The Gun Conversation

[BwareDWare94 723]

No they were not trained killers that is why I said skilled hands. And I never said that pulling a trigger wasnt easier. It is just to point out that people will find a way to kill each other regardless. The body count may decrease for a while but it will again go up and probably get higher than what it is.

 

Yeah, because we're going to keep killing each other at the same rate when the simplest mechanism with which we can kill is much more difficult to get.

 

The idea that we'll find new ways to kill is baseless, man, and if we can keep this civil (as I initially hoped for), I suggest you stop this whole "being a dick" thing. You aren't making your point. You're coming off as unwilling to consider opinions other than your own and quite frankly, your opinions seem no different to me than any of the NRA nutjobs out there.

Edited December 17, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[SteelersNation36 128]

I completely agree with you on this! I often get attacked for my views, and accused of being an "anti gun" loon. Fact is, I see the same issues as you. My father has always had a gun or 5 in the house to protect us and in turn I have always felt a sense of safety. However, as I said in my post about metal detectors yesterday, people with ccws and those who own guns undergo no psychiatric evaluations prior to doing so. Our own police force has to undergo and continually stay up to date on physc evaluations in order to stay on patrol. I also believe that stricter penalties for being irresponsible in the storage and security of your personal firearm should be put into place. As far as I am concerned, if a lack of responsibility on an individuals part has lead to another person using their firearm to kill another person, the person who owns that firearm has become an accessory to that murder.

 

People try to maintain that "back in the day" we were given the right by the second amendment to defend ourselves. What they forget all too often is that technology has come a long way since the 1700's. Guns are now infinitely more capable of mass destruction, and so much easier to produce, own, and use. Not to mention, in the 1700's I don't think anyone was twisted enough to turn their bayonet on innocent children.

 

The above quote was posted by a friend of mine on a discussion about all this. The second paragraph more so than the first but both really apply and I agree for the most part. Something needs to be done, not later. Now.

 

Also this isn't exactly about gun control but it goes along the lines with things that could possibly help prevent these tragedies.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lizalong/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-8ga2

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The tragedy in Newtown isn't a gun issue. It's a mental health issue. Every time something like this happens (and it seems far too frequently), everyone freaks out about guns and how stricter laws need to be put in place. We argue, bicker back and forth, and demean others fro what we imply to be a "bad' opinion on the matter.

 

Then it happens again... And we wonder how this could have happened and the debates and arguments continue endlessly and without solution.

 

It keeps happening, because we don't know the problem, or we are just too quick to dismiss it. The problem isn't the guns -- it's the sick sick people using them. These people need help and we refuse to give it to them or even acknowledge that it's the real problem.

 

 

Here is a blog post from a mother in a very scary and similar situation Nancy Lanza found herself in countless times. She and thousands of other mothers (and fathers) need REAL HELP. The systems solution for her? Bring up charges and send your son to jail, then he will get help.

 

Educating ourselves is key. It's a very powerful piece, and worth reading.

 

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

 

 

But by all means, let's continue "The Gun Conversation".

Edited December 17, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Also, being that I don't want to mare a completely valid post above....

 

The original post in this thread is absolutely beyond comprehension. "Let's talk about guns, but I am going to bar you from maybe the most valid point against my opinion"

 

I don't want to get into a shouting match or call people names... But, come on.

 

Let's talk about how bad cigarettes are but you can't provide evidence that it actually kills people. Come up with something else.

 

Let's talk about obesity in this country but not discuss the eating habits of Americans.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Favre, he just said that people don't think that stricter gun control would stop all gun crime. Basically he doesn't want people to assume thats anyones point.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Also, being that I don't want to mare a completely valid post above....

 

The original post in this thread is absolutely beyond comprehension. "Let's talk about guns, but I am going to bar you from maybe the most valid point against my opinion"

 

I don't want to get into a shouting match or call people names... But, come on.

 

Let's talk about how bad cigarettes are but you can't provide evidence that it actually kills people. Come up with something else.

 

Let's talk about obesity in this country but not discuss the eating habits of Americans.

 

Hold on now. You are misinterpreting the post to the Nth degree. I asked that people not counter us with "banning guns won't solve anything" because I, and any other supporter of stricter gun laws on this site, are not in favor of banning guns. What's so difficult about comprehending that? If I'm not telling you that we should ban guns, then your rebuttal to me should not be about how banning guns won't fix anything. This thread is not about banning guns.

 

I also asked that people not form rebuttals on the idea of stricter laws ending gun crime altogether. Nobody is stupid enough to think that gun crime would ever disappear.

 

How are those not two valid requests? Every time we get into this conversation, people form rebuttals around points we aren't making the first place. I never mentioned banning guns because I don't believe in a gun ban, so don't bring it up in your counter-argument. Fair enough?

 

I asked that you simply not beat a dead horse, especially when doing so avoids the questions that those of us in favor or stricter laws have posed.

 

JD, you're a smart dude, but just like the rest of us you feel strongly on this topic and I'll just assume that you misread my initial post. I didn't ask that you avoid valid counter-arguments. I asked that you avoid irrelevant counter-arguments. As I've already stated above, I'm not in favor of a ban, so don't refute me as if I am.

 

100% agreed that mental illness is the real problem, here, by the way, but Adam Lanza is never enabled to kill if his mother doesn't have her own personal arsenal in their home. Admit that. Based on what we know about his persona, he'd have likely been too reclusive to seek weaponry from any other source.

Edited December 17, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[SteelersNation36 128]

The tragedy in Newtown isn't a gun issue. It's a mental health issue. Every time something like this happens (and it seems far too frequently), everyone freaks out about guns and how stricter laws need to be put in place. We argue, bicker back and forth, and demean others fro what we imply to be a "bad' opinion on the matter.

 

Then it happens again... And we wonder how this could have happened and the debates and arguments continue endlessly and without solution.

 

It keeps happening, because we don't know the problem, or we are just too quick to dismiss it. The problem isn't the guns -- it's the sick sick people using them. These people need help and we refuse to give it to them or even acknowledge that it's the real problem.

 

 

Here is a blog post from a mother in a very scary and similar situation Nancy Lanza found herself in countless times. She and thousands of other mothers (and fathers) need REAL HELP. The systems solution for her? Bring up charges and send your son to jail, then he will get help.

 

Educating ourselves is key. It's a very powerful piece, and worth reading.

 

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

 

 

But by all means, let's continue "The Gun Conversation".

 

Ya I believe the link you posted is to the same story to the link I posted above but on two different sites. Couldn't agree more.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Hold on now. You are misinterpreting the post to the Nth degree. I asked that people not counter us with "banning guns won't solve anything" because I, and any other supporter of stricter gun laws on this site, are not against banning guns. What's so difficult about comprehending that? If I'm not telling you that we should ban guns, then your rebuttal to me should not be about how banning guns won't fix anything. This thread is not about banning guns.

 

I also asked that people not form rebuttals on the idea of stricter laws ending gun crime altogether. Nobody is stupid enough to think that gun crime would ever disappear.

 

How are those not two valid requests? Every time we get into this conversation, people form rebuttals around points we aren't making the first place. I never mentioned banning guns because I don't believe in a gun ban, so don't bring it up in your counter-argument. Fair enough?

 

I asked that you simply not beat a dead horse, especially when doing so avoids the questions that those of us in favor or stricter laws have posed.

 

JD, you're a smart dude, but just like the rest of us you feel strongly on this topic and I'll just assume that you misread my initial post. I didn't ask that you avoid valid counter-arguments. I asked that you avoid irrelevant counter-arguments. As I've already stated above, I'm not in favor of a ban, so don't refute me as if I am.

 

100% agreed that mental illness is the real problem, here, by the way, but Adam Lanza is never enabled to kill if his mother doesn't have her own personal arsenal in their home. Admit that. Based on what we know about his persona, he'd have likely been too reclusive to seek weaponry from any other source.

 

You don't need to ban guns to perpetuate the issue. Making gun laws stricter for those who abide the law and for those who use them safely and properly isn't going to solve ANYTHING. You are blinded by words like "ban" but fail to actually comprehend what it means to put your words into action. Making guns harder to obtain for your everyday American won't stop mentally ill people from doing things we find unfathomable.

 

And more so, you keep talking in absolutes. "I know stricter gun laws won't make gun crime completely disappear". Well thank you for not being completely bat shit insane, but that again IS NOT THE ISSUE. I am glad you let us know you are aware of something obvious, but is that REALLY the issue? Does that really SOLVE the problem? No. No. No.

 

People like you, people who want to keep talking about this.. People who are obsessed with pinning blame on SOMETHING rather SOMEONE are the people propelling this problem forward and making it worse. People who refuse to see the REAL problems facing our country, and instead blaming our actions on video games or gun or any other various reason you can come up with. (Talking in generalities here).

 

When will the American people take responsibility for our actions? When will the American people take responsibility for the lack of action?

 

The examples you posted in either your first or second post of these mass shootings.. The examples you think back the idea for stricter gun law (notice, I didn't say the word "ban") -- are all examples of mental illness at it's most dire.

 

I don't want to come across as sympathizing or making excuses for Adam or the other shooters, because that's not what I am doing. But I will steal something from Chia. Do not for a single second sit there and tell me you know how Adam Lanza felt. Don't sit there and tell me you knew what was swirling around in his head. The thoughts, the torment, his own disgust with himself and the world around him.

 

And with that, I will not agree with you that "if Adams mom didn't have those guns...". What a pretentious thing to say. His mother bought those guns legally and was quite an enthusiast. If the world was as easy to figure out as going back in time and taking a gun from someones home or stopping the conception of a child, we would live in one hell of a world. Unfortunately, neither gun control nor mental illness works that way.

 

What we have here is yet another prime example of a systematic flaw that gripped our nation and rocked it from the foundation up.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[BwareDWare94 723]

If you choose to ignore obvious problems, fine. I'm not saying that my beliefs would actually change anything, but at the very least I'm in favor of trying to address said problems.

Edited December 17, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Apparently not.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Apparently not.

 

See, this is the lack of civility I was hoping to avoid. You don't think you disagree with me. You think I'm wrong and you're right (there's a difference between the two. Disagreement is still open to the opposing opinion). Can't you separate yourself from what you feel so strongly about, for the ten minutes you might look at this thread during the day, and not jump on the same "being a dick" bandwagon that Ngata jumped on? I'm fine with you disagreeing with me. Hell, I welcome it. I'm glad we have opposing opinions in this thread, but you aren't even considering my views. That's where the line in the sand is crossed. The likelihood is that neither of us is right, and that's why we should discuss this issue. To meet in the middle.

 

I did not expect to see this kind of assholery out of you, to be honest, but hey, we all go there sometimes. I'm sure you could've said the same about me, in some past instances.

 

I'm just asking you to be open to the idea of change. Think about it for a minute. Everything you and I believe on each end of the spectrum is entirely hypothetical. It's not like we have consistent statistics (thank God) here with which we can form valid opinions that may lead to solutions. Neither of us has the answer, but can we not, at least, search for it through discussion?

 

Calling names, throwing insults, vehemently standing our ground--is this going anywhere? Not when we aren't open to the other opinion (I'm just as guilty of that).

 

I have an idea. Let's divide the two primary issues we've highlighted in this thread: Mental illness and the availability of firearms.

 

Mental illness: This is incredibly difficult to address, because each mind is different. Each brain functions differently in some way or another. Everybody's personal experience is different. What answers could we possibly find past what we've already discovered? I hope to God I'm wrong, but I find mental illness far less addressable than the availability of firearms.

 

Availability of firearms: As you know if you've read my posts, I'm only in favor of making them harder to obtain. Is that such a bad idea?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I have been very civil in my dismantling of your farce ideologies. Other than saying your OP was "beyond comprehension", I have not belittled you, called you a name, questioned your intellect -- but instead focused on what you were saying and the fundamental flaws of said words.

 

You on the other hand, haven't been so civil.

 

"What's so difficult about comprehending that"

"JD, you're a smart dude, but..."

"Can't you separate yourself from what you feel so strongly about, for the ten minutes you might look at this thread during the day, and not jump on the same "being a dick" bandwagon"

"I did not expect to see this kind of assholery out of you:

 

-- And then my favorite, was after my lengthy and time and thought consuming response.. Telling you why guns are not the problem... You respond with.

 

If you choose to ignore obvious problems, fine. I'm not saying that my beliefs would actually change anything, but at the very least I'm in favor of trying to address said problems.

 

Did you even read my post? Did you read the article from the mother that Steeler and I posted? Do you understand what I am really saying. What point I am trying to drive home?

 

I won't pass judgement, but I have to assume that the answer is 'No'. How incredibly demeaning. How incredibly rude. Yet, I haven't called you out. I haven't dedicated a post to informing all those who read this thread that your replies have been extremely disrespectful. Not until you reply with malice and intent to demean and discredit on a personal and character level did I bring these to your attention.

 

I could continue about how you've treated others in this thread... How you insult them and tell people that you can't think this or this without even backing up your opinion. Alas, I shall refrain.

 

Yet I am the asshole? I am on the dick wagon or whatever you call it? I am the one calling names? Come on now.

 

The sheer foundation on which your argument sits. The very fabric of which your arguments are woven. The logic you draw from to reach these conclusions. They are all flawed.

 

If you want to discuss gun laws and their effect on society. That is absolutely fine. We will probably disagree, and again, that is fine.

 

But when you open by saying that gun laws "are clearly necessary" after such tragedies such as Newtown and Aurora amongst countless others. Why is that so clear? Is that not implying that you are right and you aren't even thinking of the other side? Something you have so politely and incorrectly accused me of?

 

You are getting into something deeper than a gun law. Something more problematic than someone owning an AK.

 

These tragedies are not the result of gun laws.

 

Let me repeat. In generalities, if you want to discuss gun laws and their effects on society, we can go there. If you want to talk about guns and gun laws in regards to Newtown or Connecticut or Virginia Tech or Columbine... You are off-base and the continual denial of the true issues in the above examples is why we continue to struggle as a society.

 

Yes, I know you have said there is a systematic problem (although, I believe you are referring to gun laws, correct me if I am wrong). Yes, I know you have admitted that mental illness was a factor.

 

But you have yet to really distinguish the difference in issues regarding your every day gun laws and guns relating to such tragedies and mental illness.

 

You want a federal registry of all weapons in the country... A service forced unto and paid by the people. You want to prosecute parents of mentally ill children (children which are young adults or adults, by the way).

 

We can agree that parents should take more responsibility in the fact that they should keep their guns out of reach of small children and any child (regardless of age) who may be mentally ill. But how many kids go shooting with their fathers... How many hunting families have a very open family policy with their weapons. How many of those families use them correctly and safely? Yet we are going to prosecute these folks under the full authority of the law?

 

If Nancy Lanza were alive today, would throwing her into prison solve the issue? Would it "make an example" out of her that all parents of mentally ill children should have their kids locked up.

 

Is it too much to ask to have somewhere for them to go for help? A solution that involves getting these sick people the help they need. A solution that doesn't involve bringing up charges on your son or daughter so that they can get the help they need in prison because our nation isn't equipped to deal with them?

 

The system has failed us (and no, I do not mean the system of gun laws). Instead of a pseudo-solution that involves strict gun control and reacting after the fact.

 

We need to be pro-active, get these people help... I would so much rather help these people, then wait, ignore them, and then focus on helping their victims.

 

You sit there and think you know what I am trying to say, but your responses say the opposite.

 

I am not Pro-Gun. I am Pro-America.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Yeah, because we're going to keep killing each other at the same rate when the simplest mechanism with which we can kill is much more difficult to get.

 

The idea that we'll find new ways to kill is baseless, man, and if we can keep this civil (as I initially hoped for), I suggest you stop this whole "being a dick" thing. You aren't making your point. You're coming off as unwilling to consider opinions other than your own and quite frankly, your opinions seem no different to me than any of the NRA nutjobs out there.

Quite frankly, there are NO legitimate reasons to own an assault rifle. None. Whatsoever. I'm interested to see what cockamamie reasons people might come up with.

 

That was the 5th post in this thread. You posted. You alienated every single person who was in favor of of current gun laws when you said that. So dont give me this pious, sanctimonious, self-righteous bullshit about how you wanted to play nice from the start. Wake up and smell what you are shoveling.

 

And yeah because people didnt kill people before guns.....completely baseless.

 

When you stop typing out the same rhetoric about how guns are the problem and the real killers than we can talk. guns dont kill people, people kill people. A gun is nothing more than a paperweight if some mental motherfucker doesnt pick it up.

[Maverick 791]

JD, Ngata, and Thanatos win this thread.

 

*claps*

[blotsfan 2,112]

I can't speak for Bware, but I don't think gun control needs to be the only solution. Why can't we have more focus on mental health and stricter control of guns? Guns may not be the ones that make the decision to kill, but they certainly make killing a lot easier.

 

And as for Lanza's mom, I think the point is that even someone who owns guns with the absolute best intentions can not necessarily keep them from being used for harm.

[Maverick 791]

I can't speak for Bware, but I don't think gun control needs to be the only solution. Why can't we have more focus on mental health and stricter control of guns? Guns may not be the ones that make the decision to kill, but they certainly make killing a lot easier.

 

And as for Lanza's mom, I think the point is that even someone who owns guns with the absolute best intentions can not necessarily keep them from being used for harm.

 

If they're kept locked in a safe, why not?

[blotsfan 2,112]

That would be ideal, but not foolproof. And theres no way to say "all guns have to be in a safe."

[SteelersNation36 128]

TURN OFF THE NEWS.......

 

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

 

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed

people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

 

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

 

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

Edited December 17, 2012 by SteelersNation36

[blotsfan 2,112]

Glad you aren't posting it because he's a celebrity since he didn't say it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/morgan-freeman-hoax-newtown-school-shooting-statement_n_2315848.html

[Thanatos 2,847]

It is still a very good point, regardless of who said it. I only know the name of one victim, and that's only because I know that Victor Cruz had his name on his shoes yesterday during the game.

 

But we spend all this time glorifying the shooter, as it were, giving him his twenty minutes of fame, and now every other nutcase sees this and understands they too will get twenty minutes of fame. I completely agree with the point, regardless of who actually said it to begin with.

 

I was going to post my thoughts more on this issue, as I found the article that SN and JD linked because of a friend, but JD has summed up pretty much everything I would have said.

 

The issue is exactly what Bware said: "I'm not saying that my beliefs would actually change anything, but at the very least I'm in favor of trying to address said problems." That's what people want to feel like. They want to feel like, hey, we're doing something about it. Maybe it won't work, maybe there is zero statistical evidence that it will work, but we're trying something. We can slap ourselves on the back and say, Good job, person in the mirror, you did something to try to avert any more tragedies like Newtown. People don't want to go into the thorny issues of mental health- and let's face it, there is no way Lanza wasn't mentally ill, no human being in their right mind would kill children at an elementary school- because there is no clear-cut solution that can be proposed. It's complex, it's difficult, and it's not as simple as there being stricter regulations on firearms.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Thanatos19

[PackIsBack 124]

Where I'm from Wisconsin is one of the few states that has allowed concealed carry. I don't know what the rates have been as far as violent crime since the bill has been in place but nothing seems out of the ordinary. Lots of violent crime still occurs on a daily basis in Milwaukee so it doesn't seem as if the concealed carry law has decreased the rates at all.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I don't feel comfortable knowing people are carrying guns around me but that doesn't stop bad guys from doing it. Gun laws need to be heavily regulated, maybe do more than background checks. I don't think a background check has been enough for preventing tragedies and sometimes it seems too easy for people to access weapons. I think we have a right to protect ourselves and feel protected but at what cost? Bringing more of these lethal weapons into society might not be the right decision...I'm really torn on this issue.

Edited December 17, 2012 by PackIsBack

[BwareDWare94 723]

I don't personally think I've been all that disrespectful, JD. I'll take a little hit for the "no legitimate reasons to own an assault rifle" comment, but I truly believe that. I see no necessary reason for a general US citizen to own something with that much capability. You can say it's as excessive as any other consumable item, but the majority of other consumable items aren't exactly murder material.

 

As for douchebaggery and assholery and all of those fine little adjectives that describe the way we're reacting to each other--can we not agree that it's been a two way street, so far in this thread? We have strong opinions. We react to each other's strong opinions. I don't really understand how I'm the only guilty one, here. Call me out for this all you want, but admit it of yourself, as well. And don't blame me for it--I haven't been nearly as bad as some of you claim. We just happen to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, and the same insults and disrespect you accuse me of I see directed toward me from each of you.

 

Mental instability and the availability of firearms are two separated things, for sure, but to say that mental instability is the primary cause of all of these tragedies is a flawed opinion, too. What has mental instability done to all of the victims of shootings? It may be the catalyst that has made the perpetrators of such crimes want to kill in the first place, but I'd hate to be the person who had to tell one of those families that a bullet isn't want killed their child.

 

You can't sit back and say, as these things keep happening, particularly this year, that the availability of guns isn't part of the issue. Do you not remember the sheer amount of ammunition the Aurora shooter was able to receive through the mail? I don't recall the exact figure, but it was staggering.

 

I understand that some people don't want to see the train start rolling toward stricter gun laws, but I don't understand why we can't consider it as an option.

 

You keep bringing up the amount of people who use guns safely, as individuals and as families, but the options I'm outlining don't take firearms out of their hands. It just puts them through a more thorough process before they can obtain them, and what's wrong with that?

 

You brought up guns and video games in one of your points. I agree. We can't blame them entirely, but I admit that the unnecessarily violent nature of our games, not to mention that the term "game" is applied to virtually killing people, is at least somewhat disturbing to me. I'd never cite "video games" as the primary reason behind a kid killing somebody else, but I don't see how it can't contribute. The Columbine shooters were in to some nasty stuff, but that was online and the internet, without a doubt, holds far worse things than any Xbox or Playstation does.

[SteelersNation36 128]

Glad you aren't posting it because he's a celebrity since he didn't say it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/morgan-freeman-hoax-newtown-school-shooting-statement_n_2315848.html

 

Ahh, had a friend link it to me. I just liked the thoughts in the statement. You posting that it was fake doesn't take away that who ever said it made valid points but I don't think that's your reasoning behind telling me its fake anyways. Thanks for the info.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Ya.. I realized after the fact that the whole Morgan Freeman thing was a "hoax" but regardless of who said it... The words strike close to home. Just because it wasn't Morgan Freeman, doesn't mean what was said is any less true (As Thanatos said).

 

-------------------------------

 

And unfortunately you have been very disrespectful Bware. More so than anyone else in this thread, for what it's worth. And it hasn't been to just me. I read the thread before responding and you attitude towards others and those with differing opinions just isn't the way to behave. I had to restrain myself from saying anything regarding how you treated some other members in this thread, but figured it wasn't my place to say. They can defend themselves just fine.

 

You can think they are wrong, you can argue with them, you can discredit their opinions and you won't hear anything from me. I do the same thing and yes, occasionally go over board. But I really feel like I have kept it in check this thread. I knew coming in that it would be pretty evenly divided and made sure to argue your points and opinions, not you as a person.

 

To be quite honest, I am proud of myself for not completely lashing out at you for some of the things you said. The things that went beyond the discussion and onto a personal level.

 

I will not apologize for dismantling your train of thought. Taking your views on the subject of these tragedies and telling you exactly where you went wrong. I will not even admit that it was a "two-way street". I think it's pretty obvious that this was you driving a 16 wheeler the wrong direction down a one way street. Again, we've all been there.. I've done it a ton of times (although, I contend that this was not one of them). So I won't give you a speech or tell you how you should act.

 

But I will tell you how extremely disappointed I am with how you handled your responses and end it there.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[NaTaS+ 958]

Just some stats to liven up this thread and explain how criminals get their hands on weapons. I think it's best stated that these mass shootings are a mental health issue vs a gun control issue. :

 

PBS

 

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

 

 

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

 

 

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

 

 

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

 

 

The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

 

 

Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.

 

 

While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.

 

 

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."