It seems no matter how many times somebody brings this up, the pieces aren't put together on it. People always want somebody to blame when a gun related tragedy occurs, especially when kids are involved, understandable, but let's put blame where it belongs. And who is that? Sorry, I don't buy it's the people selling guns for not having tight enough laws or whatever. Let's think about this, who here grew up in say the 50s and 60s? How common were guns? Who grew up in a house with them or knew somebody who did? And hell, who here actually learned how to use them before they were an adult? Maybe not here specifically but a lot of young people growing up at that time probably did, right? Ah but nobody took them to school to blow anybody away even though they had such easy access to them, did they? Why is that? Let's see...perhaps because their parents taught them how to be safe and responsible with them. It wasn't this modern 'BAD! DON'T TOUCH!' mentality, or if it was, they knew WHY not to touch it, because they knew just how dangerous they could be and knew it was something for adults to handle.

Now, this is one of those broken record subjects, we can go round and round on what everybody thinks, and most people will always have the same answers regardless. But we do know this, it is NOT just a matter of kids having access to guns that they kill other kids and even adults with them. After all if that was all it took, why didn't Annie Oakley's whole generation shoot each other instead of hunting the animals for food like they were trained to? I mean they were kids, and kids are irrational and their brains aren't fully developed and they don't know right from wrong, they can't appreciate the consequences of their actions, blah blah blah. And yet they knew not to use their guns on other people, why is that?

I think most of us can agree, people who are taught gun safety and responsibility at a young age are LESS likely to be these trigger happy nut job teens who go kill someone at their school because they're mad at them. Just like people who were taught responsible drinking as kids usually didn't grow up to be lushes. And yet for all this that seems obvious, people still think the gun just BEING there is answer enough for why these things happen. Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I don't buy it.

I grew up in a house with guns. My one family showed me where they all were in the house, and taught me to stay the hell away. they taught me what it looked like when the safety was on, and which guns did not have safteys. i never touched them.

My mom's house was a different story. My mother went to work the night shift, leaving me at home with a suicidal/homicidal sibling.. i had to wrestle the gun out of his hands on more than one occassion when he threatened to kill us both. my mom would just keep changing the hiding place, but he always found them. I was terrified to sleep at night--- and to this day i think that my insomnia and up all night habits are from living with him. I was so scared to sleep that i would talk on the phone all night with my friends thinking it would keep me safe... one night he jumped on me with the phone cord and tried to strangle me. I'm STILL pissed 22yrs later that i went through that trauma.

My point is that each kid is different.. and parents should know their kids. My mother was in total denial that my bro was as bad as he was. How he never killed anyone is beyond me.

IMO--- its the parents responsibility. And I disagree with a law they were trying to pass in NJ a few years ago. They wanted to write it so that if someone broke into my house, stole my gun, and committed a crime... i would get charged with the same crime he did!!! THAT is nuts. Stop the guy from breaking in to MY house and stealing MY property! Then they wanted to sell mandatory trigger locks on every gun.. it was estimated the lock would be $200-$300 a piece. SMH bullshit

People like usual want to pass off responsibility. Until people stop making guns the bad guy for what people choose to do, nothing will improve, no matter how many laws they try to pass.

Really? After all that, you still failed to say anything worthwhile. I want you to show me where they are trying to pass laws that bans the public from owing a gun. You won't be able to, because they are not. They are trying to ban ASSAULT weapons. A weapon that no human being on this planet has any justified use for other than to kill multiple targets. I, for the life of me, can't see why sane and rational people wouldn't want provisions in place that keeps guns out of the hands of people who don't deserve them. You have a problem with backgrounds checks? Psychological examinations? Registering your guns so they can be tracked in case they are used in crime? Really? It takes more to get a fucking job or a driver's license or own a car than it does to get a gun, but you have problems with provisions to stop or stunt bloodshed. If Toyota or a big car company had a defective mechanism with one of their cars, they are required to alert the owners of those cars and to fix them. Why are automobiles required to pass emissions inspections? Because it's a matter of SAFETY. It's a matter of protecting the public. You can't put a defective car on the road. The same concept goes for the assault weapons ban. After the rash tragedies....20 six year olds are SLAUGHTERED because they went to school, 12 people are SLAUGHTERED because they went to the movies, 32 people are SLAUGHTERED because they went to school to attain higher education, 6 people are SLAUGHTERED in a supermarket parking lot because they attended a meeting and were involved in their community and you mean to tell me that the government should sit idle on their hands and do nothing? Absolutely nothing? You don't see any reason to TRY to keep it's constituents safe from senseless killings? All of you people who have a objection to providing and protecting public safety are fucking obtuse and don't deserve to own any gun. You prob. need to be fixed so you can't breed and pass this muddled thinking onto your offspring. *sighs* I hate people.

Supernova wrote:

but let's put blame where it belongs. And who is that? Sorry, I don't buy it's the people selling guns for not having tight enough laws or whatever. Let's think about this, who here grew up in say the 50s and 60s? How common were guns? Who grew up in a house with them or knew somebody who did? And hell, who here actually learned how to use them before they were an adult? Maybe not here specifically but a lot of young people growing up at that time probably did, right?

I didn't grow up in the 50s or 60s so I can't answer any of those questions. What I can ask in response to this assumption is:

A) How common was the AR-15 assault rifle (involved in the last 4 mass shootings in the US) in the 50's-60s compared to today?

B) Was it possible for anybody to purchase firearms on the internet in the 50s-60s, enabling people to bypass background checks?

Supernova wrote:

Ah but nobody took them to school to blow anybody away even though they had such easy access to them, did they? Why is that? Let's see...perhaps because their parents taught them how to be safe and responsible with them. It wasn't this modern 'BAD! DON'T TOUCH!' mentality, or if it was, they knew WHY not to touch it, because they knew just how dangerous they could be and knew it was something for adults to handle.

Are you suggesting that if the Sandy Hook shooter's mother had taught her deranged son how to be more responsible with her AR-15 assault rifle, that he wouldn't have murdered 20 children and 6 teachers? Sorry but parents "teaching" kids how to be safe and responsible with guns isn't going to prevent one from snapping and using his gun access/training to murder people in a fit of misdirected rage. A "responsible" parent would have been paying more attention to her deranged son, and gotten him the psychological help he needed before it was too late. A responsible parent wouldn't have an AR-15 assault rifle just lying around in her house for anyone who hasn't passed a proper background check to get to. A responsible parent living in a suburban area probably wouldn't have had an AR-15 assault rifle to begin with! And hopefully, a parent of young children would be much more responsible than the parent of say the Sandy Hook shooter was.

Supernova wrote:

I mean they were kids, and kids are irrational and their brains aren't fully developed and they don't know right from wrong, they can't appreciate the consequences of their actions, blah blah blah. And yet they knew not to use their guns on other people, why is that?

Yes, the responsible parents do teach their children to be responsible and the vast majority of which do not murder other children (whether they have access to guns or not). But this isn't really relevant to the issue of how to hinder gun violence in America. Most children do not end up being murderers, and most of the perpetrators of mass shootings in America are not children.

Supernova wrote:

I think most of us can agree, people who are taught gun safety and responsibility at a young age are LESS likely to be these trigger happy nut job teens who go kill someone at their school because they're mad at them. Just like people who were taught responsible drinking as kids usually didn't grow up to be lushes. And yet for all this that seems obvious, people still think the gun just BEING there is answer enough for why these things happen. Well, I can't speak for anyone else but I don't buy it.

Well, not only will I DISAGREE, but I think this entire argument is a red herring fallacy. I believe that this is a right wing talking point that is actually a distraction from the real issue. It is meant to confuse people by combining several unrelated arguments (gun control, parental guidance, mental health) into ONE, to create a straw man. I have yet to hear anybody make the argument that the availability of guns is alone responsible for why crazy kids kill people.

There is logic to your position that people need to teach their children to be responsible, ESPECIALLY gun owners who teach their kids to shoot. But this doesn't address the issue of gun violence in America. The bottom line is, there are MORE people and MORE guns today than there were in the 50s-60s. With so many people and so many guns, you are inevitably going to have more gun violence. Maybe not percentage wise, but overall you will. Combine that with media coverage and documentation today compared to back then, EVERYTHING that happens is scrutinized more. With so many more guns and people, it would be irresponsible to say "let's ignore gun control and focus on teaching our children to be responsible", because that doesn't solve the problem. That is called IGNORING the problem! What's required in this situation is ACTION. Gun control alone will not solve the problem of gun violence, but it does address the issue because the more gun controls you have the less likely you are to have gun violence. That is a statistical fact that has been proven time and time again.

You're right, gun availability does not compel kids to turn into murderers! But proper gun controls does prevent guns from falling into the hands of the mentally unbalanced, and therefore reduced gun violence by some measure. We will never ban guns in this country because that is against the US Constitution (second amendment). But we can limit access to guns by insisting on mandatory background checks. We can limit access to the most deadly guns by banning specific types of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We can do SOMETHING to address the problem, just like the UK and Japan have done something to address gun violence in their countries. Guns are banned in those countries and gun violence is virtually non-existent! Australia has an assault weapons ban since 1996 and since then violent gun crimes have dropped significantly. New York City has the strictest gun laws of any major city in America and it has the LOWEST percentage of violent gun crimes of any large city. Numbers don't lie! It's common sense. Limit access to guns, and crazy people can't kill as many people as they could otherwise. THEN we can look at other ways of curbing violent crimes like "mental health" and the effects of violent movies and video games. No matter how reasonable the idea seems on the surface, simply teaching "kids" in America how to use guns properly and "safely" isn't going to stop mass shootings or gun violence overall in America. One thing literally has nothing to do with the other.

^

Everything the Capt said.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Really? After all that, you still failed to say anything worthwhile. I want you to show me where they are trying to pass laws that bans the public from owing a gun. You won't be able to, because they are not. They are trying to ban ASSAULT weapons. A weapon that no human being on this planet has any justified use for other than to kill multiple targets. I, for the life of me, can't see why sane and rational people wouldn't want provisions in place that keeps guns out of the hands of people who don't deserve them. You have a problem with backgrounds checks? Psychological examinations? Registering your guns so they can be tracked in case they are used in crime? Really? It takes more to get a fucking job or a driver's license or own a car than it does to get a gun, but you have problems with provisions to stop or stunt bloodshed. If Toyota or a big car company had a defective mechanism with one of their cars, they are required to alert the owners of those cars and to fix them. Why are automobiles required to pass emissions inspections? Because it's a matter of SAFETY. It's a matter of protecting the public. You can't put a defective car on the road. The same concept goes for the assault weapons ban. After the rash tragedies....20 six year olds are SLAUGHTERED because they went to school, 12 people are SLAUGHTERED because they went to the movies, 32 people are SLAUGHTERED because they went to school to attain higher education, 6 people are SLAUGHTERED in a supermarket parking lot because they attended a meeting and were involved in their community and you mean to tell me that the government should sit idle on their hands and do nothing? Absolutely nothing? You don't see any reason to TRY to keep it's constituents safe from senseless killings? All of you people who have a objection to providing and protecting public safety are fucking obtuse and don't deserve to own any gun. You prob. need to be fixed so you can't breed and pass this muddled thinking onto your offspring. *sighs* I hate people.

I see a lot of RW'rs screaming on twitter about "taking guns" which of course is just deflection. In some cases it is stupidity though. There's nothing wrong with some damn rules. All this whining about "unfairness to responsible gun owners" is bullshit. You have to pass a test to drive a car, maintain insurance & obey the rules of the road. But apply minor restrictions to guns & people lose their shit.

It's fairly obvious we have a serious problem in this country. Something has to be done. But the right wants to maintain the status quo which ironically is the definition of insanity.

W2L's story reminds me of a teenager here in Oregon who in the 80's killed some kids in his high school. He is in prison for life now. From the time this guy was a child his family knew he was severely mentally ill.

He killed things, small animals. He tortured them first. He tried to hurt kids smaller than himself. He had a violent temper. His parents were kind, loving people. So was his sister. As soon as she was old enough, she moved far, far away fearing every day for her life while she lived with her brother.

The parents tried. They took him to psychologists, they gave him all kinds of medication. The meds helped but as he got older he refused to take them. He would pretend and act "normal" for awhile but eventually they could tell he wasn't on them.

Everyone cared, everyone tried to deal with him. School, friends, family; the entire small close knit Oregon town. But he was wired all wrong. One thing they did not do though was hide the guns.

His father thought if he taught his son the proper use of guns from an early age, everything would be okay. Of course the rifles were hunting rifles not assault, not handguns but rifles used to hunt game to eat as many families in Oregon do, were locked away at all times.

But the boy got into them anyway. And in his extreme paranoia took them to school and begin a shooting spree. He had intended to kill himself but was caught instead. He is now in prison and will remain for the rest of his life.

The point of my long story is that you can make all the background checks you want, those who shouldn't have access to guns will still get them. Nancy Lanza had background checks for her guns,son Adam didn't but it wasn't Nancy who killed those kids in Sandyhook.

Same with the father and son I am talking about. I wouldn't ban the hunting rifles. But I would ban the father, knowing he had a sick son who was out of control from keeping the guns in his home because of his son. Maybe the boy would have found another way to get guns maybe not, but why make it so easy for him?

I don't know the answer. I don't know if anyone does. People hunt for food. That's what this family did. But nowadays, people are hunting for people. Where is it going to end?

Minerva wrote:

W2L's story reminds me of a teenager here in Oregon who in the 80's killed some kids in his high school. He is in prison for life now. From the time this guy was a child his family knew he was severely mentally ill.

He killed things, small animals. He tortured them first. He tried to hurt kids smaller than himself. He had a violent temper. His parents were kind, loving people. So was his sister. As soon as she was old enough, she moved far, far away fearing every day for her life while she lived with her brother.

The parents tried. They took him to psychologists, they gave him all kinds of medication. The meds helped but as he got older he refused to take them. He would pretend and act "normal" for awhile but eventually they could tell he wasn't on them.

Everyone cared, everyone tried to deal with him. School, friends, family; the entire small close knit Oregon town. But he was wired all wrong. One thing they did not do though was hide the guns.

His father thought if he taught his son the proper use of guns from an early age, everything would be okay. Of course the rifles were hunting rifles not assault, not handguns but rifles used to hunt game to eat as many families in Oregon do, were locked away at all times.

But the boy got into them anyway. And in his extreme paranoia took them to school and begin a shooting spree. He had intended to kill himself but was caught instead. He is now in prison and will remain for the rest of his life.

The point of my long story is that you can make all the background checks you want, those who shouldn't have access to guns will still get them. Nancy Lanza had background checks for her guns,son Adam didn't but it wasn't Nancy who killed those kids in Sandyhook.

Same with the father and son I am talking about. I wouldn't ban the hunting rifles. But I would ban the father, knowing he had a sick son who was out of control from keeping the guns in his home because of his son. Maybe the boy would have found another way to get guns maybe not, but why make it so easy for him?

I don't know the answer. I don't know if anyone does. People hunt for food. That's what this family did. But nowadays, people are hunting for people. Where is it going to end?

I have to say that is the ONLY time I've heard of somebody doing that and NOT getting the last word by blowing his brains out, even if he had it planned.

Now, this is the part that doesn't make sense to me, people who have mental problems, this seems very obvious, when you KNOW something is wrong you also KNOW that things are NOT going to be the same for this kid as they would be someone else. Like that 13 year old who hanged herself after that whole MySpace fiasco, your kid has been suicidal since she was eight years old, WHY would you let her talk online where the anonymous scum of the earth who will say every hurtful thing to anybody and everybody dwell? When you have a kid like that you KNOW the game's changed and so have the rules. Likewise, if you have a mentally ill person in the house, why would you have guns around them? Insane people can't even be trusted to consent to marriage, so why think they can be trusted with guns? Do you trust them to drive? Do you trust them to cook unsupervised? How about chopping up things with the kitchen knives?

And yet at the same time, yes, obviously when it clearly IS a mentally ill person who has a history of mental illness, that in itself is one thing, but you can't say EVERY person who takes a gun and senselessly kills somebody was insane because then you're just giving all killers an insanity plea pass and nobody's held responsible or accountable for their own actions.

But at the same time, perhaps we should take the guns out of the equation and look at these kids. Anybody who is actually determined to kill someone isn't going to care if one option is blocked off, kids take knives to school, one girl put rat poison in her friends' milk, and how about that whole group that videotaped themselves beating the shit out of another girl and causing her permanent bodily harm a few years back? They didn't need guns for their plans, they still wanted to hurt and kill people and still acted on what they had planned with whatever was around. So perhaps the real question we need to be asking is WHY do so many kids think it's justified to maim or kill someone just because they don't like them or are angry at them? Sure, people like that have always existed, but not as the norm, not as the rule, always the exception, but now it's like a plague, it's all over, and why?

I am 100% for teaching gun safety, not gun fear. My high school had a 10 point range. I learned to shoot a gun at a very young age. I learned to respect a gun at a young age. The same for my daughter. She does not fear a gun... she respects it. She is extremely tiny and my ex had guns that would completely overpower her. In the future when she gets some more meat on her and can control a gun she WILL learn to properly shoot a gun and control it. She is 9 now and she knows gun safety and knows that guns are not to be feared because guns can not hurt people... people WITH guns hurt people. A gun in the middle of the room without anyone touching it will never hurt anyone. Ever. But someone using that gun improperly or with malice can hurt someone... so there you go, it's people, it's not the gun.

I don't like putting fear in kids about guns... thats when accidents happen.

I would like to own a gun someday too. And yes, my daughter will be taught to use it and hey, she may get her own gun too.

^ Cute kids!

TheEnglishButterfly wrote:

I am 100% for teaching gun safety, not gun fear. My high school had a 10 point range. I learned to shoot a gun at a very young age. I learned to respect a gun at a young age. The same for my daughter. She does not fear a gun... she respects it. She is extremely tiny and my ex had guns that would completely overpower her. In the future when she gets some more meat on her and can control a gun she WILL learn to properly shoot a gun and control it. She is 9 now and she knows gun safety and knows that guns are not to be feared because guns can not hurt people... people WITH guns hurt people. A gun in the middle of the room without anyone touching it will never hurt anyone. Ever. But someone using that gun improperly or with malice can hurt someone... so there you go, it's people, it's not the gun.

I don't like putting fear in kids about guns... thats when accidents happen.

I would like to own a gun someday too. And yes, my daughter will be taught to use it and hey, she may get her own gun too.

I have said for years that public schools, for all their 'professionals trained to know what they're actually teaching kids, as opposed to their own parents who are too stupid to be trusted to teach their kids anything and get it right', ought to have gun safety classes to teach kids how to be responsible with them. Ooooohhhh no that's a bad idea because that's only going to get more people shot. Yeah let's instead pretend if we ignore guns they'll go away and kids will never use them just because they don't know gun responsibility.

I agree, fear is not the answer and fear is what you get when you tell kids "BAD! DON'T TOUCH, EVER!" That never gets anybody anywhere except in a lot of trouble.

Minerva wrote:

W2L's story reminds me of a teenager here in Oregon who in the 80's killed some kids in his high school. He is in prison for life now. From the time this guy was a child his family knew he was severely mentally ill.

He killed things, small animals. He tortured them first. He tried to hurt kids smaller than himself. He had a violent temper. His parents were kind, loving people. So was his sister. As soon as she was old enough, she moved far, far away fearing every day for her life while she lived with her brother.

The parents tried. They took him to psychologists, they gave him all kinds of medication. The meds helped but as he got older he refused to take them. He would pretend and act "normal" for awhile but eventually they could tell he wasn't on them.

Everyone cared, everyone tried to deal with him. School, friends, family; the entire small close knit Oregon town. But he was wired all wrong. One thing they did not do though was hide the guns.

His father thought if he taught his son the proper use of guns from an early age, everything would be okay. Of course the rifles were hunting rifles not assault, not handguns but rifles used to hunt game to eat as many families in Oregon do, were locked away at all times.

But the boy got into them anyway. And in his extreme paranoia took them to school and begin a shooting spree. He had intended to kill himself but was caught instead. He is now in prison and will remain for the rest of his life.

The point of my long story is that you can make all the background checks you want, those who shouldn't have access to guns will still get them. Nancy Lanza had background checks for her guns,son Adam didn't but it wasn't Nancy who killed those kids in Sandyhook.

Same with the father and son I am talking about. I wouldn't ban the hunting rifles. But I would ban the father, knowing he had a sick son who was out of control from keeping the guns in his home because of his son. Maybe the boy would have found another way to get guns maybe not, but why make it so easy for him?

I don't know the answer. I don't know if anyone does. People hunt for food. That's what this family did. But nowadays, people are hunting for people. Where is it going to end?

That truly sounds like my bro. my mom did put him thru shrinks... special school, and we even lived in an apt as a family at a hospital for a while. but nothing helped and i think she convinced herself that he was better. He still acts "normal"... is very functional.. and no one but me (and now another sister cause he lived with her temporarily last year) realizes how screwed up he is. AND... he has never had psychiatric care as an adult, so he would pass a background check with flying colors... has a better credit score than most of the country, and has held the same job for 15yrs. BUT... i have suspected for two decades that he is schizophrenic. But there was no history of it in the family, so the doctors ruled it out. Then my sis killed herself a couple years ago, and the doctors said that drugs caused her schizophrenia... now im wondering if there really IS something in our blood.

The thing is.. that MOST gun violence is not being committed during these killing sprees. its being committed by punks on the street, robbing stores... car jackings... drug dealers shooting each other. But most dont care about one dealer killing another. It is also a matter of money... I live about 15min from Camden NJ with an incredibly high murder rate.

here's an interesting article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-putthoff-sj/camden-murder-rate_b_2007070.html

wants2laugh wrote:

The thing is.. that MOST gun violence is not being committed during these killing sprees. its being committed by punks on the street, robbing stores... car jackings... drug dealers shooting each other. But most dont care about one dealer killing another. It is also a matter of money... I live about 15min from Camden NJ with an incredibly high murder rate.

here's an interesting article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-putthoff-sj/camden-murder-rate_b_2007070.html

Now this I think is a very good place to ask IF these people did not have guns, does that mean they wouldn't kill people, they wouldn't commit violent crimes against them? It's hard to imagine because a lot of them rely heavily on their guns (and of course criminals will ALWAYS have guns whether they're legal or not, being criminals they specialize in illegal) but the TRULY determined ones will ALWAYS find a way to kill someone, and when money is involved, that is a heavy motivator for a lot of criminals.