There's no way to avoid it. The gun control debate re-emerges with every shooting like the one on Friday morning in Aurora, CO: A man kills 12 and wounds more than 50 in a movie theater at a premiere of the latest Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises."
On one end of the gun debate, Missouri Rep. John McCaherty (R-90th District), of High Ridge, is set to . The rifle is a legally owned AR15 rifle that was given to him by the NRA.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the debate over guns — legal or otherwise — only two mayors in the area have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns: St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay and University City Mayor Shelley Welsch. (It should be noted, however, that the Washington Post reported the guns at the Colorado crime scene were purchased legally.)
A lot will need to be sorted out in Aurora over the next few weeks.
But this raises the question again: Do you think events like this make stronger gun control laws more or less likely? Is it worthwhile to have the discussion, or are the various points of view too far apart?
This anti-firearm crusade in ridiculous.
A 6 year old could Google and find out your home address. :-(
...ok, took a quick foray into the omnipresent right wing - it's sort of confusing Elizabeth, many of the Obama's a marxist etc pages also have links to birtherism, and conspiracies about Obama taking away all our guns! Then again, maybe I don't have the liberal open-mindedness that you have Elizabeth, to discern which link to hit. Nor do I have the time.
http://fox2now.com/2012/08/02/report-holmes-psychiatrist-reported-behavior-to-colleagues/
Uh oh. Knives of mass destruction: Gotta get this under control. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46
I'm neither fearful, anxious, nor working from an emotional premise. It's actually the behavior I'm pointing-out. Repeating "oversized amygdala" is counter-productive, but a really effective reflection. It hasn't kept you from being on the reactionary side of the argument though. I have already pointed-out that this discussion takes place everytime something like this happens, due to reactionaries who go after gun-rights instead of criminals, when they don't go after alcohol even though more people are killed by people who are drunk than someone with a gun. I'm with you that "crazy" people shouldn't be able to have assault weapons, but that it's the legal definition of those weapons (from the laws that are supposed to be providing you with your end-goal) that continues to allow it. In this case, a man who was being treated for a few "issues" serious enough for psychiatric concern, was insulated more by doctor-patient confidentiality than gun laws, but we don't want to end those either.
Are there any newer numbers than 2004? It also looks as if the NRA lost money that year. It appears also, that the Brady Campaign made a profit. Is the Brady Campaign still the only gun control lobby? Is the NRA the only gun-rights lobby? There are tons of lobbyists, for many different issues. My statement was intended to point out that ALL lobbyists have too much control (whether under-the-table or over), and that gun-rights, was a smaller piece of that puzzle than was being represented in this thread. Also that the claims being made were pointed to seem like the NRA was the only lobby-group with any power, or possessed some sort of unfair advantage. Since this is supposed to be the people's government, and the NRA recieved a lot of money in donations, then it must be a cause that many people support, especially if they are the unstoppable force that was indicated earlier in the thread. Again, if you want more legislation, I'd be on-board with prohibiting lobbyists altogether. They all have to much monetary influence on our government officials. However, good luck taking away an entirely-too-huge source of personal income for our politicians on both sides of the aisle. Trying to pretend it's only on the lesser-of-two-evils side of the aisle is also blatantly mis-leading. Thank you for pointing it out.
Here are the stats as presented by various studies.... (U of FL - Gary Kleck for one) 2.5 - 3.1 million times per year, a gun is used in defense of a crime. 100,000 - 135,000 times per year, a gun is used to commit a crime. That's about a 25:1 ratio. That means, in this country, 25 lives are saved for every one that's lost. Whose side are you on anyway? Only by using facts & tracking results can we open-mindedly discuss this issue. Emotions need not apply.
20,000 killings by gun every year and nothing.
No action=same results. Action->defense.