.

Your first paragraph is fine. As far as it goes, which quite frankly is nowhere. Who could argue with anything you said? Is anyone in favor of massacring the helpless and raping children? You offer an opinion with zero solutions to stop that.

I have no problem with registering guns; my state requires that and I fully comply. I have yet to have the gummint knocking on my door to take them away.

And I have real problems with the credibility of anyone who believes that a high powered semi-automatic high capacity rifle is close to appropriate for home defense*. I can tell you that I would not want to live within a mile or more from you, because if you miss, that bullet can travel through cars, buildings or open space until it comes to rest. And you are responsible for that. If you were to equate home defense with a handgun or shotgun, then I can understand. I live in a city with a greater than average (for my state) crime rate, but I bought my guns for the range. When home, they sit in a safe, unloaded and with a gunlock, where it would take about 5 minutes (if I have the keys on me) to prep them for use. My best weapon for home defense is the telephone and 911.

I think that the regulations for semi-auto rifles should be much stricter than those for shotguns and bolt action (or lever action) rifles. Those are the ones favored by hunters, and while I do not hunt I respect their right to do so (properly permitted) and the tools that they require. As they say, "if you can't take the deer down with one shot, it wasn't your deer". I have relatives who hunt who are truly disgusted when they see other hunters with semi-auto rifles.

As far as mental health goes: It's a controversial subject and I am torn between stopping those being treated from owning firearms, and their stigmatization as victims of their disease. My preliminary thought is that their clinician should be able to diagnose and make a recommendation. But I don't think I've given it enough thought and would like to hear more discussion.

It is this non-compromising stance that causes gun control advocates to propose ever stricter regulations. And you know that eventually some of them will pass. I remember when the NRA was a relatively benign organization that supported hunters and sport shooting. Not everyone liked that people could hunt, but I don't ever recall anyone hating the NRA. But I sure do now, and more and more do every day. I have a range down the street; it is extremely convenient but I won't join because they require members to join the NRA and I won't do that. I take a malicious glee in their in-fighting and hope that they eventually collapse under their own weight.

*Home defense has to be one of the most overused and questionable phrases used by gun owners. Really? What are the chances that you will have a home invasion, versus the chances that someone in your house will get hold of that gun and kill someone (accidentally or intentionally) or themselves?

[Jaglavak]

The revolver gets loaded every night and is stored unloaded and locked during the day. It goes under my pillow when camping.

[Solfy]

The revolver gets loaded every night and is stored unloaded and locked during the day. It goes under my pillow when camping.

I have a cousin* who sleeps with a loaded revolver under his pillow when camping, too. His camping trips aren't solo, they're up at the family cabin with about 25 other adults and children as young as infants.

My cousin is very nice. He lost his job at our uncle's pizza shop because he insisted there were rabbits running around inside the dough mixing machine. He teaches yoga at the community college. I had to unfriend him on FB for a while because he was making sexually inappropriate public comments on our 13yr old cousin's page. He's super gentle and soft-spoken. He spent time in jail on suicide watch after being picked up for breaking into a bar to steal cigarettes "because he was bored." He's working on a PhD in psychology through an on-line university. My dad and uncles kicked him out of the cabin one hunting season because he went out on the back porch and began indiscriminately firing his handgun into the woods. He's diagnosed schizophrenic and I don't know what his medication compliance is.
I love my cousin. I don't want him and his loaded handgun around my children because he does not deal in reality, and I can't know that he's not going to decide that my 6yr old is a threat.

My recently former coworker's husband keeps a loaded gun in the nightstand for home defense. A few months ago they heard noises in the middle of the night. Noises inside the house. Noises that should not have been happening. Her husband went to investigate with the gun. It was their school-aged son who mistakenly got up for school in the middle of the night instead of in the morning. They told him to go back to bed. They didn't tell him he'd had a loaded gun pointed at him while they figured out what was going on. Nothing happened. : shudder :



*My apologies if I trot this one out too much, but "should mentally ill people have guns" is not an abstraction to me.

[Swammerdami]

You have asked me how I feel about gun control. All right, here is how I feel about gun control: If when you say gun control you mean stopping badly-raised children from massacring the helpless, stopping lunatics and monsters from murdering in cold blood, thwarting the godless men and ethnic thugs who would use an evil and deadly weapon to kill your friends and neighbors or rape your children then certainly I am for it wholeheartedly, and will work as your servant to stop these hideous evils.

But, if when you say gun control you mean hindering a God-fearing citizen like you or my brother Billie Joe from buying or selling a beloved weapon unless hateful government agents approve, tax and "register" the transaction, or preventing patriotic real Americans like you or me from owning the finest most rapid-fire arms to defend our family, or sticking their filthy gummint finger up Billie Joe's rectum to see if he's "sane" enough to own a firearm, then certainly I am against it and will fight it with all my power. This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

This is a parody post, right?

Yes. I wanted to emulate Soggy Sweat's Famous Whiskey Speech (itself a parody) (https://www.thoughtco.com/flatter-an-audience-with-euphemisms-1691833) and soon realized that would be a difficult task. Rather than abandoning the effort, I stupidly fired off my hasty half-baked attempt. :mad:

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

This is a parody post, right?

Yes. I wanted to emulate Soggy Sweat's Famous Whiskey Speech (itself a parody) (https://www.thoughtco.com/flatter-an-audience-with-euphemisms-1691833) and soon realized that would be a difficult task. Rather than abandoning the effort, I stupidly fired off my hasty half-baked attempt. :mad:Oh shit. :ohdear:

WHOOSH!

We haven't interacted enough for me to know that you weren't serious...

Friends?

ETA: Unfortunately, I have run across very serious posts with the same sentiment on multiple message boards. No excuse though.

[Swammerdami]

WHOOSH!

We haven't interacted enough for me to know that you weren't serious...

Friends?

Friends!

Unfortunately, I have run across very serious posts with the same sentiment on multiple message boards. No excuse though.

I was afraid that an "only joking" emoticon would spoil the effect, but I do try to include at least one phrase too outrageous, e.g.

... sticking their filthy gummint finger up Billie Joe's rectum to see if he's "sane" enough to own a firearm ...
But I have come to realize no parody of an idiot will be as hilarious as the real idiots in America's present political reality. On another board I posted absurd exaggerations to make fun of right-wingers and ... got fan mail from some of the right-wingers: "Wish I could write like that!"

[Sunny Daze]

Sadly, it read as plausible to me as well. :sciencefail:

I agree with the licensing idea. I also favor insurance. In fact, if the insurance companies get involved, I could see less need for government regulation. "Sure, Stanley, you can have 15 semi-automatic rifles for hunting. Your monthly premium will be *checks numbers* $2,000. Check or card?"

[C2H5OH]

Sadly, it read as plausible to me as well. :sciencefail:

I agree with the licensing idea. I also favor insurance. In fact, if the insurance companies get involved, I could see less need for government regulation. "Sure, Stanley, you can have 15 semi-automatic rifles for hunting. Your monthly premium will be *checks numbers* $2,000. Check or card?"

There's just one problem with that, if your intent is to reduce the number of guns. Insurance charges based on risk, and the risk per gun is actually quite low. And more guns in one person's hands doesn't increase risk linearly with 'number of guns'. Additional guns don't increase risk much at all. So the insurance on ten guns won't be very much more than the insurance for one.

You're not going to price guns out of people's hands by requiring 'misuse insurance' on them. Not as long as the price charged has to have a reasonable connection to probability and magnitude of pay-out.

[Glazer]

And if you're just trying to charge an insane fee to price guns out of people's hands I'd rather that money go to corrupt politicians than corrupt insurance companies.